canucklehead44 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Lol what an attention whore. There are so many other places she could go. It is not like he said no to her cause she is ugly, he had religious reasons. Do people not have anything better to do with their time? Talk about first world problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 A haircut for women was "not on the menu" at this barber shop. Is McDonalds discriminating against Prime Rib? Maybe we have a bigger issue here. I don't understand your point. I've been turned down myself when I was in my teens when I went to a barber shop. I had a full head of hockey hair and they said they don't cut long hair. I started going to a new place at the time. When do people start to be rational ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjh Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Haircuts were the service being offered and the refusal was based upon a prohibited ground. In your case the ground would not have been prohibited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 So we force this man to act against his religious beliefs? The same barber shop has already offered the woman a haircut from one of their employees who doesn't share the same religious beliefs and she turned them down. If it's not about getting the service she wanted from the business, what is it about? Does she want to force one man to cut her hair even though his religion condemns it? At what point do you stop quoting the law and say "wait a minute this isn't right". I'm not a religious person but I fail to see the big problem here. I think the problem is people making such a big deal out of a non-issue when there are much bigger fish to fry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjh Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Yes, that is what is required - you do not get to pick and choose customers when offering a public service based upon a prohibited ground. "Sorry sir we do not cut the hair of Black people in this barbershop"... likely also a non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsflash Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Because it was a barbershop, my initial reaction was that she went there purposely to get some Muslims (or men) in trouble or start a lawsuit trying. But then I looked at her picture... No wonder she went to a barbershop to get a haircut! That's a manlier haircut then most guys I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 It's just not the same thing. Sure my prior analogies in this thread were bogus, but so is that one. There are differences in training for barbers and hair professionals in salons; it is common practice for barbers not to cater to women. I guess this is another case where the law fails to bring justice to a specific scenario. There is little use arguing because the law is indeed behind your position, but I do disagree with the way it serves this scenario. I see no issue with this man believing what he wishes to believe. We've already established this woman could have her haircut as the same establishment by somebody else or go elsewhere. There is of course no shortage of places to get your hair cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Yes, that is what is required - you do not get to pick and choose customers when offering a public service based upon a prohibited ground. "Sorry sir we do not cut the hair of Black people in this barbershop"... likely also a non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 And the Ontario Human Rights Code recognizes that: Restriction of facilities by sex 20. (1) The right under section 1 to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities without discrimination because of sex is not infringed where the use of the services or facilities is restricted to persons of the same sex on the ground of public decency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Couldn't the Barber use this in his defense? If his religion claims in indecent to do so... ? I really think this woman is the wrong here, even if she does have a legal bases for her suit. It's a tough call either way. The best analogous situation like this I think, might be Obama forcing Christian health care providers to provide for contraception - which, ironically, I agree with. So yeah, I'm a bit torn. Wetcoaster - question: is there any way for a business like this to be set up to only provide services to one gender without being prosecuted in a court/tribunal? I imagine actually putting up a sign that says "Men Only" would put them in more trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 In 2006 a man from right here in Vancouver lost a Human Rights case against a ladies-only gym. Furthermore, last year a man from St. John, NB was considering running a female-only taxi service (which actually exist in some parts of Europe, in fact I believe there are several companies in London competing with one another for the offering of this service). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Why would you need a ladies only taxi service? Are women in Europe forced to share cab rides with strange men? I don't generally have a problem with that, but it seems a little bizzar to me as most girls I know only get into cabs with guys that they know lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I think it is more for women who commute alone or in groups of women. Some women do not like to be alone in a confined space with a man who is a stranger and some genuinely feel uncomfortable and unsafe in such situations. This in turn created a business opportunity that seems to be rather successful in some parts of Europe. Pink Ladies women-only taxi service in London has over 7000 registered members for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 It is a non-starter because quite frankly it is a nonsensical comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 How is is it nonsensical? Both are prohibited grounds of discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjh Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 If someone is a barber and isn't properly trained to cut/style a woman's hair (especially long or long+complicated hair), the prohibition of refusal to cut a woman's hair is asinine. The prohibition itself or the interpretation is excessive and overreaching, thus nonsensical, and needs to be re-evaluated as to it's usefulness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 If someone is a barber and isn't properly trained to cut/style a woman's hair (especially long or long+complicated hair), the prohibition of refusal to cut a woman's hair is asinine. The prohibition itself or the interpretation is excessive and overreaching, thus nonsensical, and needs to be re-evaluated as to it's usefulness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 You are making assumptions that are not borne out by this case. The pictures of the woman do not show "especially long or long+complicated hair" and even if it were the case it is immaterial based on the particular facts.. The reason for the refusal to cut her hair by Omar Mahrouk said, was that as a Muslim he could not cut the hair of a woman who was not related to him on religious grounds. That prima facie is a breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted November 17, 2012 Author Share Posted November 17, 2012 Different issues. The Civil Marriage Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code both contain specific exemptions for religious officials in a recognized Church to refuse to marry same sex couples without contravening the law - it is not there for barbers to refuse to cut a woman's hair. However a civil Marriage Commissioner cannot refuse to marry a same sex couple on the basis of his religion - which would be more like the barber case. This wasraised after the Civil Marriage Act was enacted as decided by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal and the SCOC did not grant leave to appeal. Per Justice Robert Richards supported by justices John Klebuc, Ralph Ottenbreit, Gene Ann Smith and William Vancise held that while requiring marriage commissioners to perform same-sex services may curtail their religious rights somewhat, it's justified, Richards wrote. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that freedom of religion is not absolute and that, in appropriate cases, it is subject to limitation," he said. "This is clearly one of those situations where religious freedom must yield to the larger public interest." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.