Not quite: women’s only spas and the like are registered that way on their business license. It’s part of the whole licensing and registering and regulatory process. There are also “mens’ only” places: some martial arts schools, for instance.
The barber in question (probably) didn’t set up his business as a “men’s only” business in the first place. Failing to do so puts him in the wrong.
So you’re saying he’d be okay, in your opinion, if he had put up a sign in his window or something like that, saying that he was operating a “men only” barbershop? Or if he had registered his business as being “men only” with whatever regulatory agency handles that sort of thing?
Either thats a joke or thats a joke.
The error is and was entirely with the reason he turned her away. He could have said a lot of things, but telling her no because she was a woman was a mistake. He should be schooled in why sex based discrimination is illegal in Canada, pay a small fine, and move on. Bets on that will be exactly the outcome?
I have problems with the assertion that the best way to resolve this is to have the barber lie. Lying to the potential customer can never be a ‘best outcome’ scenario for me. Neither can fining him, since a fine, no matter how small, sets a precedent from which he must either change his business or his religion.
As others have said, there are already many businesses that operate catering to one gender only, or that have special discounts for one gender only on certain nights, etc.
The world is full of subtleties, and we are rarely well-served by the blanket application of any laws.
That doesn’t mean it’s right. What’s the argument for anti discrimination laws? That it’s harmful for society if a certain class of people to be deprived of a good or service. If a pastor can refuse a sermon to a Jew, why can’t he refuse a car wash? It’s an arbitrary distinction.
Can’t she just get a haircut somewhere else? Then the problem goes away. Why make a case out of it?
That said, someone should tell the barber there are no such things as cooties. I thought everyone picked that up around puberty.
Pretty much, yeah. If he’d taken the necessary legal steps to obtain an exemption to the otherwise extant equal-rights laws – and exemptions can be obtained – he could have told the customer to go away, just as the local women’s only spa can tell me to go away.
However, note that the licensing and regulatory boards and agencies, in the U.S., anyway, will not look with any sympathy on someone asking for an exemption on religious grounds.
Really? I used to shop at a used book store whose Jewish owner closed on Saturdays for religious reasons. Are you saying he shouldn’t have been allowed to do that and I should have been able to make him open his store for me on Saturdays if I wanted to shop there?
Is there a rule stating that used book stores have to be open on Saturdays? If not, how do you manage to conclude he’s taking advantage of an exception to a rule that doesn’t even exist?
I don’t really think that’s an apt comparison. Though the NAACP had a problem with the Ben Gilman Medical and Dental Clinic, Jewish owned, in Spring Valley, NY being closed on Saturdays because they felt it violated the civil rights of the majority community who weren’t Jewish. (But this was part of an ongoing conflict between Hasidic Jews and African Americans in the area.)
If there was zero history of blacks being discriminated against on a widespread basis, there would have been no need for this Act. It wouldn’t have been implemented if there had been only one instance of a restaurant owner refusing to serve a black customer for religious reasons. Especially if this black customer had gone out of his way (as this woman surely did) to patronize this specific restaurant.
Anti discrimination laws exist because a category of people suffers a significantly widespread kind of discrimination that has a somewhat significant negative impact on these people (black people not being served, women not being promoted, etc…). IOW when there’s a real social issue to address.
And I suspect there’s no real social issue with women not being able to get a haircut in Canada.
On second thought, I’m changing my mind and I’m going to agree with these arguments.
So, I must agree : even though her action is in fact disruptive, the troll is in the right :rolleyes:
So we’re ok with forcing people to touch people against their will in a non-life threatening or emergency situation? That doesn’t seem right.
Yes, we are, because of his prior actions. If this is surprising to you you don’t know anything about contract law.
If you enter into a contract to provide a service, then you are expected to uphold your end of the bargain.
If you work in this sort of business, then you are expected to not discriminate against customers on the basis of their being a member of a protected class without justification.
Here’s my take. Some religions treat women in a way that is inconsistent with appropriate civil liberties in a modern society. It is unacceptable, and should be denied at every turn, with no exceptions. We should be making a statement that religion never gets to be an excuse for gender discrimination, because it has a long history of doing just that. Some of the ways in which it does are much more serious than this (by far), but we shouldn’t just let the small stuff go.
Our stance should be clear, and it should be to unequivocally condemn religious based discrimination.
Is there a rule saying barbers have to cut women’s hair?
If there is, explain why there’s a rule saying Muslims cannot deny service to customers for religious reasons but there isn’t a rule saying Jews cannot deny service to customers for religious reasons. Nor are there any rules saying Christians can’t deny service to their customers by closing their businesses on Sunday.
Can you explain what legal standard was used to determine which religions are allowed to follow their beliefs and which are not?
No, we are not. Some people here may be okay with it but I hardly think we’ve reached a consensus.
What contract do you think exists?
This is not a contract law issue. The barber had no contract with the complainant.