It needs to be changed.. badly. It's stupid as hell, and this level of political correctness that makes superior "right of service" superior to the "freedom of religion" right, is outraging. There are reasonable levels of limitations on a right, this is not one. All he has to do is say he doesn't cut women's hair on the grounds of not having the skill and it's suddenly different.. whether true or not.. that pretty much shows you how ridiculous this is. Pointless nitpicking garbage.
I disagree - nothing "politically correct" or "nitpicking garbage" about this. Your stereotyping and "reasoning" are precisely what is being targeted for change by the Ontario legislature - it is one of the major reasons for the OHRC being enacted in the first place.
We are not dealing with right of service but rather the right to equal service and service that does not contravene enumerated grounds of discrimination.
Like other humans rights legislation in other jurisdictions, the OHRC is given primacy over all other provincial laws - as sort of quasi-constitutional status that we first saw in the 1960 Diefenbaker Bill of Rights. The Code Comes First
Number 1 - the Code has primacy. This means it is more important than most other laws. If there is a conflict between the Code and other provincial laws, you must follow the Code first, unless there is a specific exception. http://www.ohrc.on.c...ode-has-primacy
It is a fundamental and basic application of equality and the removal of discrimination based on clearly enumerated statutory grounds as intended by the legislation. It is clear that this sort of discrimination falls under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The Code protects men and women from harassment and discrimination, including assumptions about their abilities that result from stereotypes about how men and women ”should” behave, dress or interact. http://www.ohrc.on.c...ode_grounds/sex
The barber could try to say that but it would be untrue since he has already revealed his real reason. And even if true on its face it would be open to the Tribunal to find such a claim to constitute "constructive discrimination".
11. (1) A right of a person under Part I is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground but that results in the exclusion, restriction or preference of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and of whom the person is a member, except where,
(a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances; or
(b) it is declared in this Act, other than in section 17, that to discriminate because of such ground is not an infringement of a right.
If one offers a commercial service in a public business then the law requires such services be offered equally to all in a non-discriminatory manner unless one can elucidate a bona fide
and reasonable justification (such as public decency - judged by way of community standards and not by way of one's personal morals or beliefs or undue hardship - which does not seem applicable here). This one does not appear to qualify as such an exception however the final decision on the complaint rests with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. And the bona fide
nature of the claimed defence to exceptional treatment is strictly interpreted:
11. (2) The Tribunal or a court shall not find that a requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances unless it is satisfied that the needs of the group of which the person is a member cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those needs, considering the cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements, if any.
Nor can the business get around the requirements by designating itself as a "men only" service as has been suggested:
13. (1) A right under Part I is infringed by a person who publishes or displays before the public or causes the publication or display before the public of any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, or other similar representation that indicates the intention of the person to infringe a right under Part I or that is intended by the person to incite the infringement of a right under Part I.
Also note affirmative action programs are specifically allowed under the OHRC (as with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) so the American claim of "reverse discrimination" is a non-starter as long as the special program meet the requirements set out.
14. (1) A right under Part I is not infringed by the implementation of a special program designed to relieve hardship or economic disadvantage or to assist disadvantaged persons or groups to achieve or attempt to achieve equal opportunity or that is likely to contribute to the elimination of the infringement of rights under Part I.
Edited by Wetcoaster, 17 November 2012 - 02:42 PM.