dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4
share rss forum feed

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to NCRGuy

Re: GTA is Full of Them - Another "My Rights Are More Impor

said by NCRGuy:

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by NCRGuy:

And the bigotry continues...

Not really.
I oppose fairy tales and all the evil that's done in their name, that's all.

So, go picket a Walt Disney movie, and take your bigotry with you.

I'm not denying your right to believe in or practice of fairy tales, mysticism, blood rituals, cannibalism, tarot cards or whatever. I'm just asking that you restrict that to your home, or place of worship with other like-minded people, and not foist that on the rest of the public.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
We're talking about religion here, not fairy tales, and what you're asking people to do is believe in what you believe in when they leave their home. I don't believe our society works that way.

camelot

join:2008-04-12
Whitby, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

and not foist that on the rest of the public.

So don't patron his business. Problem solved.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 edit
said by camelot:

said by MaynardKrebs:

and not foist that on the rest of the public.

So don't patron his business. Problem solved.

So, hypothetically, what if his business was the ONLY one in a town which provided that good/service. Who's rights are being infringed then?

What if the person who wanted that good/service was a disabled woman with cerebral palsy in a wheel chair ?

Is the store owner within their religious rights to say:
a) I don't cut women's hair
b) I don't cut cripple's hair
c) I don't do wheelchairs
d) Some combination of the above?

camelot

join:2008-04-12
Whitby, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
You missed my first post:

said by camelot:

Her case may have merit, if there were no other places to go.

However, in Toronto there are thousands of hair-cutting places. She has chosen this establishment to simply make a ridiculous point. If they don't want your business, take it to the guy next door.

And if you READ the story, the business already offered someone else in their shop who was willing to serve her. She instead turned it down.

said by MaynardKrebs:

What if the person who wanted that good/service was a disabled woman with cerebral palsy in a wheel chair ?

Is it wheelchair accessible? If so, that's all that's required of them. Being disabled does not affect whether they have to serve you.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
said by camelot:

You missed my first post:

said by camelot:

Her case may have merit, if there were no other places to go.

However, in Toronto there are thousands of hair-cutting places. She has chosen this establishment to simply make a ridiculous point. If they don't want your business, take it to the guy next door.

And if you READ the story, the business already offered someone else in their shop who was willing to serve her. She instead turned it down.

The law doesn't work that way.
It's got to be a law that works in a 1-horse town too.

ie. if it's murder in Toronto then it's got to be murder in Proton, Ont.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

So, hypothetically, what if his business was the ONLY one in a town which provided that good/service. Who's rights are being infringed then?

Why not refer to real situations rather than made up scenarios? You referred to fairy tales earlier yet here you are making them up.

Toronto has a huge LGBT community so a woman that wants to look like a man and have her hair cut in a barber shop owned by Muslim men is not an unexpected scenario; however a woman that wants to look like a man in a small town in rural Alberta with only one barber shop owned by a Muslim barber who wants her hair cut like a man? Uh huh....

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
said by urbanriot:

said by MaynardKrebs:

So, hypothetically, what if his business was the ONLY one in a town which provided that good/service. Who's rights are being infringed then?

Why not refer to real situations rather than made up scenarios? You referred to fairy tales earlier yet here you are making them up.

Toronto has a huge LGBT community so a woman that wants to look like a man and have her hair cut in a barber shop owned by Muslim men is not an unexpected scenario; however a woman that wants to look like a man in a small town in rural Alberta with only one barber shop owned by a Muslim barber who wants her hair cut like a man? Uh huh....

Maybe the prices charged by this barbershop was all she could afford. Or maybe he also refused because he perceived she *might* be a lesbian? Maybe the only way to find out *is* in court.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
said by MaynardKrebs:

Maybe the only way to find out *is* in court.

I agree; however we're referring to a Human Rights Tribunal here, not the court of law, so we have people making legal decisions based on the perception of emotional offense.


agtle

@teksavvy.com
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

said by camelot:

said by MaynardKrebs:

and not foist that on the rest of the public.

So don't patron his business. Problem solved.

So, hypothetically, what if his business was the ONLY one in a town which provided that good/service. Who's rights are being infringed then?

What if the person who wanted that good/service was a disabled woman with cerebral palsy in a wheel chair ?

Is the store owner within their religious rights to say:
a) I don't cut women's hair
b) I don't cut cripple's hair
c) I don't do wheelchairs
d) Some combination of the above?

I think the point trying to be made is where is the line drawn? It could be a slippery slope. Let's say the HRT says it is OK to deny service to women. Next someone uses that precedent to deny service based on skin colour, age, perceived sexual orientation... at what point does it become "unacceptable"?

I would tend to agree with the point Mr Krebs is trying to make, which I think is that we can't allow one freedom to be used a shield to infringe upon another person's freedoms.