If that’s true, because the law is badly written and not fit for it’s purpose. Businesses should not be discriminating on the grounds of gender.
The Curves gym in my area won’t allow men to be members.
The outrage meter doesn’t even ping here; It seems like a nice service, honestly. I’ve heard of Men-Only gyms too, but don’t personally know of any.
She can complain to the owner, vent to her friends, write a letter to the paper, or write a bad review on yelp. She’s not “pointing something out,” she’s making a goddam federal case about it.
You mean this as an absolute, with no exceptions whatsoever?
I rarely agree with Chief Pedant but +1 to everything in post #158. This woman desperately needs a sense of perspective. This isn’t about her getting a haircut, it’s about her ego.
Yes. Substitute “race” for “gender”, the principle is the same, and the discrimination is equally wrong, and hopefully that will prove the point.
Note that we’re talking about offering the same service here. If a hairdressers only offers certain styles of cut, they shouldn’t have to offer different ones because someone of a different gender comes in. If a gym offers certain equipment that would primarily be used by women, they shouldn’t have to buy new stuff for men. But if a man wishes to use that equipment, he should have the same right to as a woman.
Race and gender are completely different, and one can’t be glibly substituted for the other. If you really think that a Woman only spa or gym is unacceptable, I doubt there’s anything that will convince you otherwise, but I think most people can understand that the differences between men and women are far more real and profound than the differences between black people and white people.
While I disagree with you I do respect you for at least being consistent about your beliefs.
I disagree with most of you hear -
The Government in my opinion should not have the right to tell a private individual or business
who he chooses to serve or not to serve period. A private business should have every right to refuse service to anyone under any circumstance including specifically race, sex and sexual preference etc. Regardless of whether you believe it to be right or wrong.
To me this is a prime example of the contrast between conservative ideology and “liberalism” in my opinion Freedom and our individual right’s far outweigh someone’s right not to be offended . Censorship is turning Free speech into Hate speech.
While Government intervention may seem benign and good intention ed the consequences are usually quite the opposite.
American Women have been and continue to be the most privileged class of people on Earth. This intolerant girl was way out of line.
Girl? :dubious: It’s almost as if you’re deliberately trying to be provocative.
Girl? What about “American”?
Hell ya, little buddy, why I recon she ain’t even no American girl at all.
I see your personal four year old anecdote and counter it with my thirty five year old anecdote. I, a female in the US, have over the past 35 years gone back and forth between long hair and short hair periods. During the short hair periods I routinely have gotten my haircuts at barbershops because they are cheaper, faster, and more even. I got my first one in Il in 1976 and my last one in Fl two weeks ago. So there 
Bigots have been using that excuse for years, too. Why would a black man want to eat at a whites-only lunch-counter? Can’t he tell he isn’t welcome? How uppity.
I’d say if churches can still legally be allowed to disallow woman priests, then fundamental Islamic barbershops can be allowed to not touch unrelated women.
And even ignoring that, if he’s willing to cut the hair of his wife, mother, and sisters, then the discrimination here is more about relatedness than gender.
Ignoring that, too is the issue of propriety. How would you feel about an atheist whose wife won’t let him cut the hair of females over 16 and under 50 due to jealousy?
I’m all for a world of unisex lockers and male pregnancies, but this isn’t the right test case as it’s too mired with other issues.
Churches aren’t businesses doing commerce with the public. They have their own (U.S.) constitutional exemption.
This was tried, in the U.S., by having businesses masquerading as “churches.” The courts shut that down. They also tried publishing the “Christian Yellow Pages,” offering advertising space to “Christian” businesses only. A nice non-Christian business owner applied for ad space, was turned down, and sued…and won.
Businesses are regulated differently from churches. (Again, speaking of the U.S. Canada’s laws are probably similar, but that’s just a guess.)
And luckily for us your opinion is not the rule of law either in the US or Canada.
The issue that I have with this argument is that churches are essentially clubs of membership. They get to make their own rules about that, just like the Moose club, the Kiwannas or the Masons. However, when it spills over into the realm of business that requires no membership ties, they have to / should have to follow civil law concerning employment.
I realize that churches are treated differently I’m just questioning whether that makes sense. If we are allowing discrimination inside a church, we should allow “Islamic clients/members only” barbershops. If it’s because money is involved, then priests shouldn’t get paid.
Race and sex can be different. It’s not here. It is acceptable for a man to refuse to do business with a woman because he’s uncomfortable with being undressed in front of a woman, or having a woman undressed in front of him. It is unacceptable for a man to refuse to do business with a woman just because he’s uncomfortable with not treating women like lepers. If you want to treat women like lepers you and you alone should suffer the costs of doing so. If one of those costs is that you can’t work as a hairdresser, too fucking bad.
You totes failed to bring Hitler into this so you get -117 points.
I had a long response prepared for this post but I got drunk and forgot it, so I’ve asked president Obama to launch a hellfire missile at your domicile. I figure he owes me for my $35 contribution
Joanna: I dunno, it just seems wrong.
Peter Gibbons: It’s NOT wrong. INITECH is wrong. INITECH is an evil corporation, all right? Chochkies is wrong. Doesn’t it bother you that you have to get up in the morning and you have to put on a bunch of pieces of flair?
Joanna: Yeah, but I’m not about to go in and start taking money from the register.
Peter Gibbons: Well, maybe you should. You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.
Joanna: What?