He’s employed at a barber shop that does not do women’s haircuts. I’d say that he picked a perfect business to go into if he wanted to avoid touching women in order to maintain his religious convictions.
Unless that business is actually illegal, because it’s discriminatory.
What if his religion said he couldn’t touch black people? Surely that would be unacceptable, and so should this be.
That said, I don’t know of any legal reason why he couldn’t at that moment say “Fine, I quit” and walk right out the door. You can insist that a professional barber not discriminate. You can’t insist that a man continue to be a professional barber if he doesn’t want to (for religious reasons or otherwise).
I don’t see how saying “You have to accept customers regardless of gender if you want to be a barber” is a violation of his rights. As others have said, no one is forcing him to be a barber.
I’m with this poster and the religious nutjob. He’s not running a unisex hair salon, he’s running a barber shop that exclusively does men’s haircuts. He’s not forcing his beliefs on to her - it’s not that his religion forbids women to have men’s haircuts, it’s that he is forbidden to touch unrelated women. This differs completely from the pharmacists refusing to dispense contraception because the use of contraceptives is against their religion.
There is always a tension between non-discrimination and forcing people to do stuff they don’t want to do.
IMHO the dividing line between when anti-discrimination laws should and should not step in is this: if there is effectively a market failure due to widespread discrimination then the law should step in. If there is just a few isolated instances of people refusing service to customers that don’t suit their prejudices, then let 'em go broke.
This woman seems to me to be trolling, really. She could presumably get a haircut in dozens of places but she’s decided for whatever reason (dollars, pugnaciousness, dislike of the barber’s culture) to make a point of forcing some guy to touch her hair when he doesn’t want to. I don’t think she needs legal protection.
She didn’t go in there seeking a woman’s haircut, she requested a man’s haircut.
For me, that’s the rub.
I don’t think the barber needs to learn how to do highlights, women’s hair styling, or bikini waxes; he can continue to only perform men’s styled haircuts and services, but he should be able to provide the same service to anyone regardless of gender, race, religion, etc, or hire someone who will.
For those of you who are trying the slippery slope argument (“but what if he said ‘no blacks’”), that isn’t what he did. Discrimination against blacks was and is a very real problem because it was or is very widespread and had real effects. Some isolated guy who decides to make himself the odd one out by not offering a service that is dime-a-dozen elsewhere? Not so much. “Slippery slope” is regarded as a logical fallacy for a reason.
That really doesn’t change my point. Someone argued that he should find another business to go into if he doesn’t want to touch women. I argue that working in a barber shop for men is a fantastic business to be in if you’re prohibited from touching women. It doesn’t matter if she came in asking for a men’s cut. The barber specifically went into a business where he could reasonably believe he wouldn’t have to touch women.
Both people are asserting a valid right (gender equality vs religious freedom) so the competing rights need to be weighed against each other.
I’d find in favor of the barber. Telling the barber he has to violate his religious beliefs seems like a greater rights violation to me than telling the customer she has to get her haircut from a different barber.
There is the issue of reasonable access. If the barbershop is the sole one in town that does mens haircuts then she might have a case. Otherwise I side completely with the barber despite being an atheist who has little respect for religious nuttery.
I don’t think anyone is telling the barber he has to violate his religious beliefs. But if his religious beliefs prevent him from doing a given job in a non-discriminatory way, then he may have to choose between following his religious beliefs or continuing to do that job. Which he chooses is up to him.
If his religious beliefs forbade him from touching blood, he couldn’t be a surgeon. That’s not discrimination either, it’s just that his belief isn’t compatible with that job. And a belief that you can’t touch half the population may likewise be incompatible with a job that requires you to be in close contact with people.
What you’re calling a “slippery slope” seems more like a legitimate analogy to me.
Why does it matter if the problem is widespread? If only one restaurant in town refuses to serve blacks, does that make it OK, because they still have plenty of other restaurants to go to?
If not, why is “She could just go to another barber” a more valid argument.
I don’t know anything about the background of this case, but it sounds like she’s targeted the guy’s business to make a political point, not because she has any legitimate grievance. That strikes me as … unpleasant. If he wants to make a business out of only cutting men’s hair, shouldn’t he be allowed to do that?
For example, if I walked into a dog grooming salon and asked for a wash and a cut, it wouldn’t feel that my human rights have been violated if they turned me away. They only do dogs.
tim314 the surgeon analogy is inapt because it is physically impossible to be a surgeon without touching blood. The barber in question set out to be a male barber. It isn’t impossible for him to be a solely male barber. It just doesn’t suit one woman who wants to get a haircut from a guy who wants to be just a male barber.
As to your second post, it is obvious why it matters if the problem is widespread. If it is widespread, then the group that is being discriminated against may have a real problem. If not, not. It would not be “OK” if a single restuarant refused to serve blacks, but if your country (and mine) are going to maintain any vestige of being “free” countries, I don’t think we need a law against every single thing that is not “OK”. If one restaurant chooses to be assholes by not serving blacks, then there are community based sanctions (like them being named and shunned) that are adequate.
So you’re with Ron Paul in saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went too far and that unofficial community sanctions will resolve discrimination issues?
Princhester, in my country (the U.S.) it is in fact illegal for a restaurant to refuse to serve someone on the basis of race (see Civil Rights Act of 1964). Google turns up what sounds like a similar law in Australia (Racial Discrimination Act 1975).
Edited to add: I would argue that such laws are necessary because “community sanctions” have historically proven inadequate to remedy such discrimination.
Boyo Jim, I have no clue about Ron Paul’s position. However, what I am saying is that when it comes to proscribing discrimination there is as far as one needs to go and there is going too far, and IMHO it goes too far if it provides a remedy to the woman described in the OP who (from what little I know) sounds more like a troll than a truly downtrodden person.
Your point being?
I was disappointed to read that only 2/3 of the Canadians surveyed sided with the barber. Then I read the SDMB thread. Wow! You guys really celebrate your atheism don’t you? Not only are you certain Allah is fictional and his rules therefore void, but you insist on denying the devout their own beliefs.
If that’s what American secularism has come to, it’s no wonder the right-wing trolls find so much back-lash resentment fertile for reaping.
Thank you for breaths of sanity in the thread. Dare I ask what your American political orientations are? 
I was responding to this:
The point being that despite being free countries, both your country and mine have found that in fact it is necessary to outlaw racial discrimination. Do you agree that this was the right thing to do? And if so, why do feel we shouldn’t treat discrimination against women in a similar way?
There was at least one post above that pretty blatantly said “Well, his beliefs are bullshit anyway.” But I want to make clear that my being against the barber isn’t based at all on whether his beliefs are valid. I’m all for the guy following his beliefs and refusing to cut the woman’s hair. But the non-discriminatory way to do that is to quit being a barber. Go into a profession where you aren’t directly serving customers, or where you can serve every customer who walks through your door without violating your religion.
Having to find a new job might suck for him, but who ever said religion was supposed to be easy?