peterboroAvatars are for posersPremium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON | reply to Grappler
Re: GTA is Full of Them - Another "My Rights Are More Impor said by Grappler: I am sure a simple test can be designed to weed out these cases in advance and force the payment for costs in advance. When a complaint is received by the HRTO registrar there is a litmus test to see if the complaint fulfills all the perquisite criteria before it proceeds to the adjudication process. |
|
| said by peterboro:said by Grappler: I am sure a simple test can be designed to weed out these cases in advance and force the payment for costs in advance. When a complaint is received by the HRTO registrar there is a litmus test to see if the complaint fulfills all the perquisite criteria before it proceeds to the adjudication process. Thanks for that tidbit. |
|
| said by Grappler:said by peterboro:said by Grappler: I am sure a simple test can be designed to weed out these cases in advance and force the payment for costs in advance. When a complaint is received by the HRTO registrar there is a litmus test to see if the complaint fulfills all the perquisite criteria before it proceeds to the adjudication process. Thanks for that tidbit. 1) The owner/barber opened an establishment to serve the public.
2) The barber refused to serve a member of the public because she's a woman.
3) Had the owner placed a sign in the window saying, "Jews, Blacks, Women & Dogs not served here" {does this not ring a bell for anyone here?}, he'd be in violation of the law on many fronts.
4) His refusal to serve a woman - even in the absence of a sign - is the same thing as 3) above.
HRTO is the appropriate venue for her to bring her case.
The barber is open to bringing a case against her if he so desires - stating that she's targeting him based on his religion.
I like her chances a LOT better. |
|
 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3
 ·Start Communicat..
| said by MaynardKrebs:4) His refusal to serve a woman - even in the absence of a sign - is the same thing as 3) above. He didn't refuse. He offered up someone who was willing and able to cut her hair.
Case dismissed. |
|
| said by Gone:said by MaynardKrebs:4) His refusal to serve a woman - even in the absence of a sign - is the same thing as 3) above. He didn't refuse. He offered up someone who was willing and able to cut her hair. Case dismissed. From the Star article...
"Faith McGregor walked into the Terminal Barber Shop on Bay St. in June to get a haircut — the “businessman,” short on the sides, tapered, trim the top. The shop, like many barbers in Toronto, doesn’t do women’s haircuts. But McGregor, 35, said she wanted a men’s cut.
Shop co-owner Omar Mahrouk told her his Muslim faith prohibits him from touching a woman who is not a member of his family. All the other barbers said the same thing."
No 'solution' was offered until August.
So, let me now ask........ if I refused to serve you lunch at my restaurant in June because you are black, would everything be ok now because I offered to get a black waiter to serve you in August, and would that negate my behaviour towards you in June? |
|
NCRGuy
join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON | said by MaynardKrebs:said by Gone:said by MaynardKrebs:4) His refusal to serve a woman - even in the absence of a sign - is the same thing as 3) above. He didn't refuse. He offered up someone who was willing and able to cut her hair. Case dismissed. From the Star article... "Faith McGregor walked into the Terminal Barber Shop on Bay St. in June to get a haircut — the “businessman,” short on the sides, tapered, trim the top. The shop, like many barbers in Toronto, doesn’t do women’s haircuts. But McGregor, 35, said she wanted a men’s cut. Shop co-owner Omar Mahrouk told her his Muslim faith prohibits him from touching a woman who is not a member of his family. All the other barbers said the same thing." No 'solution' was offered until August. So, let me now ask........ if I refused to serve you lunch at my restaurant in June because you are black, would everything be ok now because I offered to get a black waiter to serve you in August, and would that negate my behaviour towards you in June? No, because like your posts, your refusal is rooted in bigotry. His refusal was rooted in his constitutionally protected religious beliefs. |
|
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
| reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:said by Gone:said by MaynardKrebs:4) His refusal to serve a woman - even in the absence of a sign - is the same thing as 3) above. He didn't refuse. He offered up someone who was willing and able to cut her hair. Case dismissed. From the Star article... "Faith McGregor walked into the Terminal Barber Shop on Bay St. in June to get a haircut — the “businessman,” short on the sides, tapered, trim the top. The shop, like many barbers in Toronto, doesn’t do women’s haircuts. But McGregor, 35, said she wanted a men’s cut. Shop co-owner Omar Mahrouk told her his Muslim faith prohibits him from touching a woman who is not a member of his family. All the other barbers said the same thing." No 'solution' was offered until August. So, let me now ask........ if I refused to serve you lunch at my restaurant in June because you are black, would everything be ok now because I offered to get a black waiter to serve you in August, and would that negate my behaviour towards you in June? Beyond all this, gender based discrimination is allowed (see women's gyms, spas, etc.) or at least allowed when it is against men. It may have taken a while to get a solution, but he did. Maybe his next hire was in August and he specifically hired someone who could cut women's hair like men's. Whatever it was, he came up with a solution, she's just one of those who thinks her rights are more important than anyone else's. She should have to pay all the taxpayer costs back because this is a waste of taxpayer resources when there are certainly more pressing issues than "I wanted a haircut at a man's barbershop". |
|
| reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:if I refused to serve you lunch at my restaurant in June because you are black, would everything be ok now because I offered to get a black waiter to serve you in August, and would that negate my behaviour towards you in June?
So your religion says no serving black people?
I walk into a Muslim restaurant and ask for Pork based lunch. They say they don't serve pork. I'm like ok I'll have this instead or go somewhere else. Problem solved and I don't need 15 min of fame on the local news trying to destroy someone life over petty ass shit. |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to NCRGuy
said by NCRGuy:No, because like your posts, your refusal is rooted in bigotry. His refusal was rooted in his constitutionally protected religious beliefs. Unless you can define how his opinion is bigotry beyond the simple fact that he's rightfully critical of some of the more asinine aspects of religious belief, you're grasping at straws yourself by claiming it as such.
Sure, his opinion may be wrong on this matter, but it doesn't make his position any more bigotry than the barber who refused to serve a woman is a bigot against women - though, I'm sure there are people who would think he *is* a bigot - yay circular arguments! |
|
|
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to analog andy
said by analog andy:So your religion says no serving black people? ... if you were a Mormon 40 years ago... |
|
 Wolfie00My dog is an elitistPremium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:5 | reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:But McGregor, 35, said she wanted a men's cut.
Maybe it was really Cissy Meldrum from "You Rang M'Lord?"! 
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan |
|
| reply to analog andy
said by analog andy:said by MaynardKrebs:if I refused to serve you lunch at my restaurant in June because you are black, would everything be ok now because I offered to get a black waiter to serve you in August, and would that negate my behaviour towards you in June?
So your religion says no serving black people? I walk into a Muslim restaurant and ask for Pork based lunch. They say they don't serve pork. I'm like ok I'll have this instead or go somewhere else. Problem solved and I don't need 15 min of fame on the local news trying to destroy someone life over petty ass shit. If there's no pork on the menu then there's no pork.
But in the barber's case haircuts ARE on the menu - in fact they're pretty much the ONLY thing on the menu.
-----------------------------
This situation reminds me of a song by the not so well-known great Texan, Kinky Friedman
We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service to You
While traveling through the lone star state
I lost my lunch before I ate,
It happened in a pull-ahead café. yahoo!
I felt my bones begin to crunch
I saw my name on the businessman's lunch [haircut]
And the neck who owned the place stepped up to say:
"Hey buddy, are you blind,
Say, partner, can't you read the sign ?"
We reserve the right to refuse service to you,
Take your business back to Walgreen's,
Have you tried your local zoo?
You smell just like a communist, [unclean]
You come on through just like a Jew, [woman]
We reserve the right to refuse service to you.
[substitution appropriate to the barber situation] |
|
| reply to analog andy
said by analog andy:said by MaynardKrebs:if I refused to serve you lunch at my restaurant in June because you are black, would everything be ok now because I offered to get a black waiter to serve you in August, and would that negate my behaviour towards you in June?
So your religion says no serving black people? I don't think atheism promotes that.
But certain belief systems did (KKK) and may still hold that view.
I have many friends of many religious faiths who all believe that the barber is wrong in this situation because he is in a customer-facing public service job.
Let's take it a step further.....say a person believed that they should not talk to unrelated women and that person had a job at a tech support call-centre and refused to speak with women on religious grounds. What would happen? More than likely the person would be fired for cause. |
|
