Larry, Larry, Larry, whatever are we going to do with you? Someone call his monkey butler to come clean him up and put him to bed.
Sorry, my monkey butler and i are doing shots right now. But I am about to pass out. Thank god I don’t have to work tomorrow.
I’ll take a kick at the can. ** And Karnak says: **
The business is required to not discriminate based on sex with respect to providing services (refer to the Code cited up-thread).
The business is required to not discriminate based on religion with respect to providing employment (refer to the Code cited up-thread).
Note that the Code does not assign a priorty to one human right over another human right.
Note that although the business has legal rights, it does not have human rights. Only humans have human rights. Therefore the business cannot claim protection of religion under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
The business employs several barbers, but it does not employ many barbers.
The problem is that of all the barbers there, due to religious grounds none of them are willing to provide the non-discriminatory service that the business is required by law to provide, and the business is prohibited by law from forcing them to provide those services for that would impinge on their rights.
Usually religious beliefs can be accomodated by scheduling so that another employee covers the duties that the religious employee refuses. In the matter at hand, the barbershop does not have anyone to cover for the religious employees.
The solution would be for the business to ensure that between the various employees, there is one who will not refuse to cut women’s hair.
Since it is not a very large barber shop, I expect the Tribunal will require the business to provide cuts to women upon appointment but not a walk-in basis, leaving it to the business to decide how to arrange for a non-misogynistic barber to be made available upon appointment. If the business were larger, then I expect the Tribunal would require the business to provide cuts to women on a walk-in basis, leaving it to the business to arrange for a non-misogynistic barber to be made available at all times.
Particularly if you are a barber.
Come to think of it, the one time in my life I recall my father getting drunk was also the one time in my life he tried to cut my hair. It ended in me running up the street with him staggering after me, pair of scissors in hand, while neighbours along the way laughed themselves silly.
Happy happy joy joy to you Larry.
This seems like the most sensible answer possible, given the constraints. I hope you are correct, applaud your answer, insist you be in charge of splitting infants in half, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Bravo
Seriously though, I’m now wishing there were a way (other than google alerts, which no longer seems to be working), to subscribe to a particular SDMB user.
Thanks Muffin A very cogent argument. I always appreciate your posts.
Your analysis may very well forecast the actual result. My only addition would be that the barbers have already offered to cut her hair at one of their other, nearby, stores. She refused. I’m not sure whether the different barbershops are under the umbrella of the same corporate entity. But if they are, I think her case might be weaker.
My only quibble…“misogynist”? Is it OK to call these guys women-haters? I don’t think they are. They just follow their silly rituals because that’s what they were brought up with. I think they probably really like most of the women they have in their lives.
The Tribunal would not use the term non-misogynistic, and instead would find a politically correct phrase such as not in conflict with religous belief.
I’m a card carrying feminist, and I don’t sit on that Tribunal, so I call it like I see it.
Some of you might recall that we had a similar thread a while ago when a photography studio in the US refused to provide services for a same-sex commitment ceremony.
There’s one very clear distinction between this case and that (other than the fact that this guy is in Canada), and the ladies-only gym: the nature of the business. A women-only gym does not hold itself out as being open to all potential patrons. It’s for chicks, and it says so right there on the sign. I have no problem with a men-only hairdresser/barber/whatever, as long as it is clearly labeled as such. This barbershop doesn’t seem to have been labeled as such.
I think the answer is yes. Humanity trumps made-up religions every day.
That would not be relevant in Canada. What would be relevant would be a women’s gym having a unique privacy interest (not wanting to be leered at by men), or the gym being a private members club that includes a gym (as opposed to a pay as you go gym that is not a club – many gyms operate on the club basis).
I figured, hence the “this guy is in Canada” qualifier.
I believe in the U.S., Federal antidiscrimination law says that religious accommodation doesn’t require letting employees refuse to interact with certain customers
In the US, the answer is clear. You are allowed to discriminate, execpt for specific constitutionally protected classes (age, race, religion, etc.)
The US did not pass the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have included sex (and possibly, by extension, would eventually probably include sexual preference and role).
I have no idea what Canadian law is. However, since the woman has alternatives, I feel that it would be less onerous to ask her to move on than it would be to ask someone to give up a religious principle, regardless of how silly I might think that principle is.
The applicable provincial law is cited above – sex is a protected class, including sexual orientation.
As far as constitutional protections go, under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sex is a protected class, including sexual orientation. The Charter just states sex, but the courts interpreted sex to include sexual orientation – thus we have same sex marriage etc. Religious freedom is also proteted. These constitutional protections deal with the relations between people (both humans and for the most part also corporations) and all the governments in Canada. Since the barbershop matter is between private parties, the constitutional protections of the Charter will not apply unless the case takes a very strange turn that ends up involving a government.
As it is, each province has its own legislation, and the feds have the Canadian Human Rights Act, that all pretty much follow or extend into the private sphere the human rights protections of the Charter.
So the distinction of “we aren’t discriminating against women; we are discriminating against people without penises” makes sense to you?
Let’s say that this barber had a bell in his back office and the only thing he sold was a “haircut and smack the bell with your dick” combo? Better? He’s not discriminating against women, he his just refusing service to people who cannot perform the “combo package.”
No, the woman would still be entitled to the haircut, just not to smack the bell with her genitals.
If a sex worker offered a blowjob and acupuncture combo, they should only be allowed to deny a woman the blowjob.
I just don’t understand how there’s any debate. Is bigotry wrong? If you say yes, then it doesn’t matter one bit if your religion says you have to be a bigot. If it does, then what you are actually saying is that bigotry is okay as long as you have a reason that you fervently believe in.
The only thing this guy has to touch is this woman’s hair. And that one thing is his actual job. As pointed out, he could also wear gloves if even that bothers him. He has absolutely no non-bigoted reason to refuse service to this woman. It matters not one bit if she’s a troll. Lots of people fighting against bigotry are trolls.