Can my (hypothetical) Evangelical letter carrier refuse to deliver Playboy because it goes against his beliefs? My (hypothetical but plausible) Satmarer letter carrier, Time because it has pictures of women? My (you get the idea) JW letter carrier, my self-injection pens?
I suppose it’s a slightly different situation, since you can argue the letter carrier (or Catholic town clerk whose job includes issuing marriage licenses, potentially to same-sex couples) isn’t being asked to sanction these things, whereas the barber actually has to touch the customer. The letter carrier is simply a representative of the postal system, whereas the barber is the barber.
Gender is different. I can’t claim discrimination because I can’t use the women’s bathroom when there is a line at the men’s room. I can’t claim discrimination because the female masseuse only gives massages to women. This sounds like someone intentionally picking a fight with someone who has deeply held religious beliefs just to fuck with them. I mean who really wants a haircut from someone that doesn’t want to give them a haircut.
Reading my posts for comprehension what do you think my answer to your questions would be? I’ve only given the answer to your questions about three times, I’m curious as to whether any of what I’m saying is getting through. Seriously.
You haven’t answered whether or not you think laws against racial discrimination are right or wrong. In post #33 you suggested they weren’t necessary, but you seemed to imply that you believed free countries such as ours don’t have such laws, when in fact we do. I’m not sure if that information changes your opinion.
You haven’t answered why this case of sex discrimination is different in your mind, other than that you think the woman is a troll for some reason, and the problem is not widespread. (Note that the aforementioned racial discrimination laws don’t make exceptions for “non-widespread discrimination”, so I’m not sure how that’s relevant to my question.)
If you’re tired of debating the issue, that’s fine, but don’t assume that because I don’t agree with you it means I haven’t read your posts. Perhaps you just aren’t that convincing.
Is this true for a barber? Most barbers spend their time cutting only men’s hair. Female customers at a barbershop are very rare. I don’t see it as reasonable to say he can’t be a barber because he might get one female customer a year.
tim314, in my post #26 I said the instant case was different from racial discrimination because “Discrimination against blacks was and is a very real problem because it was or is very widespread and had real effects.” I have said that in contrast I don’t think legal sanction is required in the instant case because it isn’t a real widespread problem. So do you think I’m for or against legal sanction for racial discrimination? Take your time, I’m sure you can work it out…
I have never said or implied that free countries such as ours do not have racial discrimination laws. I have no idea why you think I have implied that. All I said was that racial discrimination laws might not be necessary if racial discrimination was merely an isolated minor problem which it isn’t, as I have explicitly said. Frankly, I suspect you have confused yourself by asking me to comment about a hypothetical (isolated racial discrimination) that bears no resemblance to the real world (widespread racial discrimination), then extrapolating from my answer to the real world, even though I have clearly said that my view depends on whether the problem is isolated or widespread. In other words, your confusion stems ultimately from the fact you are not recognising why I have said you are proceeding from an inapt analogy in the first place.
For about the third time: this case of sex discrimination is different because the problem is not widespread. And whether the aforesaid racial discrimination laws do or do not make particular exceptions is beside the point since what we are discussing is how we think something should be. What the law already may be is not the end of the discussion.
And just in case someone misunderstands my last para, I understand that sex discrimination is widespread. But the problem of some woman deciding that she absolutely must have a haircut from some particular male barber who doesn’t want to give it to her despite the fact she would have dozens of other comparable options is not a widespread problem. It’s the faux “problem” of a crank.
Hogwash. A handshake is like a nod, or a friendly word. Not obligatory in any way. In the U.S., these are considered “free association.” I can found a Christian Church, and refuse to admit Jews. I cannot form a Christian car wash and refuse to take Jews for customers.
Trade, custom, commerce, all fall under very different rules than ordinary free association.
The town clerk is a government employee and his/her actions taken in an official capacity could be seen as exerting government discrimination against a class of people. The postal letter carrier is an employee of a government controlled agency and would seem to fall under the same sort of concern. These are different than actions taken by a private citizen in the course of conducting his business.
The barber in question is not acting in the official capacity of an agent of the government. His actions are comparable to a pharmacist who refuses to dispense certain prescriptions on religious grounds. Such refusal has been upheld in US courts, though a referral to another provider may be required. Since the OP is referring to a Canadian situation the relevant case law may be quite different.
Remember the kerfluffle over the taxis and dogs? Or was it alcohol? In either case, the taxi drivers were in the wrong business if they wished to refuse transporting said items.
Yeah, and if you don’t eat pork and don’t want to scan the package of pork I’m purchasing, perhaps you shouldn’t even be working a store that sells pork!
I think the analysis found in the OP is very cogent. “Least violation” (or “least burden,” to generalize it) is a reasonable and rational principle by which to decide such cases. It isn’t however, the only such principle, and what the answer should be in this case depends upon what principle has been enshrined in law in this jurisdiction. To the best of my knowledge (and IANAL) there is no principle analogous to “least violation” found in American jurisprudence. In America, obligations are generally categorical and absolute–a business either has an obligation to accommodate a customer or it does not (though the accommodation must be “reasonable,” but I can’t imagine cutting someone’s hair would not be considered “reasonable”) regardless of the magnitude of the violation caused by failing to accommodate the customer. The only question, therefore, would be whether there are exceptions to the non-discrimination rule that allow for businesses to offer certain types of personal services to one gender only. Since hairdressers in the US routinely charge different prices for women and men, even when a woman wants a “men’s” hairstyle, it strikes me as plausible that such an exception might exist, but I don’t really know.
Personally, I might be inclined to follow a “least burden” principle if someone wanted me to mediate such a situation, but in a legal setting, it’s pretty important to follow the principles that have been established. I assume these tribunals are expected to follow precedent.
He’s the co-owner of the shop so I’m inclined to think he should be allowed to run it as he likes. If he were an employee at someone else’s shop and refused to cut the woman’s hair, the owner of that shop would be justified in firing him (if he so chose) and would not be violating his religious rights in doing so. The key point is not the religious principle, but the right to run your store more or less as you wish.
It’s tricky, though, because yes, that means legalizing discrimination. Say a man came to this barbershop and kissed his boyfriend goodbye right before asking for an appointment. Should the barber be allowed to refuse him service because his religion is against homosexuality and he can run his store as he likes? I guess I’m saying he should. I don’t want that to happen, and hopefully in pursuit of equality there would be social stigma and protests till the store changed its mind. Maybe the government could get involved to the extent of providing incentives for companies not to discriminate.
If the Tribunal really does have the authority to act as judge and jury, they should hand down the following decision:
“Go get your haircut somewhere else. Good day.”
The woman is being an asshole, and pretending this is some sort of high and mighty test of discrimination is complete bullshit.
I’m confident many twits with nothing better to do will try to turn it into Something, but it’s trivial. The problem with trying to promote this sort of pettiness to a level of Human Rights Violation is that the world is full of blathering boobs with personal bugs up their behinds anxious to waste tax dollars intended to make society a more just place to live. You end up giving the most vindictive and petty the tools to prosecute their self-aggrandizing agenda.
There is no legislation that cannot be distorted and abused. Establishing a Tribunal with absolute power to decide is exactly the way it should be handled, for just the reasons I mention in the above paragraph. I hope the members of the Tribunal will make just such a decision, but if they decide instead to turn this into Something, I’ll just shake my head and chuckle while the whole system collapses into a predictably balkanized cacophony of competing grievances.
Something just occurred to me. In my home state, barbers must be licensed and to get that license, they have to pass a test. How’d this guy manage to get through the training without being exposed to women?
They probably had male and female test subjects and he probably just said that he wanted to train on the males, due to his religion, and that he was only planning on being a men’s barber. And everybody yawned and said “sure, whatever”.
And then Ms Chip-on-her-Shoulder came along and couldn’t get a haircut from this one shop at which point, and I quote, she immediately felt like a "second-class citizen.” FFS, precious. How fragile precisely does one’s sense of first class citizenship have to be before you actually feel like you have been made a second class citizen when a few ethnic minority guys with odd beliefs don’t want to give you a haircut? Can you imagine how this silly chump would react if she faced actual serious discrimination from a significant portion of the populace? Her head would asplode.
But that’s exactly what this barber is doing. He’s working at a place where he could reasonably expect to never come into contact with a female customer. There have been two different barber shops I’ve been a regular at and I never once saw a woman walk in to get her hair cut. I’m very keen to learn the number of women this Canadian barber turns away on a yearly basis. And while I suppose it’s possible that this poor woman just wanted a hair cut I wouldn’t be the least surprised if this was planned on her part.
I think that jobs that involve actual physical contact (outside medical and other lifesaving contexts, so don’t start bringing up nurses and firefighters) warrant special protection. People should not be asked to touch anyone they don’t want to.
