Well someone finally did it! Someone took Muslims to a HRC

[Michael Hardner]

Big diff between excusing somebody from certain duties or letting them wear their headgear, and allowing them to discriminate against others.

People are allowed to discriminate as a right of religious expression. That's not in question here. The question is how much can we/should we accommodate that ?

How do we allow Sikhs to discriminate against others?

We allow Catholics, Jews, and Christians to do so.

[cybercoma]

sure but it's agreed to ahead of time...it's the employer who is responsible...the same would apply to me if I hired a devout christian that could not work on sundays...the work expectations should be discussed up front before someone is hired and both need to agree...

In Ontario anyway an employer cannot refuse to hire you because you refuse to work on Sundays for religious reasons. Of course, they also don't have to disclose why you weren't hired either. So there's really no way of enforcing it.

[cybercoma]

So it seems like Muslims vs progressive women resulted in a win for the Muslims in the first round. Stay tuned for round 2...ding,ding ding...hahaha

Why would she want to get a haircut from a Muslim anyway? She might get beheaded, right?

[Michael Hardner]

So does every christian that works on sunday. The standard is REASONABLE ACCOMODATION. In this case a person whos religion places severe restrictions on contact with the public has taken a job touching the public.

If my religion forbid me from touching rubber, and I applied for a job at a tire repair shop, thats not reasonable accomodation.

Christians who are devout don't work on Sunday, and can probably make a case for not doing so. There are religious holidays too. Not too many employers would force people to work on religious days.

This person works in a men's hairstyle place, presumably with other barbers who can touch women's hair. There are not many women who need to go there, and there is no reason to force this man to do this work, except to force him to do something against his religion. The accommodation is reasonable.

As for your analogy: You could wear gloves.

Applicants should read that job description and decide if it conflicts with their faith or not, and they shouldnt take the job if it does.

Maybe - but in this case I'd add an argument that this person couldn't have reasonable expected he'd have to cut women's hair. I doubt it's ever happened in that shop before.

[Michael Hardner]

No, but they should make it a practice going forward to inform clientele that they will cut a woman's hair by appointment only, so they can make the appropriate arrangements.

Again, that sounds reasonable. But let's be frank - isn't it more likely that she's trying to force this person to do something against his religion ?

[Canuckistani]

People are allowed to discriminate as a right of religious expression. That's not in question here. The question is how much can we/should we accommodate that ?

We allow Catholics, Jews, and Christians to do so.

Catholics and Christians?

Examples? I don't agree with any religion being able to discriminate. Like the Muslin tax driver who had to allow guide dogs in his taxi.

[g_bambino]

gyms are an exception due to sexual predators...

Shouldn't that make the discrimination worse? Some men are sexual predators, ergo ban all men. Would that argument work if, say, "men" was replaced with "Muslims" and "sexual predator" replaced with "terrorist"?

I've been in gyms where there are predators that come only to stare at the women (and I'm not talking about normal male glances) I've seen them and they are indeed creepy...

In going, over two years, to three different gyms in Toronto, I have never seen anything remotely similar to what you describe happen even once.

[ed.: +]

Edited November 15, 2012 by g_bambino

[Michael Hardner]

So it seems like Muslims vs progressive women resulted in a win for the Muslims in the first round. Stay tuned for round 2...ding,ding ding...hahaha

Depends on the discussion. If there was a public restaurant where they didn't allow women, I'd probably take the side that it's not reasonable.

[Canuckistani]

This person works in a men's hairstyle place, presumably with other barbers who can touch women's hair.

Actually it's a Muslim shop. They're all Muslims there and all said they can't touch a woman.

[Michael Hardner]

Why would she want to get a haircut from a Muslim anyway? She might get beheaded, right?

Oh my ! You're right. Merlin won't be going there anytime soon.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't agree with any religion being able to discriminate. Like the Muslin tax driver who had to allow guide dogs in his taxi.

My wife can`t work in the Catholic School Board. Neither can someone who is openly gay.

[guyser]

Catholics and Christians?

Examples?

St Mikes Hospital and abortions.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually it's a Muslim shop. They're all Muslims there and all said they can't touch a woman.

Really. Ok.... maybe I`m turning around on this argument then. They`re effectively banning women from the shop altogether, which is not reasonable IMO.

[cybercoma]

Again, that sounds reasonable. But let's be frank - isn't it more likely that she's trying to force this person to do something against his religion ?

I absolutely think that's the case. She had an unusual request for the shop. It's not a systematic issue of women being treated as second-class citizens. The vast majority of women wouldn't go there to get a men's haircut anyway. I'm sure she was offended, but the HRC thing is a bit much imo.

[Merlin]

Oh my ! You're right. Merlin won't be going there anytime soon.

Ha! I don't think I am being fairly represented. Muslims are the ones have been beheading people lately. Not all Muslims behead people or are even in favor of beheading people of course. I would even contend that most Muslims are moderate. Most Muslims are simply going through their lives just trying to raise a family and lead good lives as it sounds what this guy is trying to do.

It's only the fanatical ones we need to be worried about, the problem is that there is no way of knowing which ones are fanatical and that is the problem. This is what scares me and many other people. When the Muslims come out only when the strange music is playing and all the women have only eyes showing it's scary for a lot of people.

If this Muslim man doesn't want to serve women, who cares? He is only losing money and if he loses enough money his business will fail and we won't have to worry about it anymore.

[Sleipnir]

Muslims are the ones have been beheading people lately.

Not all Muslims behead people or are even in favor of beheading people of course.

Most Muslims are simply going through their lives just trying to raise a family and lead good lives as it sounds what this guy is trying to do.

All Muslims...not all Muslims...most Muslims...make up your mind

Edited November 15, 2012 by Sleipnir

[GostHacked]

Is there not some disclaimer usually where service can be denied for any reason given by the owner of the business?

Non issue here.

[Boges]

Is there not some disclaimer usually where service can be denied for any reason given by the owner of the business?

Non issue here.

Well the BC HRC awarded a gay couple $4,000 from Christians that denied them a group because they are Gay. HRC don't need to follow the law. That's why it's a kangaroo court.

[Merlin]

All Muslims...not all Muslims...most Muslims...make up your mind

it might help if you read the context of how I used those terms instead of cherry picking them.

[guyser]

Is there not some disclaimer usually where service can be denied for any reason given by the owner of the business?

.

Nope

Unless you mean those signs that say...

We don't serve......

Jews

Women

Blacks

Whites

Disabled

In which case knock yourself out

[guyser]

it might help if you read the context of how I used those terms instead of cherry picking them.

Nobodies cherry picking.

Those are your words,own them and fess up.

Are you scared when the local concert hall lets out? You know, that weird music and weird dress those kids have.....Yikes, scary!

[cybercoma]

HRC don't need to follow the law.

How do they make decisions then?

[Boges]

How do they make decisions then?

I don't know but why wouldn't this lady simply sue these people if she felt she was truly wronged. Human Rights Tribunals have a history of awarding money for things that have no legal standing. See Ezra Levant's Shakedown book where he talks about being dragged before it for publishing the Mohamed Cartoon.

[Merlin]

Are you scared when the local concert hall lets out? You know, that weird music and weird dress those kids have.....Yikes, scary!

If those same kids are part of a misogynistic, geo political/religious movement who's laws are ruling some nations and has offshoots that are extremely violent, antisemitic and anti western way of life, then yes I would be.

[wyly]

something I've noticed on Kijij classifieds...job postings where the employers insist applicants be a particular ethnicity, wtf! I've seen a lot of them, if I posted an ad requiring whites only all sorts of hell would come down on my head, it wouldn't be tolerated and shouldn't...

and how many Asian resturants hire non Asians? one of my kids pointed it out to me, she works as a server while in school and asked why she never applied to a nearby eatery "they don't hire white kids dad" and she's right I've never seen any white kids working there ever...what if McDonalds only hired white kids would happen then?