He should have told her, “I’m a man’s barber because I’m lousy with ladies hair. No can do. If I was confident you’d be happy with the cut, I’d try it, but I’m not. Sorry.” There would be no problem.
What would she complain about then? “I couldn’t force someone to give me a bad haircut!”
I have seen someone abuse the system. The complainant’s costs are covered, but the defendant has to hire a lawyer, it can go on a long, long time, costs can be hefty. Lot’s of people settle, not because they are guilty, but because it’s cheaper than fighting on and on. Some complainants know this and use the system to their advantage.
Worked with a woman, in a bar, who litigated her way out of every job she had with exactly this strategy.
I don’t think it deserves traction at all. She can easily get her hair cut elsewhere. He misspoke, in trying to explain. It should end there.
Yes, and I understand that this certainly doesn’t rise to the same level. But the principle is the same and there are IMO serious downstream effects. As a society we have affording different protections in private life than we do in commerce. By accepting the entire commercial framework that society provides it also places some responsibilities on the business. I don’t like the idea of chipping away at those responsibilities because I think it’s a step backwards.
The barber himself doesn’t have to touch women, as long as the business provides someone there who does. That seems like a reasonable accommodation.
I should perhaps note that while I agree with many posters in thinking the situation is silly and the woman is basically trolling, I’m against any exception to any general rule based on religious grounds. If the general rule is that you cannot refuse a person service due to their gender, then there shouldn’t be an exception because of your religion.
On the other hand, I’m not sure this would be something that requires a general rule in the first place. If one doesn’t already exist, then I certainly see no reason to set the precedent, but if one does exist, then the barber should not be given an exception due to claiming religious reasons.
He should receive a small fine, and it should be explained why. If he’d refused, for any other reason, fine, but he cannot hide behind his religion to discriminate because of her sex.
Is a ladies waxing salon allowed to refuse to do manscaping? It’s their business. What they cannot do is tell the guy, ‘We don’t allow men!’. It’s illegal to discriminate based on sex. Same penalty. Small fine and an explanation.
I alluded to this in my OP and am glad you brought it up (I didn’t want to go astray at that point).
For those not in the know, elbows’s points merit emphasis. This a no-lose situation for her (and indeed for any complainant to the OHRT) and a must-lose for this (and any other) defendant (at least financially).
I guess it just boils down to the fact that I completely disagree that it matters whether the problem is widespread. One restaurant refusing to serve black customers would be both morally wrong and illegal, even if they’re the only one in town that’s doing so. The fact that the customers can go somewhere else doesn’t make it better. The problem isn’t that they won’t get something to eat; the problem is that they’re being discriminated against.
I don’t see why it’s any more morally OK for one barber shop to refuse to cut a woman’s hair, when she wants her hair cut in the same way they do for men. The problem isn’t that she won’t get a haircut somewhere else; the problem is that she’s being discriminated against.
I get that you think the woman is being disingenuous. But in the absence of conclusive evidence for this, I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt.
I guess I see it as his religion that poses the unreasonable requirement. If his religion says “You can not ever cut a woman’s hair, not even once a year” then that’s what makes that one customer a big deal.
Are there women only gyms in Canada like there are in the US? If so, I would think that the barber is a relative mote compared to a beam in the eye of a women’s only business.
I realize this is in Canada, and I’m not really sure how these things are worked out there, but at least here in the US, I don’t see where the woman has any sort of a case at all and isn’t doing anything but hurting the cause of gender equality. A business ought to have the right to refuse service to any customer for any reason, whether it’s because he has a religious reason not to touch women, or just because he wants to have a business catered to men.
For instance, if I want to work out, even if there’s a Curves right across the street and they have all the equipment I want, when I try to get a membership there and they refuse me just because I’m a man, shouldn’t I have a case too? Why can a business discriminate based on sex for a business model, but not because the owner of the business is doing so because of his religion or other beliefs?
Especially when it comes to cutting here, it seems to me that there’s a pretty well established case there of catering businesses to one gender or the other, with men’s barbershops and women’s hair salons. Hell, in my area they’ve apparently recently opened a few combination barbershop sportsbars blatantly catered towards men (Sportscuts or Sportsclips, I think). I haven’t been to one, but I could imagine them strongly discouraging if not outright denying the business of women to maintain that atmosphere. So, in the case of the OP, why couldn’t that guy just have a men-only barbershop, and that he did so for religious reasons really shouldn’t even be part of the equation.
And I also think the woman is hurting the cause of gender equality. I strongly believe in gender equality, but I think this just makes the cause look bad and lends itself to the whole feminazi perception. She’s suing a guy for his religious beliefs, and while they’re not particularly common, it’s hardly unheard of that some religions forbid men to touch women they’re not related or married to. It makes her and, to some extent, the cause look like a bully, especially for bringing the legal system into it. And I think it detracts from cases of indisputable discrimination.
I think the legal side should resolve with telling her to get her hair cut somewhere else. I also think that if she still feels like its legitimately worth her time and effort, she can organize a boycott of the business and let the people decide with their business and let the owner then decide if that loss of business is worth it or not.
Well, in many cases it’d be anatomically impossible to provide identical services to both men and women… whereas it isn’t impossible to give a woman the same haircut as a man.
If you follow that reasoning, then it follows that Whites-only businesses would be equally acceptable. If you don’t think that is a logical extension of what you wrote, please say why?
Confusing racial bias with gender distinctions is beyond silly.
Interaction between the sexes raises a layer of complexity all its own. This physiologic difference is what underpins the religious tenet in the first place.
We’ve decided as a society to accommodate male-female distinctions. We prefer separate bathrooms where the bathroom accommodates multiple users at a time. We are OK with women’s curling and men’s curling. We don’t let boys try out for the women’s swim team and they don’t get to be locker boys on the girls side of the gym. I keep a female in the room when I do a pelvic exam on a patient, and if the patient prefers a female colleague of mine to do her exam, I accommodate that or I don’t do the exam.
We’ve decided that society is best served by not making a distinction based on race unless you want to have your private-membership club, in which case we don’t care what your neanderthal preferences are (for the most part).
Pulling out the race card here is pitiful. It’s a qualitatively different thing.
This woman needs to take her ass, and the bug that is up it, and go whine about her demotion into second-classness to her gossip club. It doesn’t deserve more than 30 seconds of the Tribunal’s time, and neither does an argument that denying her a haircut from this devoutly religious fellow is a blow against equality.
This woman is exactly the reason these sorts of laws are so lame. You cannot legislate good judgment, unfortunately, or avoid allowing the petty to elevate their Great Cause to the level of a court case. So the proper course of action is to give her her day in court and when she’s done ranting, say, “Go get a haircut somewhere else. Good Day. Next case.”
I think of it this way; he’s not discriminating against women, he’s “discriminating” against women to which he’s not related. It may seem like a trivial distinction at first, but on the whole I think it makes sense. If his daughter/sister/mother/wife wanted a haircut he could give them one without issue.
He’s not discriminating against an entire class, because there are women he could service without issue. This then falls under his right to refuse service to anyone not based on a protected class. “Non-familial women” aren’t a protected class.
Further, I ask this question. Many salons offer select services to women only. Is that discriminatory? Should an female aesthetician be required to give a man a Brazilian wax?
This is a very clever way of phrasing it. Still, as much as I concur with your line of reasoning, I suspect that it wouldn’t assuage those who believe that women’s rights are being threatened, if not subjugated. They might point out that, your reasoning notwithstanding, women would still be victims of discrimination insofar as it is only women to whom he is unrelated, but not men to whom he’s unrelated, that he refuses to service. In other words, a distinction is still being made based on gender.
Of course not. But I don’t know how you can honestly believe that these sorts of below the neckline services - like waxing, massages or sex - are comparable to a simple haircut.
It is partially based on gender. The other part is based on familial ties. Both obligations must be met; female and unrelated.
Think about this example:
I own a restaurant. If I refuse service to men that’s discrimination. If I refuse service to a man because he not wearing a tie I’m within my rights. All he has to do is throw on a tie and voila! Dinner is served. Women are not required to wear and tie, so that rule does not apply. Both terms have to be met for me to refuse service, male AND not wearing a tie.
In her case, all she has to do is marry into the family and she’s good to go.
BTW - I make this argument as a card carrying agnostic with absolutely no religious affiliation.