 StyvasGolf Canucks GolfPremium
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON | reply to Grappler
Re: GTA is Full of Them - Another "My Rights Are More Impor I feel really torn on this, although I think I'm ultimately on the side of the barber shop.
Religion is ultimately a choice. At the very least, one's level of adherence to it is a choice, even if you feel that which religion you belong to is not a choice. In the absence of a theocracy ruled by your particular religion, there is always going to be a balancing of rights.
If my level of adherence to my religion is one that dictates I refrain from everyday types of activities, then I have to recognize that I'm going to be somewhat limited in my choice of activities, career, etc. That's the sacrifice that I have to make as a faithful adherent to my religion.
So, for lack of a better example, if my religion says that visible minorities are "unclean," then it's likely that I'm going to have to avoid jobs that require human contact. If my religion says that reptiles are unclean, then my choice of vocation is much less limited (probably just avoiding zoos and pet stores, for the most part).
If, as in the case of the barbers being discussed here, touching a woman is considered immoral, then it makes sense that I would work in a business that caters to men. Because this is Canada and not Saudi Arabia, there is the possibility that a woman might come to my shop. Any reasonable woman would recognize that her being there is a bit unorthodox and, when I explain why I can't help her, she'd respectfully leave and go to one of the dozens of other barbers in the area who aren't Muslim (let's be honest, barber shops are a dime a dozen in just about every community).
But the woman involved in this situation seemed to have a chip on her shoulder and refused to be reasonable. Based on the information we have available to evaluate this case, that's why I'm on the side of the barbershops.
--
"Moving your Tylenol to the low shelf in your medicine cabinet is not the way to prevent children from falling off a stool when reaching for the top shelf." (said by Savant, May 2008) |
|
 Wolfie00My dog is an elitistPremium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:5 | said by Styvas:But the woman involved in this situation seemed to have a chip on her shoulder and refused to be reasonable.
The same could be said of Rosa Parks. By any rational standard she was being entirely "unreasonable."
The difference between what is "reasonable" and "unreasonable" changes as our values change, and people who are pilloried for being unreasonable jerks are sometimes later seen as having been catalysts for important change. |
|
|
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
 ·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| said by Wolfie00:The same could be said of Rosa Parks. By any rational standard she was being entirely "unreasonable."
The difference between what is "reasonable" and "unreasonable" changes as our values change, and people who are pilloried for being unreasonable jerks are sometimes later seen as having been catalysts for important change.
Black people were subject to harm by not being able to ride the bus. There was no competing bus line. Other choices (walking, taxi, staying home) were much less useful. So they either had to protest or to accept humiliation in the back of the bus.
This woman is not being subjected to very much harm. She has lots of other places to get her hair cut. And even aside from that, if she has a little delay in getting a haircut, that is far less of an issue than not being able to travel.
I'm not a supporter of the Moslem religion, but I side with the barbershop.
It would be DIFFERENT if the shop was willing to serve women of one race but not another, or willing to serve straight women but not gay women.
But if they don't want to touch ANY women, and if that is a basic and sincere part of their religion (which it is) then it should be accepted.
Again, a DIFFERENT situation would be if a pharmacist (licensed as such by province or state) refuses to fill a prescription for birth control pills because he doesn't believe in their use. (In that regard, keep in mind that this issue has arisen in small towns, and there the women were indeed inconvenienced by having to travel elsewhere. Also, these pills are often prescribed for medical issues other than contraception).
So a pharmacist should not be allowed to impose his beliefs, while a barber can, because the right to medication prescribed by your doctor is much more fundamental than the right to a haircut. |
|
Wolfie00My dog is an elitistPremium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:5 | But that's not an accurate description of the Rosa Parks event. It wasn't about giving up transportation, it was about giving up her seat and standing.
Today we see it as a turning point in desegregation, but from the perspective of the time, it was just a woman being unreasonable. The whole issue of race relations has been changed by actions like that, otherwise we would just continue to believe it was the natural order of things.
The point that can be argued here is whether a person of exclusionary beliefs should be in a particular service business where those beliefs result in discrimination -- racial, gender, whatever. The answer is often "it depends", but the major thing it depends on is the social norms of the day. Sometimes we need to shift those norms a little.
We've had similar discussions about lunatic taxi drivers refusing to accommodate sight-impaired people with guide dogs, because their religion teaches that dogs are "unclean." I need make no further comment on that, but if I did it would consist of short words of mostly four letters.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| said by Wolfie00:But that's not an accurate description of the Rosa Parks event. It wasn't about giving up transportation, it was about giving up her seat and standing.
Right.
But in Rosa Parks case, it was about the government imposing discrimination on a group, because Alabama had racial segregation laws for buses.
In the barber case, it is a private individual who sincerely feels that his religion requires him to refuse service to another individual.
And as I said, I would not tolerate that from a pharmacist, but it may be acceptable from a barber.
said by Wolfie00:But that's not an accurate description of the Rosa Parks event. It wasn't about giving up transportation, it was about giving up her seat and standing.
Now, something that would bolster [your] case better would be to talk about the blacks who started the Woolworth's boycott because they couldn't sit at the lunch counter. THAT one (unlike the bus line) did not involve any law, it was company policy.
Even there, I think that the need/right to eat is stronger than the need/right to get a haircut.
Also, the barber can honestly claim that for him to repeatedly touch a woman even to cut the hair, is an intimate contact. Putting a plate of meat loaf in front of a person is not. |
|
Wolfie00My dog is an elitistPremium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:5 | said by PX Eliezer:said by Wolfie00:But that's not an accurate description of the Rosa Parks event. It wasn't about giving up transportation, it was about giving up her seat and standing.
Right. But in Rosa Parks case, it was about the government imposing discrimination on a group, because Alabama had racial segregation laws for buses. In the barber case, it is a private individual who sincerely feels that his religion requires him to refuse service to another individual. Government discrimination argument = FAIL. Discrimination laws generally apply to all institutions, public and private.
And being male or female can generally be considered to be "part of a group"!
said by PX Eliezer:Also, the barber can honestly claim that for him to repeatedly touch a woman even to cut the hair, is an intimate contact. Putting a plate of meat loaf in front of a person is not.
We have an evolving set of social standards and mores. To defy those standards on any grounds, including ostensibly religious ones, is unacceptable in any enlightened secular, democratic and civilized society.
The balance between law and religion has always been evolving and extraordinarily inconsistent and hypocritical. Generally it seems we have "freedom of religion" unless it requires (to take an extreme but logically consistent example) murdering your own daughter for "dishonour", and then we say it's wrong. Why? Why the line should be drawn at that particular point has never been clear to me. It seems a lot clearer to advocate for a set of rational secular laws and principles that govern both basic human rights and non-discriminatory business practices and relegate religion to the homes and churches that wish to practice it.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan |
|
| reply to PX Eliezer
said by PX Eliezer:Also, the barber can honestly claim that for him to repeatedly touch a woman even to cut the hair, is an intimate contact.
Ever hear of latex or nitrile gloves?
Technically speaking he wouldn't be touching her if he wore gloves, and at the end of the 'procedure' he could unroll them off his hands in a sterile manner and thus never be 'contaminated' by her. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| said by MaynardKrebs:Ever hear of latex or nitrile gloves?
Technically speaking he wouldn't be touching her if he wore gloves, and at the end of the 'procedure' he could unroll them off his hands in a sterile manner and thus never be 'contaminated' by her.
Well, now that is an interesting point. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Cogeco Cable
| reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:said by PX Eliezer:Also, the barber can honestly claim that for him to repeatedly touch a woman even to cut the hair, is an intimate contact.
Ever hear of latex or nitrile gloves? Technically speaking he wouldn't be touching her if he wore gloves, and at the end of the 'procedure' he could unroll them off his hands in a sterile manner and thus never be 'contaminated' by her. Latex or nitrile gloves have nothing to do with avoiding intimacy and his point still stands regardless of your suggestion. Your response is not a valid counter point as he referred to 'intimacy' and you referred to 'contamination'. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| reply to Wolfie00
said by Wolfie00:Government discrimination argument = FAIL. Discrimination laws generally apply to all institutions, public and private.
It's interesting that you can say that in a country where they have publicly-funded schools for different religious groups. 
In any event, are we now to say that a barbershop is an institution?
There seems to be a lack of common sense here.
Of course it would not be acceptable for a woman to be refused service at a restaurant, or at a gas station, or by an accountant.
But (sorry for the repetition) this involves physical touching, and if a man is uncomfortable for whatever reason touching a woman (or vice versa) and if the woman can get serviced somewhere else, the man should not be forced by the government....
said by Wolfie00:And being male or female can generally be considered to be "part of a group"!
So all health clubs will be banned from having certain sessions for men only or women only? Again, common sense. Plenty of men will come to leer at women exercising, and the women will just stop coming.
Why not merge the locker rooms, while you're at it?
said by Wolfie00:We have an evolving set of social standards and mores. To defy those standards on any grounds, including ostensibly religious ones, is unacceptable in any enlightened secular, democratic and civilized society.
But this is not a secular society. This is a privately-owned barbershop run by a Moslem fellow.
And he's not discriminating against anyone by their race or religion or beliefs or sexual orientation or politics. He just does not want to lay HIS own hands on a woman, and that's a reasonable extension of his religion.
While you're at it, why not have the government require the Catholic church to accept women priests? Where do you want to stop in building your utopia?
said by Wolfie00:It seems a lot clearer to advocate for a set of rational secular laws and principles that govern both basic human rights and non-discriminatory business practices and relegate religion to the homes and churches that wish to practice it.
What of the human right of a male who does not want to be forced to touch an unrelated female, in his own shop?
What of HIS rights in this brave new world? |
|
 HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:17
·TekSavvy Cable
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:Latex or nitrile gloves have nothing to do with avoiding intimacy and his point still stands regardless of your suggestion. Your response is not a valid counter point as he referred to 'intimacy' and you referred to 'contamination'.
What intimacy? The woman wanted a haircut in a public barber shop. Its not like he was giving her a rubdown massage in the back room...
Seriously, this is something that the religions should talk about and amend, especially with "globalization" and multiculturalism all over the world...
Its really ass backwards...
--
|
|
 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3
·Start Communicat..
| reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:Latex or nitrile gloves have nothing to do with avoiding intimacy and his point still stands regardless of your suggestion. Your response is not a valid counter point as he referred to 'intimacy' and you referred to 'contamination'. If you really want to hit this out into left field, is sexual intercourse with a condom any less intimate than without? I suppose there are some who would say it is, others who would say it isn't.
But I digress, and I don't think he gets any of it at all. That same friend who explained to me his interpretation of Islam's position on working with haraam also explained to me on another one of our many conversations that touching hair is intimate contact, regardless of the context. It would be well within a barber's right to consider cutting a woman's hair to be intimate contact even when doing something as benign as cutting hair. Just the same, he said that if a man were to touch another man's hair it is wholly offensive and that there was once a time where it was considered justifiable to kill a man for doing that. Seriously.
I have no doubt that, like Christianity, there are many different viewpoints and interpretations in Islam. That was just his, and knowing this it kind of makes sense why the barber may feel the way he does. Still, as I said before, I don't see this whole situation as a religious one, rather I see it as merely someone who is running a business who choosing to conduct their business in a manner of their choosing. |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:What intimacy? The woman wanted a haircut in a public barber shop. Its not like he was giving her a rubdown massage in the back room... One single person's definition of intimacy is not necessarily universal. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:What intimacy? The woman wanted a haircut in a public barber shop. Its not like he was giving her a rubdown massage in the back room...
Even handshakes are not allowed, and this is just as true in Orthodox Jewish practice as in Islam.
-------------------------------------
In the US we have a famous Army General (and recently resigned CIA director) who wished he'd followed such practices, instead of going the other way.
Moslems look at western societies and shake their heads in disbelief.... |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| said by PX Eliezer:Moslems look at western societies and shake their heads in disbelief.... ... just as we do the same to them.  |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| said by Gone:said by PX Eliezer:Moslems look at western societies and shake their heads in disbelief.... ... just as we do the same to them. Reminds one of the Star Trek Next Generation episode where there is a planet Kesprit. Instead of being a unified planet (as have been all others applying to the Federation), Kesprit has two sovereignties (Kes and Prit) that are quite incompatible. |
|
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:What intimacy? The woman wanted a haircut in a public barber shop. Its not like he was giving her a rubdown massage in the back room...
... okay, you can relax and note that my post was concerning someone else's point and it wasn't my original point at all; no, instead I was reading and correcting someone else.
In any case, Islamic tradition forbids a woman from displaying her hair to a man that is not her immediate kin so it's only understandable that a devout Islamic man would respect that.
It may ease your hysterics to know there are less devout male hairdressers in more moderate Islamic areas that will cut the hair of women so there's no need for you to go on and on about 'religions' as it's not a view that's shared by everyone who's religious.
It's strange how intolerant people are, when they refer to intolerance. |
|
| reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:said by MaynardKrebs:said by PX Eliezer:Also, the barber can honestly claim that for him to repeatedly touch a woman even to cut the hair, is an intimate contact.
Ever hear of latex or nitrile gloves? Technically speaking he wouldn't be touching her if he wore gloves, and at the end of the 'procedure' he could unroll them off his hands in a sterile manner and thus never be 'contaminated' by her. Latex or nitrile gloves have nothing to do with avoiding intimacy and his point still stands regardless of your suggestion. Your response is not a valid counter point as he referred to 'intimacy' and you referred to 'contamination'. I stand to be corrected but as I recollect, in Islam, the prohibition on being in "intimate" contact (and intimate in this context is touching her hair & scalp) is more to do with the presumed inability of the male to keep his dick in his pants because unrelated women will inevitably whip the man into a sexual frenzy. See the 2nd & 3rd view here to see a reasonable interpretation, but the first interpretation has the man, in the vernacular, "popping his rocks".
»www.islamawareness.net/Wudu/fatw···ing.html
Here's another shining example of reasoned thought
»www.faithfreedom.org/features/ne···mblance/ |
|
| reply to Gone
said by Gone:[
If you really want to hit this out into left field, is sexual intercourse with a condom any less intimate than without? I suppose there are some who would say it is, others who would say it isn't.
"I did not have sex with 'that' woman." |
|
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:I stand to be corrected but as I recollect, in Islam, the prohibition on being in "intimate" contact
What you go out of your way to 'recollect' (google) is not accurate to what everyone believes, practices, and expects of others. |
|
