In the US pharmacists have the right to refuse, on religious grounds, to provide morning after contraception or other birth control.
Illinois Court Permits Religious Pharmacists To Refuse To Dispense Emergency Contraception
Federal Judge Rejects Requirement that Pharmacies Dispense Plan B
But they can be forced to transfer a prescription to another pharmacy or otherwise refer a customer elsewhere to get a script filled.
Rebuke upheld in refusal to fill birth control
In the matter at hand, the applicable law is the Ontario Human Rights Code (cited by me a couple of times above). It specifies “persons” and “human family”.
Our nations differ in the law on this issue. Canada takes a more stringent position on human rights. Up here, any individual pharmacist can refuse only if the pharmacy does not refuse.
I’m not familiar with the Ontario Human Rights Code, but thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Does the Ontario Human Rights Code allow for businesses that cater to only one gender?
The barber’s right to cut hair is protected under the Human Rights Code. He can not be refused a job because of his religion, and in fact he has not been refused the job because of his religion. The probem at hand is that he is refusing to do his job.
Protection from sexual harassment and maintenance of public decency are valid grounds that may permit otherwise prohibited discrimination. Similarly, exceptions to protection of the law are carved out for social clubs, recreation clubs, and people performing marriages (but this execption is trumped by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if the person performing the wedding is in the public employ, thus the example in my previous post).
For example, in the matter at hand, the fellow works in a barber shop that was open to the public, so he must not discriminate. If he worked as a barber in a private men’s club, or if he worked as a barber in a mosque, he would be permitted to discriminate.
Your own words were “dimensions of humanity” and I’m just wondering what you meant by that. You didn’t give a satisfactory answer.
I expect that Grumman’s prediction on prostitutes being permitted to discriminate would hold up, but even then, I am far from certain. It’s worth considering if there is a difference between intimate physical interactions (e.g. a general practioner physician performing a prostate exam), and intimate sexual physical interations (e.g. a prostitute performing a wet Henry). If this distinction were to be made, then the barber would still be out of luck, for hair cutting is not normally considered to be sexual in nature. His best bet would be to assert that it is a matter of public decency, but he’d have a hard time convincing the Commission that a regular hair cut is incecent, or a man giving a woman a regular hair cut is indecent. Obvioiusly lines are drawn somewhere (e.g. prostitute v. physician examples above), so what it comes down to is that the barber is too far on one side of the line for this particular culture at this particular time, although he would be on the other side of the line in another culture or even in our culture at a different time. Human rights are a shifting slope.
Read the title of the act (human), its preamble (human), and its first section (person) of the Act. Note that it does not refer to dogs or other non-human animals.
As far as “dimensions” goes, note that there are many dimensions to being human, which include,* inter alia*, occupation/employment and spirituality.
Then anti-discrimination laws where you are aren’t strong enough.
They should be obliged to offer the same services regardless of gender. If someone doesn’t have the required genitals to take advantage of that service, they can’t do so. They may refuse anyone, but not for reasons of gender.
If they don’t wish to do this, they should not become a sex worker. It’s that simple.
Yes, you should have a case.
No. We’re ok with forcing people to make a choice between touching people they offer a service to, which requires touching, or not offering that service. They may not offer that service to only certain people determined by race, gender, orientation, age, or other protected classes.
I would like to applaud this woman for standing up for her rights against religious bullshit, and to make sure people understand that religion does not give one any extra rights.
None of the barber’s rights have been violated, so there are no competing rights here. He does not have the right to offer his services to men only.
Absolutely not. Like I said, a person’s right to not have sex is absolute. It doesn’t matter when or why they they refuse consent, they don’t have to justify themselves to you or anyone else. Claiming they are obliged to have sex with someone they don’t want to have sex with, for whatever reason? That’s called rape.
Well yes. It would probably be impossible for anyone to run a non discriminatory prostitution business. They would not be forced to have sex with anyone, they would be forced not to offer sex for sale in a discriminatory manner. It’s not at all the same thing.
In the same way, the barber in this story should not be forced to cut her hair, but should be made to not offer his services to only certain people.
Perhaps he could counter by claiming that she is indulging in a form of sexual harassment in the workplace (I think I’m serious ;)). Specifically
Her little crusade constitutes a form of sexual harassment in the workplace. His.
Maybe?
Not a chance. Asserting a right is not sexual harassment. His not liking what is lawful does not equate with being harassed.
All the guy has to do is decide if he is willing to comply with Canadian human rights law, but if not then to limit his hair cutting to places which are exempt from such standards (e.g. men’s club).
Thanks. I’m glad you showed up!
You’re ignoring the fact that religious freedom is itself a civil right (as defined by the same law which prohibits gender discrimination). So what you really said is you’re allowed to have your civil rights up to the point where they violate someone else’s civil rights. And I’m not disagreeing with that. The whole point of this thread is whose civil rights get violated in this situation.
I wonder how many people would change their opinion if it was revealed that the woman is a fundamentalist Christian, who is intentionally targeting Muslims in an attempt to drive them out through legal harassment because “God wants Canada to be a Christian country”. I’m guessing many people here would turn around and jump on the bandwagon to defend the poor man who was being harassed by Christians.
Religion is often the odd man out when it comes to human rights.
Most human rights laws attempt to protect an identifiable class from discrimination (e.g. women, visible minorities, handicapped, etc.). Very often it is religion itself that promotes discrimination, as in the matter at hand. Usually religion loses out in such matters if it cannot be reasonably accommodated while at the same time stopping the offending discrimination.
Most human rights issues are grounded in practicality and facts (e.g. women and visible minorities being refused services or employment or being paid less for the same work, etc.). Very often religious issues are grounded in belief that is remote from practicality and facts, as in the matter at hand. Usually religion loses out in such matters because when the rubber meets the road, our laws deal with what is, rather than with what is imagined, and our adjudicators try to be rational in their decision making process, rather than faith based.
Muffin: I respect your opinion and expertise, and so assume he’ll be ordered to comply with her request for a hair cut. If he declines to do so, do you have a sense what his “penalty” might be? Or an ‘educated’ guess?
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal will try to get the parties to work it out, often with the assistance of a mediator. If it this fails, the matter will be heard by the Tribunal, which would most likely make an order requiring the barbershop to come up with a policy that would prevent such further discrimination from occurring in the future. The possibility exists for the respondent to be fined, but usually that sort of sanction is reserved for people who are assholes rather than folks just unsure about how to balance competing rights, or for organizations that are sophisticated enough to know better than to discriminate. If the Tribunal’s order is not followed, then increasing fines on subsequent adjudications would be the norm until the respondent obeys or is ruined.
There is no appeal from the Tribunal’s order, but judicial review by the Superior Court would be possible if the Tribunal made a decision outside of its jurisdition. Once in the Superior Court, imprisonment for contempt of court becomes possible if that court’s order is not obeyed. This is exremely rare.
??? No resemblance at all! If he wanted an exemption to permit him to refuse to sell to Gentiles, that would be much closer to what I was talking about…and I don’t think he’d get that permit.
The point is discrimination among customers, not the days of operation, which affect everyone equally.