A question of 'rights' and wrongs.

[Sleipnir]

But the lady had other non troublesome alternatives. The Muslim was confronted with a dilemma. Is their no superior right in your opinion? In mine, the lessor need was that of the lady. She simply had to be considerate and go elsewhere. Why I wonder had she chosen this particular barber one might ask?

In my opinion when it comes to cases like these, I ask myself - who is being discriminated and can that person change?

The woman was being discriminated for being a female and she can't change that. The barbers claims to be discriminated because of their belief, but can the barbers change that? Yes! By changing their belief structure.

Hence the fault lies with the barbers.

[Sleipnir]

Why I wonder had she chosen this particular barber one might ask?

That's beside the point, the question is about who is being discriminated and by whom.

[bleeding heart]

In my opinion when it comes to cases like these, I ask myself - who is being discriminated and can that person change?

The woman was being discriminated for being a female and she can't change that. The barbers claims to be discriminated because of their belief, but can the barbers change that? Yes! By changing their belief structure.

Hence the fault lies with the barbers.

True. But it is discrimination with roughly zero bad effect, in and of itself. I think that point trumps the other.

the question is about who is being discriminated and by whom.

I disagree. "Discrimination" is not something that carries innate evils. The only measurement we can have of what's wrong with discrimination is what are the possible effects of the discrimination.

Edited December 5, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Peeves]

Though I hate to be picayune (not really I love it ), I do love words and logomachy. That one dares to question my usage is but an opportune and fortuitous occurrence which seldom happens.

Words tickle me. I've written dozens of poems that might use uncommon words for my own pleasure and effect. I certainly encourage word smiths to look any up they are unfamiliar with., as I do.

On the other hand, taking umbrage simply to attempt to demean is unworthy of response...unless of course I choose to do so.

A Limerick

For my friend guyser.

I once knew a statuesque ecdysiast

that performed at a local symposiast

A true blond that was factual,

for she bared to au naturel,

delighting the voyeuristic enthusiast.

[]Deeves

The Tonsorialist

Fantastic new blog coming out of Toronto, The Tonsorialist covers antiques, art, tools, images, video’s, just about everything cool related to the world of barbering.

Dropping regular new items since August this year, The Tonsorialist is fresh and a good daily read.

This week they dropped “Football HEADS” a look at some the world’s top soccer players who influence cuts in barbershops across the globe.

Another favourite is “Antique Of The Week” as they search the web for the weird and wonderful barbering antiquities from yesteryear.

Add it to your favourites and check back here soon for when we talk to the man behind it.

THE TONSORIALIST

Edited December 5, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

That's beside the point, the question is about who is being discriminated and by whom.

Yeh I sorta got that. I brought it up only because certain gays were targeting bed and breakfast homes they knew had religious convictions against gays...........Another perhaps selective choice for an agenda?

Edited December 5, 2012 by Peeves

[Mighty AC]

Your limerick reminded me of a situation, in which, I believe it is acceptable for an employer to discriminate on the basis of both age and appearance.

[guyser]

Yeh I sorta got that. I brought it up only because certain gays were targeting bed and breakfast homes they knew had religious convictions against gays...........

Oh do tell us who these certain gays are.

ETA, you used the word incorrectly. I have run across that word numerous times, generally in the correct usage, but.....not always, obviously. This is one of those times. You are not Conrad Black.

[Guest Peeves]

error

Edited December 6, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

http://www.hawaiifre...Nationwide.aspx

http://www.guardian....e-bed-breakfast

http://www.dailymail...mpensation.html

Christian B&B owners who refused bed to gay couple ordered to pay £3,000 in compensation

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2EDJ9nTQU

http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/sexual-orientation/another-christian-bb-owner-targeted-by-homosexuals-and-being-taken-t

http://article.wn.com/view/2012/07/20/Canadian_B_B_Owners_Who_Refused_Room_To_Gay_Couple_Fined_450/

Of course one might wonder if the lady wanting a haircut selectively chose this Muslim barber?

Still, she has other choices.Certainly as indicated in the OP, "That will be occurring with more frequency given the tribunals and the influx of societal influences and immigrants and such."

I can't see the situation changing for the better, a church as I recall faced problems when a gay couple rented the hall and were returned their down payment. In my mind if the 'offended' party has other choices, then the business should have some rights as well.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

Your limerick reminded me of a situation, in which, I believe it is acceptable for an employer to discriminate on the basis of both age and appearance.

I think there was an issue at a bar/restaurant in Toronto?

[guyser]

You are neither a school marm nor a castigator by qualification.

Really? Who knew?

You certainly haven't gained my respect,

Pomposity for pomposity sake is not something I want respect from.

When it comes to a case of logomchy (sic) either with or over words, you are armed with a toy pea shooter vs a nuke device. Go and read a book where

you can "See Spot Run."

A pea shooter perhaps, but then again, I m not the one running to the thesaurus to look up words . when you do , please check the usage, you need their help

By the way , logomachy is the correct spelling.

[guyser]

http://www.hawaiifre...Nationwide.aspx

Lets see, Three cases referenced, two suits started by the ACLU, the third by a gay legal defence fund.

http://www.guardian....e-bed-breakfast

The law states they cant do what the B&B owners did, Not hard to see why, they offer a business to let rooms , and they refused because they were gay.

Not to mention the defendants didnt have to pay a dime of their defense so no worries there.

http://www.dailymail...mpensation.html

Same case as #2.

So, I will ask again, but I dont expect an answer.....Who are these certain gays were targeting bed and breakfast homes they knew had religious convictions against gays ?

You certainly have not answered that question with your links.

[Merlin]

It wouldnt happen because our common law rules everything.

Think Civil Law , both parties agree.

Any of your business? No , so dont worry.

And please, stay away from any Mosques. They have their eyeballs on you all the time. Stay home, forever, stay safe. Probably best not to use a computer too, they can track you online and find out where you live in Halton.

ohh.....scarey!

Sharia Law ignores any countries laws. Muslims follow only God's Laws. Radical Muslims do have any Civil Law.

Women being legally systematically marginalized in my community is my business.

I am always careful when passing mosques, some of the people seem nice but other times they do not look friendly. When people leave Church they are smiling, when they leave the mosque they do not look happy which makes me very nervous.

I live in Toronto, not Halton.

[Guest Peeves]

error

Edited December 6, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

Sharia Law ignores any countries laws. Muslims follow only God's Laws. Radical Muslims do have any Civil Law.

Women being legally systematically marginalized in my community is my business.

I am always careful when passing mosques, some of the people seem nice but other times they do not look friendly. When people leave Church they are smiling, when they leave the mosque they do not look happy which makes me very nervous.

I live in Toronto, not Halton.

Sharia law is a draconian anachronistic affront to civilization and women in particular.

[guyser]

Sharia Law ignores any countries laws. Muslims follow only God's Laws. Radical Muslims do have any Civil Law.

Sadly you could not be more wrong.

In this country we have one set of criminal laws. Anything to do with criminality is covered under those laws of this land. In civil court, had Sharia be entrenched, then both parties w3ould agree to the outcome. They approve of the process beforehand.

No worries, it doesnt affect you one whit.

Women being legally systematically marginalized in my community is my business.

To what end do you get out and try to improve on the lot of all women? Probably nothing, but nobody buys your fake concern only for Muslim women, nobody.

Sell you half baked wares eslewhere.

.

I live in Toronto, not Halton.

Sure you do ...sure..of course.

Via RR # 25........ right?

[guyser]

Thanks I missed the typo. I fixed it.

BTW I now will think of guyser as c-r-e-t-i-n-o-u-s., d-i-d-a-c-t-i-c- , no offense.Please check spelling.

No offense taken.

Tends to happen when one cannot answer a question

Still no answer coming re who those people are huh?

Probably because they didnt exist. Not a surprise really.

[Sleipnir]

Yeh I sorta got that. I brought it up only because certain gays were targeting bed and breakfast homes they knew had religious convictions against gays...........Another perhaps selective choice for an agenda?

Agenda or not, the way I see it - if the gays weren't discriminated, the owner wouldn't need to fork over 3,000 some odd fine. The owner could have simply accepted them and thwart their agenda.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Guest Peeves]

Agenda or not, the way I see it - if the gays weren't discriminated, the owner wouldn't need to fork over 3,000 some odd fine. The owner could have simply accepted them and thwart their agenda.

You're right, and the gay couple might have considered the beliefs of the B&B (read lady and Barber Shop), and booked another place since many are available. Seems to me consideration for others is quickly being surrendered to causes and agendas with little thought for reason and respect of others.

[cybercoma]

Pretty funny swing you talking about having consideration for others, while blaming the people that had no consideration paid to them. It's those than discriminate that need this lesson, not the patrons.

[Sleipnir]

Seems to me consideration for others is quickly being surrendered to causes and agendas with little thought for reason and respect of others.

The gay couple and female might be better off taking their business elsewhere, but discrimination is discrimination regardless of how you dress it.

[Guest Peeves]

I really don't disagree with that. I concede her rights were denied. I also think that if in this instance she had said OK I understand, and then gone elsewhere it would have been the more gracious thing to have done.

Now there is another case where a disabled man was refused service because he had a working dog. That is where I would draw a line and demand my rights. I believe he should not have been inconvenienced.

The haircut case doesn't rise to the same level in my mind.

[Guest Peeves]

how far can this be taken?

How about a man wanting a cut at a beauty parlor?

Or, a woman wanting access to a (male) gym?

I bet you can come up with other examples that will stretch traditional mores?

http://www.xtra.ca/p...unds-12751.aspx

The Ontario Human Rights Code states that business owners can’t deny service based on sex.

“The law is the law, but this is my religion. But I am not discriminating against anyone,” Mahrouk insists. “It is against my religion.”

On the surface, the Human Rights Code says Terminal Barber Shop appears to have discriminated against McGregor based on her sex.

But it’s not that simple, says Pascale Demers, communications officer for the OHRC. This is a case of competing rights: the individual right of a person not to be discriminated against based on their sex or gender and the right of a person to hold religious beliefs.

“Generally speaking, services that are offered to the public should be made available to everyone without discrimination, based on sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability,” Demers says. “Each side will bring forward a defence that their rights trump the other.”

She says it’s a case that presents new terrain for the Tribunal. “We have been unable to find any cases like this. It’s unique. It will be looked at in an individual context, each with its own unique set of evidence. The tribunal will make a decision based on its set of facts presented to them.”

No rights are absolute, Demers says, and there is no hierarchy of rights.

“We look at cases individually,” she says. “We have to look at ways both sides can be accommodated. But, absolutely, there will be instances where one side will be dissatisfied, though they are claiming a right.”

[jbg]

The recent case of a woman wanting a hair cut at a Muslim shop brought differing rights into conflict.

The religious rights of the Muslim vs the right to be free from discrimination (gender)

This (link) gives a good synopsis of the state of human rights.

[Sleipnir]

how far can this be taken?

How about a man wanting a cut at a beauty parlor?

Or, a woman wanting access to a (male) gym?

The main differences between B&B / barber shop and beauty parlor / male gym is the ground for discrimination and the reasons behind it.