Ontario's haircut laws in question]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/11/15/toronto-haircut-mcgregor.html]Ontario's haircut laws in question (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/11/15/toronto-haircut-mcgregor.html)
Clearly, the Muslims are in their right. Granting rights to any group that would violate the rights of another? Crime against humanity, no less.
And they say we have silly issues.
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 02:01:11 PM
Ontario's haircut laws in question]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/11/15/toronto-haircut-mcgregor.html]Ontario's haircut laws in question (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/11/15/toronto-haircut-mcgregor.html)
Clearly, the Muslims are in their right. Granting rights to any group that would violate the rights of another? Crime against humanity, no less.
And they say we have silly issues.
Viper can you clarify your position.
From my viewpoint the barbers are within their 'rights' to refuse trade/custom.
She looks very much like a man, so she could've probably gotten away with it if she weren't trying to become a victim.
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2012, 02:17:13 PM
Viper can you clarify your position.
From my viewpoint the barbers are within their 'rights' to refuse trade/custom.
That was irony. Usually, by our canadian friends, denying something to an immigrant is akin to be a nazi.
If the men's religion forbid him to cut a Jew or a "nigger's" hair, everyone would say he is racist. If a white barber said his religion forbids him to cut a Muslim men's hair, he would be called a racist.
There should be no discrimination. If the woman wants a haircut there, she should get it. Human rights is a *tad* overblown, but it is a case of accomodation that we shouldn't make for some crazy insane religious practice. If a muslim rights is attacked because he attends schools with girls, do we accomodate him too?
If it was a white man refusing to cut hair of a white woman, would we let him choose his clientele as he wish? If a bar said it was forbidden to women, would we let the issue sit? No, of course not.
I think he's got you Mongers.
Meh, I'm cool with there being male "barber shops" and female "hair salons". Maybe just because I'm used to that. OTOH, if the courts forced barbers to cut women's hair if they demanded it, I'd lose no sleep over that ... though who would want a haircut from someone forced to provide it? :lol:
Seems a petty sort of hill to die (or dye) on. :D
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 02:55:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2012, 02:17:13 PM
Viper can you clarify your position.
From my viewpoint the barbers are within their 'rights' to refuse trade/custom.
That was irony. Usually, by our canadian friends, denying something to an immigrant is akin to be a nazi.
If the men's religion forbid him to cut a Jew or a "nigger's" hair, everyone would say he is racist. If a white barber said his religion forbids him to cut a Muslim men's hair, he would be called a racist.
There should be no discrimination. If the woman wants a haircut there, she should get it. Human rights is a *tad* overblown, but it is a case of accomodation that we shouldn't make for some crazy insane religious practice. If a muslim rights is attacked because he attends schools with girls, do we accomodate him too?
If it was a white man refusing to cut hair of a white woman, would we let him choose his clientele as he wish? If a bar said it was forbidden to women, would we let the issue sit? No, of course not.
Except you can't just invent a religious practice. There is no religion which prohibits cutting the hair of a Jew that I am aware of. But I'm pretty sure that islam does prohibit a man from cutting women's hair.
By the way - these guys could always convert their barber shop to a "private club" and then prohibit membership on any basis they feel like. That's how women's only health clubs operate.
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:00:25 PM
Meh, I'm cool with there being male "barber shops" and female "hair salons". Maybe just because I'm used to that. OTOH, if the courts forced barbers to cut women's hair if they demanded it, I'd lose no sleep over that ... though who would want a haircut from someone forced to provide it? :lol:
Seems a petty sort of hill to die (or dye) on. :D
A well considered post.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 03:09:42 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 02:55:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2012, 02:17:13 PM
Viper can you clarify your position.
From my viewpoint the barbers are within their 'rights' to refuse trade/custom.
That was irony. Usually, by our canadian friends, denying something to an immigrant is akin to be a nazi.
If the men's religion forbid him to cut a Jew or a "nigger's" hair, everyone would say he is racist. If a white barber said his religion forbids him to cut a Muslim men's hair, he would be called a racist.
There should be no discrimination. If the woman wants a haircut there, she should get it. Human rights is a *tad* overblown, but it is a case of accomodation that we shouldn't make for some crazy insane religious practice. If a muslim rights is attacked because he attends schools with girls, do we accomodate him too?
If it was a white man refusing to cut hair of a white woman, would we let him choose his clientele as he wish? If a bar said it was forbidden to women, would we let the issue sit? No, of course not.
Except you can't just invent a religious practice.
sure you can
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 03:09:42 PM
But I'm pretty sure that islam does prohibit a man from cutting women's hair.
:yes:
Women's hair is pretty sexy - just touching it can lead to rape. Just ask an Egyptian.
I often walk into female staffed hair salons and demand they cut my hair down there.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 03:09:42 PM
Except you can't just invent a religious practice.
Of course you can. Jeovah's Witnesses and Mormons, although base on christianity, are religions which exists from very recently in mankind's history (for JW, 1870). Yet, they have practices wich differ a lot from other Christians, and they want accomodations for it.
Accomodations wich may contradict a doctor's oath in some case.
Talebans have a very strict interpretation of the Coran wich is not really based on historical grounds as historically muslim societies were probably more liberal than they are today, in respect to the western civilization. They believe a girl's place is at home, not a school. How do we respect their religious values when they immigrate to Canada? Each provinces have laws about mandatory school. Were do you trace the line if you accept discrimination in some issues but not others?
Quote
But I'm pretty sure that islam does prohibit a man from cutting women's hair.
Who cares? Are canadian woman forced to have their hair cut by another woman in all cases?
Quote
By the way - these guys could always convert their barber shop to a "private club" and then prohibit membership on any basis they feel like. That's how women's only health clubs operate.
They could. They would need to charge a monthly or annual fee too, I think, and they would require of them to refuse all new customers who haven't subscribe to their club.
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:00:25 PM
though who would want a haircut from someone forced to provide it? :lol:
Who would want to go to a place where they are forced to serve you?
I mean, if you own a restaurant, in Canada or the USA, you can't refuse blacks, women, or jews if you feel like it.
Viper - the JHs and Mormons faced decades of serious discrimination before they were somewhat recognized. Taliban-style Islam is not recognized as legitimate in Canada.
You need to perhaps change it to "you can invent new religious practices, but it'll take decades or centuries before they're respected".
Yup. $1 per year for membership in the Hallal Barber Shop.
There's no need to make special legal accommodation for religions. Government out of the temple, plz.
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 03:33:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:00:25 PM
though who would want a haircut from someone forced to provide it? :lol:
Who would want to go to a place where they are forced to serve you?
I mean, if you own a restaurant, in Canada or the USA, you can't refuse blacks, women, or jews if you feel like it.
Haircutting is slightly different from just buying stuff. :lol:
In any event, there is a functional reason why men's and women's haircutting is usually seperate having nothing whatever to do with religious taboos - that being that men and women tend, in general, to prefer different styles and procedures.
Given that the two are in fact widely seperated (though of course there also exist "unisex" salons), it simply doesn't appear to be as huge human rights issue that some Muslim dudes did not want to cut this chick's hair. As a matter of principle, sure, they should not turn women away. But the barber shop I go to (with a non-Muslim barber) has never, far as I know, had a woman
want to have her hair cut there (though no doubt they would serve one who wanted a man's cut). Given that background seems a trivial non-issue.
This is different from restaurants, etc. A woman, Jew or Black may want to eat at one, and there is no real functional reason (well, aside from that kosher thing) to keep 'em seperate.
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:45:04 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 03:33:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:00:25 PM
though who would want a haircut from someone forced to provide it? :lol:
Who would want to go to a place where they are forced to serve you?
I mean, if you own a restaurant, in Canada or the USA, you can't refuse blacks, women, or jews if you feel like it.
Haircutting is slightly different from just buying stuff. :lol:
In any event, there is a functional reason why men's and women's haircutting is usually seperate having nothing whatever to do with religious taboos - that being that men and women tend, in general, to prefer different styles and procedures.
Given that the two are in fact widely seperated (though of course there also exist "unisex" salons), it simply doesn't appear to be as huge human rights issue that some Muslim dudes did not want to cut this chick's hair. As a matter of principle, sure, they should not turn women away. But the barber shop I go to (with a non-Muslim barber) has never, far as I know, had a woman want to have her hair cut there (though no doubt they would serve one who wanted a man's cut). Given that background seems a trivial non-issue.
This is different from restaurants, etc. A woman, Jew or Black may want to eat at one, and there is no real functional reason (well, aside from that kosher thing) to keep 'em seperate.
Yes.
And I'm presuming a kosher restaurant (I guess these things exist) wouldn't be that bothered about serving non-Jewish customers.
edit:This case is more analogous to demanding a Rabbi performs a circumcision on yourself, rather than some 1950s era bar/dinner not serving blacks.
I think there are sound practical and religious reasons for him not wanting to do so, rather than him demanding special exemption for his religion over other peoples 'rights'.
My barber shop (which is actually Neil's barber shop - he gave me the name of the place) theoretically will serve female customers. There is a price for female hair cuts on the wall. But in the dozen or more times I've been I've never, ever seen a woman get her hair cut there.
That's why I think I'm a lot more comfortable with a muslim barber not wanting to cut a woman's hair, then I would be a muslim restaurant not wanting to serve food to women. As a matter of reality hair cutting is very segregated between the sexes.
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2012, 03:50:24 PM
Yes.
And I'm presuming a kosher restaurant (I guess these things exist) wouldn't be that bothered about serving non-Jewish customers.
Certainly they exist. Kosher delis are a big thing in Toronto and Montreal - and of course New York. Needless to say, they don't give a damn if their customers are Jews or not. :lol:
The big problem with kosher delis is the sheer amount of food that tends to be dispensed at one sitting. Who can eat a sandwich as big as their head?
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:54:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2012, 03:50:24 PM
Yes.
And I'm presuming a kosher restaurant (I guess these things exist) wouldn't be that bothered about serving non-Jewish customers.
Certainly they exist. Kosher delis are a big thing in Toronto and Montreal - and of course New York. Needless to say, they don't give a damn if their customers are Jews or not. :lol:
The big problem with kosher delis is the sheer amount of food that tends to be dispensed at one sitting. Who can eat a sandwich as big as their head?
:D
Oh I get the Deli meme, but that I've never seen a restaurant that's prominently gone on about it being Jewish/serving only jewish cuisine.
What about a pig who refuses to eat Jews?
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:45:04 PM
it simply doesn't appear to be as huge human rights issue that some Muslim dudes did not want to cut this chick's hair.
I think you are slicing it a bit thin there. Discrimination is prohibited in relation to any service offered to the public.
Its why BB's work around is effective. The service is not provided to the public but only to members. Now the difficulty BB's Taliaban R US Club will run into is if they discriminate regarding who can be a member but at least they will be on stronger ground of they make it a religious club of some sort that has a particular fetish for cutting hair.
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2012, 03:58:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:54:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2012, 03:50:24 PM
Yes.
And I'm presuming a kosher restaurant (I guess these things exist) wouldn't be that bothered about serving non-Jewish customers.
Certainly they exist. Kosher delis are a big thing in Toronto and Montreal - and of course New York. Needless to say, they don't give a damn if their customers are Jews or not. :lol:
The big problem with kosher delis is the sheer amount of food that tends to be dispensed at one sitting. Who can eat a sandwich as big as their head?
:D
Oh I get the Deli meme, but that I've never seen a restaurant that's prominently gone on about it being Jewish/serving only jewish cuisine.
Marti took a group of us to a Jewish-themed restaurant in Krakow (not sure if owners were actually Jewish). My wife and I went to a Jewish-themed restaurant in Venice as well in the old Jewish quarter of the city. Both served exclusively "jewish" type food, though I don't know if they kept strict kosher or not.
Of course in those locations they're aiming more for the tourist crowd.
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2012, 03:58:08 PM
:D
Oh I get the Deli meme, but that I've never seen a restaurant that's prominently gone on about it being Jewish/serving only jewish cuisine.
It's often a selling point in North America. "Schwartz's Hebrew Delicatessen".
http://www.schwartzsdeli.com/
So they won't sell to Shebrews?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2012, 04:02:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:45:04 PM
it simply doesn't appear to be as huge human rights issue that some Muslim dudes did not want to cut this chick's hair.
I think you are slicing it a bit thin there. Discrimination is prohibited in relation to any service provided to the public.
Meh, sure it's a violation. My point is that, given that the industry is in practice widely segregated by sex for purely functional reasons, it doesn't appear to be
much of a violation.
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 04:06:16 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2012, 03:58:08 PM
:D
Oh I get the Deli meme, but that I've never seen a restaurant that's prominently gone on about it being Jewish/serving only jewish cuisine.
It's often a selling point in North America. "Schwartz's Hebrew Delicatessen".
http://www.schwartzsdeli.com/
Yeah, no kidding. Why would anyone waste time going to a non Jewish Deli?
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 04:09:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2012, 04:02:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:45:04 PM
it simply doesn't appear to be as huge human rights issue that some Muslim dudes did not want to cut this chick's hair.
I think you are slicing it a bit thin there. Discrimination is prohibited in relation to any service provided to the public.
Meh, sure it's a violation. My point is that, given that the industry is in practice widely segregated by sex for purely functional reasons, it doesn't appear to be much of a violation.
Your "functional" reason does not apply in this case. She has short hair. Why shouldnt she have access to a cheap haircut? Especially since the reason for denying her is in no way functional but simply that they dont want to serve any females.
In Sweden you cut your hair at a unisex place unless you're a weird old dude.
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2012, 04:14:21 PM
In Sweden you cut your hair at a unisex place unless you're a weird old dude.
Yeah, same here but there are a few "barber shops" still around. Its a cheap alternative.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2012, 04:15:37 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2012, 04:14:21 PM
In Sweden you cut your hair at a unisex place unless you're a weird old dude.
Yeah, same here but there are a few "barber shops" still around. Its a cheap alternative.
I switched to barber shops 8 years ago. I've been to several since, and each and every one had nobody working who was under the age of 65.
But they do a good cut (better than some unisex places) and charge less, so its win-win.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 04:20:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2012, 04:15:37 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2012, 04:14:21 PM
In Sweden you cut your hair at a unisex place unless you're a weird old dude.
Yeah, same here but there are a few "barber shops" still around. Its a cheap alternative.
I switched to barber shops 8 years ago. I've been to several since, and each and every one had nobody working who was under the age of 65.
But they do a good cut (better than some unisex places) and charge less, so its win-win.
I think you just proved Brain's point. :P
:zipped:
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 03:35:06 PM
Viper - the JHs and Mormons faced decades of serious discrimination before they were somewhat recognized.
Actually, I think it's still a doctor's call for minors. And I wouldn't call that "serious discrimination".
QuoteTaliban-style Islam is not recognized as legitimate in Canada.
But there's no difference with other religions.
Quote
You need to perhaps change it to "you can invent new religious practices, but it'll take decades or centuries before they're respected".
Still does not make a difference. Where do yo draw the line at what is acceptable practice or not for another cultural group?
If a Quebec business refused to cut hair to english speakers, would you find it acceptable?
I don't have enough hair to bother with nowadays, so I do it myself, no.6 all over then a no.4 on top/to tidy it up. :(
I have my wife use the clippers to cut mine-- usually a 3 or 4 all around.
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:45:04 PM
Haircutting is slightly different from just buying stuff. :lol:
not really, no.
Quote
In any event, there is a functional reason why men's and women's haircutting is usually seperate having nothing whatever to do with religious taboos - that being that men and women tend, in general, to prefer different styles and procedures.
The girl wants a dude's haircut... I find it ugly, but if that's what she wants, why not? There are women dressing as men and men dressing as women... Hey, weren't the CAF forced to pay and indemnity to a transvestite who was refused?
I could say that for obvious reasons, there are men's only fashion stores and women's only fashion store. Yet, who would forbid a men to buy women's clothing?
this is Canada, not Saudi Arabia.
Quote
Given that the two are in fact widely seperated (though of course there also exist "unisex" salons), it simply doesn't appear to be as huge human rights issue that some Muslim dudes did not want to cut this chick's hair.
This is where we are in agreement :)
QuoteAs a matter of principle, sure, they should not turn women away. But the barber shop I go to (with a non-Muslim barber) has never, far as I know, had a woman want to have her hair cut there (though no doubt they would serve one who wanted a man's cut). Given that background seems a trivial non-issue.
Most women would not want to have their cut at a barber shop. But if they wanted a man's cut they felt a traditional beauty salon could not provide, they could go there.
Quote
This is different from restaurants, etc. A woman, Jew or Black may want to eat at one, and there is no real functional reason (well, aside from that kosher thing) to keep 'em seperate.
Well, I don't know of any men who shops for make up, but imagine the kind of world we would have had if men couldn't shop for make up? No Boy George no 80s glam rock band... Well, ok, bad example :D but still, if some man wants a woman's hair cut, why not?
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 03:35:06 PM
Viper - the JHs and Mormons faced decades of serious discrimination before they were somewhat recognized.
Actually, I think it's still a doctor's call for minors. And I wouldn't call that "serious discrimination".
There was a lot of violence directed against Mormons in their early days--Joseph Smith himself was killed by a lynch mob. And the governor of Missouri issued an order expelling them from the state. I'd call that "serious discrimination" right there.
I'm not sure what you mean by "doctor's call for minors" in this context, unless you're suggesting that doctors in Canada have the right to hang underage Mormons or expell them from the province.
As for the woman being refused a haircut, another reason that blacks being refused service in restaurants and other public accomodations before the Civil Rights Act isn't a good analogy is that in many US communities, there weren't any eating establishments that would serve blacks. I find it difficult to believe that there likewise aren't any other places in Toronto would cut this woman's hair.
Quote from: dps on November 23, 2012, 04:52:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 03:35:06 PM
Viper - the JHs and Mormons faced decades of serious discrimination before they were somewhat recognized.
Actually, I think it's still a doctor's call for minors. And I wouldn't call that "serious discrimination".
There was a lot of violence directed against Mormons in their early days--Joseph Smith himself was killed by a lynch mob. And the governor of Missouri issued an order expelling them from the state. I'd call that "serious discrimination" right there.
I'm not sure what you mean by "doctor's call for minors" in this context, unless you're suggesting that doctors in Canada have the right to hang underage Mormons or expell them from the province.
re: "doctors call"
Witnesses prohibit a lot of medical procedures, including blood transfusions. Courts have said when it comes to young children they will step in to ensure children of witnesses get proper medical procedures even if the parents try and prevent it.
And yes - lots of these fringe groups faced very explicit discrimination and abuse earlier in history before they were somewhat accepted.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 04:56:29 PM
re: "doctors call"
Witnesses prohibit a lot of medical procedures, including blood transfusions. Courts have said when it comes to young children they will step in to ensure children of witnesses get proper medical procedures even if the parents try and prevent it.
Ah, I wasn't even thinking about Jehovah's Witnesses, just the Mormons. AFAIK, the Mormons don't have any a bunch of prohibitions about medical procedures like that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2012, 04:12:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 04:09:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2012, 04:02:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:45:04 PM
it simply doesn't appear to be as huge human rights issue that some Muslim dudes did not want to cut this chick's hair.
I think you are slicing it a bit thin there. Discrimination is prohibited in relation to any service provided to the public.
Meh, sure it's a violation. My point is that, given that the industry is in practice widely segregated by sex for purely functional reasons, it doesn't appear to be much of a violation.
Your "functional" reason does not apply in this case. She has short hair. Why shouldnt she have access to a cheap haircut? Especially since the reason for denying her is in no way functional but simply that they dont want to serve any females.
You are missing my point. I'm not saying that these guys are refusing her service for a functional reason. I'm also not saying refusal of service isn't a violation. I'm saying that, other than a purely symbolic matter, it isn't a big deal, as it is widely accepted that, practically speaking, haircutting is commonly sex-segregated in some establishments (and others not) . While I fully agree that in theory a woman has the right to demand service from a men-only barber shop and a man to demand service from a hairdressing salon, in practice it isn't a particularly significant right.
There are real issues in which people are deprived of meaningful rights to get excited about. I'm simply pointing out that, in my opinion and given the context, this isn't one of them.
Mind you, it will no doubt have the benefit of keeping some lawyers in gainful employment, so it has that going for it. :D
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 04:43:19 PM
Well, I don't know of any men who shops for make up, but imagine the kind of world we would have had if men couldn't shop for make up? No Boy George no 80s glam rock band... Well, ok, bad example :D but still, if some man wants a woman's hair cut, why not?
I don't have a problem with that, and I'm sure they could find a place that would do it. However, I'd not get all upset if some women's salon person didn't want to give a 300 pound trucker dude a bikini wax.
Hm I often take issue with radicals and islamists taking offence, but I'm not getting the outrage over this case; they're religiously forbidden from putting their hands in other women's hair, so only cut mens hair, they're the only loser, missing out on a potential doubling of their income.
No doubt in a generation a new bread of trendy Muslim hairdresser will 'evolve' and run unisex establishments.
Similarly Sikhs are allowed to not wear a motorcycle helmet, because it's an article of their faith and it doesn't detract from other peoples rights, the only ones effected are their own increased mortality rates and risk of serious injury in a crash.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 03:09:42 PM
Except you can't just invent a religious practice.
Of course not. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 05:12:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2012, 04:12:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 04:09:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2012, 04:02:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:45:04 PM
it simply doesn't appear to be as huge human rights issue that some Muslim dudes did not want to cut this chick's hair.
I think you are slicing it a bit thin there. Discrimination is prohibited in relation to any service provided to the public.
Meh, sure it's a violation. My point is that, given that the industry is in practice widely segregated by sex for purely functional reasons, it doesn't appear to be much of a violation.
Your "functional" reason does not apply in this case. She has short hair. Why shouldnt she have access to a cheap haircut? Especially since the reason for denying her is in no way functional but simply that they dont want to serve any females.
You are missing my point. I'm not saying that these guys are refusing her service for a functional reason. I'm also not saying refusal of service isn't a violation. I'm saying that, other than a purely symbolic matter, it isn't a big deal, as it is widely accepted that, practically speaking, haircutting is commonly sex-segregated in some establishments (and others not) . While I fully agree that in theory a woman has the right to demand service from a men-only barber shop and a man to demand service from a hairdressing salon, in practice it isn't a particularly significant right.
There are real issues in which people are deprived of meaningful rights to get excited about. I'm simply pointing out that, in my opinion and given the context, this isn't one of them.
Mind you, it will no doubt have the benefit of keeping some lawyers in gainful employment, so it has that going for it. :D
I am not missing it, I am saying it makes no sense. Once you start arguing that protection of rights should be context based in the way you suggest then you are simply reinforcing stereotypes. You know the thing that the Human Rights Code is expressly attempting to stop.
I completely disagree with the "you can't invent religious practice" crowd and that religious should get exemptions from general legislation only because their crazy, discriminatory shit was invented a thousand years ago. This is bullshit that flies in the face of equality under law.
That being said, a hair salon can advertise as serving only male or female clientele and this is acceptable under law. Of course if they advertised as serving both genders and then refused to cut hair of a female client, they would be in breach of law.
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 03:45:04 PMHaircutting is slightly different from just buying stuff. :lol:
What about running a hostel out of your home? It has been found illegal for a Christian couple to refuse to give a one-marital-bed room to a gay couple in the UK recently.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 03:35:06 PM
Viper - the JHs and Mormons faced decades of serious discrimination before they were somewhat recognized. Taliban-style Islam is not recognized as legitimate in Canada.
You need to perhaps change it to "you can invent new religious practices, but it'll take decades or centuries before they're respected".
doesn't really change the fact that you can make up religious practices on the fly. Scientology for example.
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2012, 03:06:23 AM
That being said, a hair salon can advertise as serving only male or female clientele and this is acceptable under law.
Source?
That the Human Rights Code was trying to stop? I thought that the Human Rights Code only existed to keep lawyer-priests employed?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2012, 07:13:30 PM
I am not missing it, I am saying it makes no sense. Once you start arguing that protection of rights should be context based in the way you suggest then you are simply reinforcing stereotypes. You know the thing that the Human Rights Code is expressly attempting to stop.
Except that having "barbers" serving mostly only men and "hair salons" serving mostly only women was not originally based on "stereotypes", but on function.
Take the opposite case - some hairy Muslim dude wants some women's waxing salon to do his bikini line. Certainly under the Code bikini-waxing is a "service" and certainly one cannot discriminate based on sex - but it hardly seems like the occasion for bringing the full weight of the majesty of the law down on some hapless bikini-waxer.
It doesn't even matter whether the person agrees to wax the dude's bikini line or not - under the Code, simply having a sign reading "women's waxing salon" is, in theory, discriminatory and thus illegal:
Quote13. (1) A right under Part I is infringed by a person who publishes or displays before the public or causes the publication or display before the public of any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, or other similar representation that indicates the intention of the person to infringe a right under Part I or that is intended by the person to incite the infringement of a right under Part I.
However, usually one can rely on the good sense of those tasked with enforcing the law not to go around enforcing penny-ante stuff like that.
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2012, 03:06:23 AM
That being said, a hair salon can advertise as serving only male or female clientele and this is acceptable under law. Of course if they advertised as serving both genders and then refused to cut hair of a female client, they would be in breach of law.
They often do of course, but in Ontario at least it is in theory illegal. See my post above.
Maybe a year ago, there was a walkup to the salon I go to who had an ethnic hairstyle. The lady was told that they don't do ethnic hairstyles because that isn't their specialty, and she got rather upset (she was told they would sit her if she really wanted, but they couldn't vouch for the results).
Sometimes the barbers here suck at cutting my "ethnic" hair, but they never turn me away, even though sometimes they really should. :glare:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 25, 2012, 02:24:41 PM
Maybe a year ago, there was a walkup to the salon I go to who had an ethnic hairstyle. The lady was told that they don't do ethnic hairstyles because that isn't their specialty, and she got rather upset (she was told they would sit her if she really wanted, but they couldn't vouch for the results).
I had the reverse problem once, in a fit of absent-mindedness I walked into a Nigerian hairdresser's (in London), settled myself down and asked for a short-back-and-sides. It seemed to be taking a rather long time so I started to pay attention to my surroundings. All the clients were black as were all the hairdressers, the walls had pics of various fantastic coiffures, again, all black :P
The woman cutting my hair was erring on the side of caution, after what seemed an age she fiddled about with a mirror as they do and I paid my £20 and left, with my hair a good millimetre shorter. Needless to say, I went to a barber later on that week and got a proper cut for a fiver.