Muslim barber refuses to cut hair of lesbian: Whose rights trump whose?

[Jeff]

I am interested in the opinions of those that felt the photographer here in the states was so wrong for not taking pictures of a Gay couple ( I think it was for there wedding ) seeing as a few on that list also jump each time anything to do with Muslims is posted. Although this took place in Canada the situation is a like.



So a lesbian walks into a Muslim barbershop, and asks for a “businessmen’s haircut”.It sounds like the beginning of a joke, but it really happened, and now a government agency called the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario will hear her complaint.



http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/02/muslim-barber-refuses-cut-hair-lesbian-whose-rights-trump-whose/

[Trigg]

If it's a private business then I think he should be able to refuse service. I felt the same way about the cake shop owners who didn't want to be involved in the gay wedding.

Why would someone want to force their views down someone else's throat instead of going somewhere they are welcome.

I will say that if the muslim man is employed by a chain, he will probably be fired.

[NightTrain]

What ever happened to all the signs that said "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."?

And how the hell is the government going to force anyone to serve someone they don't want to?

This country continues to get weirder and weirder.

[Missileman]

The solution is so simple. All the barber had to do was snip one single hair and demand payment. The lesbian would have left to find another barber without paying.

[Abbey Marie]

The solution is so simple. All the barber had to do was snip one single hair and demand payment. The lesbian would have left to find another barber without paying.

These days, if he does that, he might end up on Angie's List with a very poor rating.

[jafar00]

An unlikely story but if true, his loss I guess.

Surely you can come up with something better to bash Muslims with today? <shrug></shrug>:yourpoint:

[logroller]

What ever happened to all the signs that said "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."?

And how the hell is the government going to force anyone to serve someone they don't want to?
Heart of Atlanta motel vs United States happened.




This country continues to get weirder and weirder.
I believe it was in Canada, but nonetheless I think we've become obsessed with problems of our own invention. If instead this was a guy who asked for a shave and the barber, being muslim, didn't offer shaves because of personal beliefs, I'd support him. A right to refuse a service to everyone I'd support, but not just anyone. Its a slippery slope that history proves to be tilted towards oppression.

[logroller]

If it's a private business then I think he should be able to refuse service. I felt the same way about the cake shop owners who didn't want to be involved in the gay wedding.

Why would someone want to force their views down someone else's throat instead of going somewhere they are welcome.

I will say that if the muslim man is employed by a chain, he will probably be fired.
Well, its simply a matter of fact that a business is subject to the public will. Under a moderate degree of scrutiny the claim, 'its a private business, therefore...' breaks down. What if it were a doctor that refused to treat a patient because they used tobacco?

[jimnyc]

An unlikely story but if true, his loss I guess.

Surely you can come up with something better to bash Muslims with today? <shrug></shrug>:yourpoint:

I think you quickly read and misjudged. I think 9/10 of us here would support the rights of the Muslim to run his barber shop as he sees fit. The fact that this guy is Muslim isn't bashing, but rather adding a different angle to this very same story. At least 3 businesses have gotten into hot water in the past for refusing to do business with gay marriage couples. They did so based on their Christian beliefs. This is the same, but the guy refusing on his Islamic beliefs. You'll note quite a few replies in this thread and not a single person bashing Muslims or this particular barber.

[Jeff]

An unlikely story but if true, his loss I guess.

Surely you can come up with something better to bash Muslims with today? <shrug></shrug>:yourpoint:


If you have doubt about the story don't be so lazy it took me 2 seconds to google it and see all the different news agencies covering it ( some well known and yes some probably not so much )

As for bashing Muslims , yes you are exactly like the blacks ( or any other minority group ) scream racism , please show me how it is bashing you idiots or shut up. If you had took the time to read the article and what I had to say it was more geared towards bashing you and a few others on here, yes you all had a strong opinion when this was a white man refusing service to gays and just as I thought you wouldn't have a opinion now , DAM WHAT A SURPRISE !!

OOO and my point being is well I guess maybe this guy isn't a real Muslim, LOL , yea jafar anything a muslim does is OK ( and I wonder who the racist is )

[fj1200]

Well, its simply a matter of fact that a business is subject to the public will. Under a moderate degree of scrutiny the claim, 'its a private business, therefore...' breaks down. What if it were a doctor that refused to treat a patient because they used tobacco?

But an individual has religious freedom (can't speak to Canada though) which brings up refusing to bake a cake for those seen as sinning. What if a doctor refused to administer an abortion?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The Muslim barber had every right to refuse to cut her hair! She had other options and comparing her case to that of a doctor refusing to give aid is just wrong. As no health issue(injury , life or death) was involved in the process of hair cutting. A religious objection was involved and I agree with the Muslim man's right to object and refuse service. I may not agree with very much of that religion but damn sure believe they have the right to hold to their belief in this instance. Its called religious freedom ... Tyr

[Trigg]

Well, its simply a matter of fact that a business is subject to the public will. Under a moderate degree of scrutiny the claim, 'its a private business, therefore...' breaks down. What if it were a doctor that refused to treat a patient because they used tobacco?


Actually I"m pretty sure I've heard of doctors refusing to reattach digits of tobacco users. Due to the fact that tobacco constricts the blood vessels leading to poor blood flow.

[jimnyc]

Well, its simply a matter of fact that a business is subject to the public will. Under a moderate degree of scrutiny the claim, 'its a private business, therefore...' breaks down. What if it were a doctor that refused to treat a patient because they used tobacco?

But legislation can fix that. A doctor can very well go into his practice knowing that he may have to give up his beliefs a bit, in the name of health and healing. Similar to a soldier giving up some rights when going into the military. But outside of hurt feelings, nothing can happen to people rejected at a barber shop or a bakery. Surely they can make it so that some can keep their religious beliefs and run their business in such a manner AND recognize that people like doctors would be excluded. Someone can potentially die if a doctor refuses to treat them. I never heard of a single person croaking because someone wouldn't cut their hair or bake them a cake.

[jimnyc]

Btw, a doctor CAN already refuse a patient that smokes if they choose to. The only time they MUST care for a patient is if it's an emergency. A solo practitioner can hurt his business if he chooses to. It's a tad more difficult for a hospital emergency room to do so. But even then, I've seen patients with lack of insurance shipped to county hospitals, which is a way of refusing to care for a patient as well.

Hell, there was a doctor not too long ago that did so on political beliefs. He had a note on the door telling Obama voters to basically go elsewhere. All legal.

[DragonStryk72]

If it's a private business then I think he should be able to refuse service. I felt the same way about the cake shop owners who didn't want to be involved in the gay wedding.

Why would someone want to force their views down someone else's throat instead of going somewhere they are welcome.

I will say that if the muslim man is employed by a chain, he will probably be fired.

She's forcing her views that she wants her hair cut? See, I can understand the whole wedding thing, it's an event that you would essentially have to attend, and "condone" at a certain level, as well as interacting and getting to know the couple. You're kind of living with them for several months. At a certain point, though, it's just pettiness, and not a religious point. A lesbian's hair cut is the exact same as every other coif coming through the door. I guarantee you that he has cut hair for gays and lesbians before this point, they're rather numerous these days, but they just weren't obvious about it. And he will cut more gay and lesbian hair in the future, just the name of the game.

This isn't really about her views, because they don't even matter to the service involved. There was no sign stating that they didn't serve gays and lesbians, just a standard barber shop, and thus, she was well within her rights to expect to be served normally for a matter of, what, ten to twenty minutes? He doesn't have to approve of her lifestyle or worldviews to cut her hair, and I would, in fact, state that he's dealt with quite a number of people who not only don't share them, but are against a number of them. That's being in business.

[jimnyc]

She's forcing her views that she wants her hair cut? See, I can understand the whole wedding thing, it's an event that you would essentially have to attend, and "condone" at a certain level, as well as interacting and getting to know the couple. You're kind of living with them for several months. At a certain point, though, it's just pettiness, and not a religious point. A lesbian's hair cut is the exact same as every other coif coming through the door. I guarantee you that he has cut hair for gays and lesbians before this point, they're rather numerous these days, but they just weren't obvious about it. And he will cut more gay and lesbian hair in the future, just the name of the game.

This isn't really about her views, because they don't even matter to the service involved. There was no sign stating that they didn't serve gays and lesbians, just a standard barber shop, and thus, she was well within her rights to expect to be served normally for a matter of, what, ten to twenty minutes? He doesn't have to approve of her lifestyle or worldviews to cut her hair, and I would, in fact, state that he's dealt with quite a number of people who not only don't share them, but are against a number of them. That's being in business.

A private business owner should be able to refuse service whether they think someone is a lesbian or not, whether good for their business or not. What's going to happen eventually is exactly what MM pointed out, or worse. Of course in this instance it's possible a barber may cut a homosexual persons hair if they are unaware. But that doesn't mean they should be forced to do so if they are aware. Sexual orientation is not always a protected class in some places, and one has a right to pass on business. This protection is similar in employment law, where in many places an employer can still discriminate based on sexual orientation. In employment, based on at will doctrine, an employer can fire an employee at any time for any reason, so long as not against the law. And slavery is over, so employees cannot be forced to work and are free to look for work elsewhere. And I believe the same should be for private businesses. A business owner should be able to do business with whom they please, and turn down business in the same respect, while consumers cannot be forced to shop at anyone particular place and are free to shop around.

[jimnyc]

Here's a good article about businesses refusing service to gays, which reinforces what I said previously:

Can Your Business Legally Refuse to Serve Gays?

As several states are considering bills that would, in effect, reinforce a business owner's right to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers, many may be wondering if it's even legal to do so.

With a patchwork of federal, state, and local laws in place regarding the rights of gays and lesbians in public accommodations -- i.e., most businesses that are open to the public -- the issue can get a bit confusing.

Here is a general overview of what business owners need to know:

Federal Law and Private Businesses

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation -- only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation.

This is true both for customers and employees of private businesses, although forces in Congress have been attempting to pass laws which protect gay and lesbian employees for decades.

So if there are no state or local laws to the contrary, private business owners may legally choose to refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation -- and some have publicly done so.

State, Local Anti-Discrimination Laws

However in some states like California and New York, discrimination based on sexual orientation by private businesses is prohibited by state law. In many of these states, bona fide religious organizations and religious non-profits have been exempted from these laws when they conflict with their religious beliefs; private businesses are not exempt.

Even in states which do not prohibit refusing service to gays -- like Texas or Arizona -- local laws or ordinances in specific cities may prevent LGBT discrimination. This may be part of the reason for Arizona's controversial SB 1062, a bill which would reinforce the ability of private business owners to refuse to serve gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs.

Regardless of whether SB 1062 passes in Arizona, private business owners can still legally refuse to serve gays and lesbians under state law, barring a local law that may say otherwise.

Should Your Business Adopt a 'No Gays' Policy?

While your business may be within its legal rights to refuse gays and lesbians, it may not make the most sense financially. Even Arizona Sen. John McCain told CNN that laws like the one proposed by SB 1062 hurt the image of the state as well as its economy -- and it could be a poison pill for businesses.

You may wish to consult an experienced local business attorney to determine your legal options for refusing gays and lesbians, but you may also consider the impact on your company's goodwill.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2014/02/can-your-business-legally-refuse-to-serve-gays.html

[jafar00]

If you have doubt about the story don't be so lazy it took me 2 seconds to google it and see all the different news agencies covering it ( some well known and yes some probably not so much )

As for bashing Muslims , yes you are exactly like the blacks ( or any other minority group ) scream racism , please show me how it is bashing you idiots or shut up. If you had took the time to read the article and what I had to say it was more geared towards bashing you and a few others on here, yes you all had a strong opinion when this was a white man refusing service to gays and just as I thought you wouldn't have a opinion now , DAM WHAT A SURPRISE !!

OOO and my point being is well I guess maybe this guy isn't a real Muslim, LOL , yea jafar anything a muslim does is OK ( and I wonder who the racist is )

Let me list a few quotes from the blog then tell me it isn't bigoted.

First, the title of the thread makes a point that he is Muslim.

Then the following little gems appear when you read...


He follows Shariah law, so he thinks women have cooties.

America’s lone “diverse” religion, Islam


Then it goes on to bash Liberals. Then the comments show what kind of racist/bigoted scumbag actually bothers to read this trash.

[jimnyc]

Then it goes on to bash Liberals. Then the comments show what kind of racist/bigoted scumbag actually bothers to read this trash.

The source matters little. Many people are supporting the Muslim gent and think he should have the right to run his business as he sees fit. Now, he won't have success up in Canada. But in America, in most places he would have the right to turn away business, and yes, in some places its illegal. But like what meany of us defend, I'm sure the Muslim gent is making his decision based on his religious beliefs. Others might think that any/all discrimination is frowned upon. I think businesses in general should have the right to do business with whom they choose, as the consumer has the same right.

[Drummond]

I agree that this individual should run that business as he chooses.

Were this to happen in the UK, I'm guessing that it'd create a lot of controversy, most probably resulting in the person involved losing a great deal of business. Most probably it wouldn't survive in the long term.

I'm also guessing that he could be prosecuted. I'm unsure ... because I've never heard of a case like it here !

[Abbey Marie]

My opinion is that if your business isn't addressing true emergencies or is otherwise health-related, and receives no government subsidies, you should have the right to offer service/products to whomever you want. And vice versa, of course.

[aboutime]

Seriously? If a Lesbian, or any Lesbian intentionally entered a Muslim barbershop...and asked for a haircut.

THINK ABOUT IT. If the Barber in question is as radical as many of his fellow Muslims.

What would stop him from inviting the Lesbian to sit down....then break out the Largest, Sharpest Knife, or Razor to

complete the BEHEADING process?????:dance:

[fj1200]

My opinion is that if your business isn't addressing true emergencies or is otherwise health-related, and receives no government subsidies, you should have the right to offer service/products to whomever you want. And vice versa, of course.

Not if separate is not equal.

[jimnyc]

Not if separate is not equal.

Depends on the location

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45040-Muslim-barber-refuses-to-cut-hair-of-lesbian-Whose-rights-trump-whose&p=684795#post684795

[Abbey Marie]

Not if separate is not equal.

Those who feel separate is non-equal can feel free to have their own businesses and exclude others as they see fit as well. Does every person need to be serviced by every business in the country?

But the issue here is not discrimination against race, it is freedom of religion. Why should failure to render service trump a 1st Amendment free exercise of religion?

[logroller]

But legislation can fix that. A doctor can very well go into his practice knowing that he may have to give up his beliefs a bit, in the name of health and healing. Similar to a soldier giving up some rights when going into the military. But outside of hurt feelings, nothing can happen to people rejected at a barber shop or a bakery. Surely they can make it so that some can keep their religious beliefs and run their business in such a manner AND recognize that people like doctors would be excluded. Someone can potentially die if a doctor refuses to treat them. I never heard of a single person croaking because someone wouldn't cut their hair or bake them a cake.
You're absolutely right-- they are different-- no one is going to die from not getting the haircut or cake they desire. I didn't mean to imply they are identical in effect, merely motive. Showing that a belief is subject to practical limitations. I'd like to point out that, just as no physical harm will come to (s)he that is refused haircut/cake, neither would any tangible harm come from providing it. Providing the product/service is of more tangible benefit to both parties-- one party gets paid and the other gets cake/ trim. So I must ask, what's the beneficial purpose of not doing so?

[logroller]

Those who feel separate is non-equal can feel free to have their own businesses and exclude others as they see fit as well. Does every person need to be serviced by every business in the country?

But the issue here is not discrimination against race, it is freedom of religion. Why should failure to render service trump a 1st Amendment free exercise of religion?
Perhaps I'm unaware of the specific religious dogmas regarding haircuts. Was that the issue? If this was resultant of a belief that, for example, a woman must have her head covered in his shop, id be more disposed to entertaining a claim of religious exercise. Were it that a heterosexual woman with long flowing hair can come in and have her split-ends trimmed, then established religious doctrine isn't the issue, it's just a personal belief, not a religious one.

[Jeff]

The source matters little. Many people are supporting the Muslim gent and think he should have the right to run his business as he sees fit. Now, he won't have success up in Canada. But in America, in most places he would have the right to turn away business, and yes, in some places its illegal. But like what meany of us defend, I'm sure the Muslim gent is making his decision based on his religious beliefs. Others might think that any/all discrimination is frowned upon. I think businesses in general should have the right to do business with whom they choose, as the consumer has the same right.


jafar looks as though Jim has answered you, Jim as I figured jafar who If I remember right had a strong opinion on this same subject when it was just a white guy refusing but now refuses a opinion other than I am picking on the poor Muslim, But honestly jafar I have to thank you because you where the only one to go that route :laugh: ( I really thought we may catch a few other muslim enablers :laugh: )

[jimnyc]

You're absolutely right-- they are different-- no one is going to die from not getting the haircut or cake they desire. I didn't mean to imply they are identical in effect, merely motive. Showing that a belief is subject to practical limitations. I'd like to point out that, just as no physical harm will come to (s)he that is refused haircut/cake, neither would any tangible harm come from providing it. Providing the product/service is of more tangible benefit to both parties-- one party gets paid and the other gets cake/ trim. So I must ask, what's the beneficial purpose of not doing so?

No physical harm comes from it, but it's still against ones beliefs. And if they feel that working with someone, or cutting their hair, or whatever, compromises their beliefs, then that's what matters. It's THEIR business, and they shouldn't need a provable benefit in order to deny service to any customer. Technically speaking, no harm would be brought to a church that is forced to marry gay couples. No harm would be done in forcing a company to provide types of birth control. And no harm would be done to a Muslim fellow being forced to sell lottery tickets.

Suppose you bake a cake for a gay marriage. If it were me, I would kind of think I just participated in a sense. No differently than if I did so for a Catholic marriage. Seeing the wedding cake and knowing I played an integral part in that persons special day.


Perhaps I'm unaware of the specific religious dogmas regarding haircuts. Was that the issue? If this was resultant of a belief that, for example, a woman must have her head covered in his shop, id be more disposed to entertaining a claim of religious exercise. Were it that a heterosexual woman with long flowing hair can come in and have her split-ends trimmed, then established religious doctrine isn't the issue, it's just a personal belief, not a religious one.

As stated in the portion above, I don't think it need to be a religious ceremony or such in order for someone to feel like their religious beliefs are being tested. If I'm wholly against gay marriage and homosexuality, and someone wants to do business with me, and they are clearly homosexual, I should be able to not do business with that person. Hell, even if I'm wrong I should have that right. If a homosexual person enters a business and sees something that makes them feel the owner is against gay folks, that person is more than free to leave and take their business elsewhere. It's my belief that business matters should be like employment at-will doctrine, allowing both parties to work together or to separate from one another, but no "force" is ever involved.

[jimnyc]

jafar looks as though Jim has answered you, Jim as I figured jafar who If I remember right had a strong opinion on this same subject when it was just a white guy refusing but now refuses a opinion other than I am picking on the poor Muslim, But honestly jafar I have to thank you because you where the only one to go that route :laugh: ( I really thought we may catch a few other muslim enablers :laugh: )

I think based on Muslim threads in the past, Jafar immediately assumed this was a Muslim bashing thread, when it's actually the opposite. I sorta can't blame him for the leap. But simply reading the thread will show that no one in this thread is bashing Muslims, and in fact, some are trying to highlight what his rights should be, which would be the same as everyone else. I think even those saying that this gent doesn't have the right, is assuming he should be like everyone else. Other than Muslim in the title, and crap in the article/comments - this thread simply isn't a Muslim bashing thread.

[fj1200]

Depends on the location

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45040-Muslim-barber-refuses-to-cut-hair-of-lesbian-Whose-rights-trump-whose&p=684795#post684795

Right, I was going for a larger point.


Those who feel separate is non-equal can feel free to have their own businesses and exclude others as they see fit as well. Does every person need to be serviced by every business in the country?

But the issue here is not discrimination against race, it is freedom of religion. Why should failure to render service trump a 1st Amendment free exercise of religion?

I'm aware of the issues here but it's not so easy to claim private property rights when earlier attempts at separate-but-equal were anything but equal. The AZ law was dumb IMO because NDA laws should recognize religious freedom.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think you quickly read and misjudged. I think 9/10 of us here would support the rights of the Muslim to run his barber shop as he sees fit. The fact that this guy is Muslim isn't bashing, but rather adding a different angle to this very same story. At least 3 businesses have gotten into hot water in the past for refusing to do business with gay marriage couples. They did so based on their Christian beliefs. This is the same, but the guy refusing on his Islamic beliefs. You'll note quite a few replies in this thread and not a single person bashing Muslims or this particular barber.
I supported the Muslim man in his right to refuse service. Of course Jafar will give me no respect for having done so. However I did not do it for any respect. Rather I did it to stay true to my principles. Of which I deviate from for no man. The Muslim man's freedom of religion right trumps this gay thing's sexual orientation "rights".. Just that simple. Because she is gay should give her no "special right" to demand service when the Muslim man could refuse me or anybody because he didn't like our looks, hair color, manner of dress ,etc. --Tyr