Barber refuses haircut to woman on religious grounds

Again, they could solve this by just contracting an outside barber to come in on the odd chance someone walks in the door who the staff cannot accomodate. Not that that contractor's services would likely ever be needed. Anyone who actually wanted a haircut would probably just to go on to another barber shop rather than waiting for a scheduled appointment; but contracting out would bring them in compliance with the law.

Hopefully they or their lawyer will hit on that wink and a nod solution rather than causing themselves more grief, or getting out of the business entirely.

Exactly, Winston.

Besides, I'm not an expert on the barbering or hairdressing industry, but it's my impression that stylists rent chair space from barbershops or salons, don't they?  So I doubt it would cost the shop much at all to have at least one person on rotation who can cut women's hair.

jas wrote:

It's a restriction that applies to members of both sexes, and that applies across the board and in all situations to those who observe the rule.

 

So, that would be, like, a prohibition on inter-racial marriage? Doesn't target persons of colour. Applies to members of both sexes and all races.

Or, a prohibition on same-sex marriage? Applies equally to men and women, straight and non-straight, Jews and Buddhists, disabled and francophone...

Gee, this is fun. By re-defining "discrimination", we can justify anything!

There's no law I am aware of to force them to put up signage. What, is this about putting them in the stocks?

And as for forcing a person to do violate his or her personal boundaries by doing something with his body that he finds offensive, (if that is what is going on, and not a misinterpretation by the paper)  that is completely fucked.

Mr.Tea wrote:

If you're a government marriage commissioner, you can't refuse to officiate a same sex marriage. If you're a rabbi, priest, iman, minsiter, whatever and same sex marriage violates your religious beleifs, you can't be forced to perform one.

That's a specific exception written into the law when same-sex marriage was legalized. If it wasn't, then such religious marriages wouldn't be recognized as legal marriages. Let me know if you want the specific statutory reference.

Quote:

If the barbering industry were nationalized and this guy worked for a government-run barber shop, I'd agree that he has no leg to stand on.

It has nothing to do with government-owned or not. A privately-owned grocery store can't refuse to serve Muslims or gays or francophones. Or women. If the owner's religion doesn't allow him (it's always a him) to serve Muslims or gays or francophones, he's (what we call in Yiddish) shit out of luck.

There seems to be a lot of difficulty here understanding human rights legislation which has been in effect for over 20 years in all Canadian jurisdictions.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

There's no law I am aware of to force them to put up signage. What, is this about putting them in the stocks?

And as for forcing a person to do violate his or her personal boundaries by doing something with his body that he finds offensive, (if that is what is going on, and not a misinterpretation by the paper)  that is completely fucked.

Let's not get carried away by people who don't know the law. They can say or ask for whatever they want. The simple fact is that a barber shop offering services to the public can't discriminate on prohibited grounds (which includes sex, obviously), unless it comes within one of the stated exceptions that I quoted earlier. One of them is "public decency", which I imagine could provide an exception for some gyms or locker rooms or the infamous "bikini wax" example given by someone.

None of that stops someone from asking for signs or whatever. In fact, if the tribunal found that it was important enough, or that the violation was egregious or ongoing, I have no doubt that it has the power to impose signage or any other reasonable method of remedying the violation. But that certainly couldn't be automatic. A Muslim barber shop may be obliged to serve women, but you're quite right, it doesn't have to post signs saying "Women Welcome!!" or "Jews Welcome!!", etc.

Actually, I wonder if the "public decency" exception will be argued in Mahrouk's case, because that is probably exactly how Muslms would view opposite-sex (between strangers) touching.

jas wrote:

Actually, I wonder if the "public decency" exception will be argued in Mahrouk's case, because that is probably exactly how Muslms would view opposite-sex (between strangers) touching.

You seem to know a lot more about "Muslims" (all billion or so of them?) and how they view things than I do.

I can tell you with certainty that no one is going to turn back the clock on women's rights in Canada without a serious fight, whether the pretext is religious or other.

It's ever so nice to pop by babble and see some of the guyz philosophicallly discussing to what degree it's acceptable to discriminate against women.

Mr.Tea wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And as for forcing a person to do violate his or her personal boundaries by doing something with his body that he finds offensive, (if that is what is going on, and not a misinterpretation by the paper)  that is completely fucked.

I'm glad the complainant elaborated in The Star. Now it's clear what this is about. She doesn't want a haircut. She wants this specific man to give her a haircut and if that violates his deeply held beliefs, I guess he can just go fuck himself.

You forgot the rest of the quote:

Quote:

“For me it was just a haircut and started out about me being a woman. Now we’re talking about religion versus gender versus human rights and businesses in Ontario,” said McGregor.

She filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario almost immediately, saying she felt like a “second-class citizen.”

Fair enough, I'd say. If it's any consolation, seems the trogs in the Star comments mostly agree with the guys here.

Here's my take: If your sky-fairy says that you must refuse service to someone on the basis of sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, and hey let's add in religion, then it's incumbant on you to find an acceptable non-discriminatory solution. Not the person against whom you're discriminating. That's not their responsibility. It's yours.

I find it baffling that the nay-sayers on this thread have been so deaf to the analogy of the bad old days of "Whites Only" in the South (and here), or "NO IRISH" signs in shops, or quotas on the number of Jewish people allowed in university, and such delights as that. Think it's okay to go back to that? No? But I guess in comparison women just don't stack up, when it comes to equal rights. 

Still.

P.S. The thread title is icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned.

Mr.Tea wrote:

Maybe some women would have absolutely no problem with waxing a man's pubic hair. But those who do ought to be able to refuse to do so.

I've explained, and I guess I have to repeat, that none of this has anything whatsoever to do with any individual refusing to do anything. If a business offers a service publicly, it must serve women and men without distinction. That doesn't impose any legal obligation on any employee to do anything. That's a separate issue.

But if the "business" has a problem with serving women, and its lawyers can't bring it within one of the exceptions provided by law, it should invest in a padlock. And good riddance to it.

Actually, the story is not clear. It said they offered to have the job done by another barber willing to do so. Does that mean another barber shop or another person?

Near as I can tell, the crux here is that their business has to offer her the same service that they would offer to a man. It's not clear at all that she is trying to force him personally to cut her hair.

Really. Really?!

Mr.Tea wrote:

No, cause as I've discussed, I don't think that race and sex are remotely analagous. We differentiate between men and women all the time in all sorts of ways that we don't between people of different races.

Differentiate and discriminate are actually two different words. And correct me if I'm wrong, but you're on the privileged side of the discriminatory divide between men and women.

Mr.Tea wrote:

They offered her a solution. They offered to have another barber cut her hair. She turned them down. She doesn't want a haircut. She wants a haircut from this particular barber. Because her feelings were hurt. I guess his feelings don't matter.

Her feelings were hurt? She was discriminated against. Which she made clear was the reason why she was complaining. And yes, it's discrimination just as it's discrimination when you refuse service to someone who is black. Or trans. Or any other marginalized group. A little anti-oppression 101, anyone?

Well, guess we little ladies just need to go suck it up, we're such delicate flowers, feeling-wise. Sniffle. You're totally correct, sir, our rights under the law are really just a matter of feelings.

Do I think this is the most earth-shattering example of discrimination against women that exists? No. Do I think that women have the right to not be discriminated against when it comes to service? Yes.

Tehanu wrote:

P.S. The thread title is icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned.

Good point, I suppose it should actually read: 

Barbershop refuses to cut woman's hair.

jas wrote:

For the sake of an argument let's say there's a Muslim-owned and operated nails and hair spa which caters 99% to women. If a man came in and was denied service based on this religious rule of no touching between opposite-sex strangers, is that also discrimination against women?

Why don't you do us all a favour and save your but-but-but-what-if-it's-done-to-men-isn't-it-just-as-bad arguments until you can confidently state that women are no longer oppressed in society, including by religion. M'kay?

And that goes for all the guys who calmly don't have a problem going somewhere else if someone doesn't want to serve them. It's not the same.

Tehanu, my point is that the no opposite-sex touching rule does not single out women as a group. It applies to both women and men who observe the rule. So the scenario I provide, which is a realistic scenario, is intended to illustrate why Babblers should not be viewing this as discrimination against women. You could call it discrimination based on sex, and then it's dubiously a human rights issue. But it's not a women's issue.

If we were to sort our way past all the nonsense being flung around, we'd see that it’s not a very complicated issue at all.  There is the law on the one hand, and on the other a proprietor who is operating a business outside of the law.  If he personally does not want to provide the service himself because of a personal religious conviction, then a way must be found to provide equal access to the service, or the business should be shut down by the municipality.

Mr.Tea wrote:

Tehanu wrote:

 Or any other marginalized group. A little anti-oppression 101, anyone?

Like Muslim immigrants from Algeria?

Oh, for fuck's sakes.

Slumberjack wrote:

There is the law on the one hand, and on the other a proprietor who is operating a business outside of the law.

We don't know that yet. The "public decency" exemption may apply in this case.

Quote:

If he personally does not want to provide the service himself because of a personal religious conviction, then a way must be found to provide equal access to the service, or the business should be shut down by the municipality.

Which he apparently did try to find.

Slumberjack wrote:

If we were to sort our way past all the nonsense being flung around, we'd see that it’s not a very complicated issue at all.  There is the law on the one hand, and on the other a proprietor who is operating a business outside of the law.  If he personally does not want to provide the service himself because of a personal religious conviction, then a way must be found to provide equal access to the service, or the business should be shut down by the municipality.

Which apparently he did by offering to get her a barber than can do her hair.  Which she refused which means its not about discrimination at all but a vendetta against muslims. If he says I cant do it but I can get barber X to do it at my shop, how is it discrimination?

Mr.Tea wrote:

In my culture, for example, men traditionally greet each other with a kiss on the cheek. Women also greet each other with a kiss on the cheek. But men and women do not kiss (or usually touch at all) each other. I kiss my wife on the cheek. And my daughter. And my mother. But no other women. My wife kisses me on the cheek. And our sons. And her father. But no other men. Not because she hates men. Not because I hate women. But because a kiss is something we consider intimate and only reserved for people who are close to us. Not everyone believes in this. That's fine. But if I'm at a party and don't kiss a woman on the cheek, she shouldn't take it to mean I hate her. Not should a man think my wife hates her. If they're feelings are hurt or if it offends them, I genuinely regret that because that's not my intent. And, personally, I'm not particularly religious so it wouldn't really bother me. But for some people, it's just a line they don't cross. This barber has his line as well. Is it such a big deal to respect it?

Interesting, do you operate a business that involves kissing other people? Do tell.

Let's try this again:

Tehanu wrote:

I don't say he has to touch other people he doesn't want to, I say he has to find an acceptable non-discriminatory solution to his dislike of touching people he doesn't want to, when offering a service which involves touching other people. Like, as was very reasonably pointed out upthread, having someone available whose religion (or lack of it) doesn't require them to discriminate against other people. 

Respectful enough for ya?

(Oh, and Bacchus, although the Star article wasn't clear I read it as the barber saying he'd pay for a haircut elsewhere, not make accommodations for her. "Offering her a haircut from a barber willing to do so" when all the barbers in his shop were unwilling to touch her hair implies a different shop.)

____

jas wrote:

Tehanu wrote:

Thanks for the mansplanation of what is or is not a women's issue. I appreciate it; my little lady-brain can't figure that one out on my own.

I love the way you write, and I wish you'd post on Babble more. For the record, I'm a gal. (I'm breaking my seven-year gender anonymity on Babble to clarify that.)

I'm honoured, I guess, that you're breaking your anonymity ... And thanks for the compliment but alas I tend to post on babble when I see something that raises my blood pressure, so it's probably not the healthiest thing for me.

I definitely don't want to derail here but way back in post #25 jas posed an implicit question that I find fascinating. Suppose prostitution were to be legalized in Canada. Would sex workers have the right to refuse service based on the gender, race or appearance of their prospective client? According to a strict reading of the position Unionist and others have taken in this thread, sex workers would not have the right to discriminate unless specifically exempted through legislation.

Boze wrote:

I definitely don't want to derail here but way back in post #25 jas posed an implicit question that I find fascinating. Suppose prostitution were to be legalized in Canada. Would sex workers have the right to refuse service based on the gender, race or appearance of their prospective client? According to a strict reading of the position Unionist and others have taken in this thread, sex workers would not have the right to discriminate unless specifically exempted through legislation.

Well, massage therapists do have the right to refuse a client for a just and reasonable cause. And this includes anything from disrespectful clients to medical reasons (e.g. if I were inebriated or taking painkillers, a massage therapist would likely refuse me service because my dulled response to pain would endanger my health). So I would think that a right of refusal exists.

I feel like there's just no good answer here... some guys who like to cut hair but have a deep religious conviction that they cannot under any circumstances touch a female customer decide to start a barber shop. Seems like a resonable choice to accommodate their belief. They don't perform a strictly essential service (yes we all need hair cuts, but it's not a lifesaving service, nor do they represent a public agency). A woman who wants the kind of haircut they're good at walks in. Unstoppable force meets immovable object?

It just seems to me that by taking this to court, they get the solution that nobody will be happy with. I see the plaintiff's claim as fully valid, but I just don't see who ultimately benefits from this. If the ruling does ultimately favour the owners, I think it would have rather limited scope, as it would be relevant to services that are 1) in private businesses, 2) involve bodily contact, 3) are not life-saving procedures.