tailgater
12 years ago

I'm not sure this incident really has anything to do with her being gay either but it sounds like she made it one... 😟

DrafterX wrote:




Ding ding ding!
We have a winner.

tailgater
12 years ago

It's for you because I find your input on these odd issues surrounding rights to be interesting.

The lesbian issue is a red-herring, as any woman who wanted a man's-style cut and doesn't like hairdressers could find herself in the same situation.

This actually comes down to women's rights vs religious rights.

victor809 wrote:



It SHOULD be women vs religion. But Butch from Toronto made it a gay thing.
Hence my aversion towards militant activists.


victor809
12 years ago

It SHOULD be women vs religion. But Butch from Toronto made it a gay thing.
Hence my aversion towards militant activists.


tailgater wrote:



What the author highlights isn't necessarily important. At the root, the woman was complaining that a barber shop was insisting on being "males only" for religious reasons.

This isn't significantly different from the bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding...

I'd be curious to know whether people would support this barber shop if this happened in AZ....
tailgater
12 years ago

What the author highlights isn't necessarily important. At the root, the woman was complaining that a barber shop was insisting on being "males only" for religious reasons.

This isn't significantly different from the bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding...

I'd be curious to know whether people would support this barber shop if this happened in AZ....

victor809 wrote:



The woman complained because she has been programmed to do so. It's in the LGBT bylaws.


And the people in Arizona would boycott this barber.
I mean, he is Muslim, isn't he?

victor809
12 years ago

The woman complained because she has been programmed to do so. It's in the LGBT bylaws.


And the people in Arizona would boycott this barber.
I mean, he is Muslim, isn't he?

tailgater wrote:



Oh don't be silly... she didn't complain because she's lesbian.
Honestly, I suspect the entire thing was a setup, and that she purposely went there knowing she'd be refused service. I mean, what are the odds that she'd stumble into a Muslim run barbershop when she randomly decided to get a man's haircut?

But staged or not, she was refused service based on a religious reason... something which AZ legislators theoretically support.

I don't know where AZ would land on the decision. I've come to the conclusion that there's entire groups of people who's motivations I have zero ability to understand. That's one of the reasons I find some of these threads interesting.
PorknBeans
12 years ago
I dont see why any business owner should be forced to go against there religous beliefs to seve anyone

oh and nice attempt

the whole problem here is the queers seem to think the world revolves around them and they are special cause they are queer

newsflash for the homos act like a normal person and you will be treated just like everyone else
your lust for someone of the same sex does not make you special
99 percent of people could care less what you suck or lick so stop flaunting your gayness like its some badge of honor
victor809
12 years ago

I dont see why any business owner should be forced to go against there religous beliefs to seve anyone

oh and nice attempt

the whole problem here is the queers seem to think the world revolves around them and they are special cause they are queer

newsflash for the homos act like a normal person and you will be treated just like everyone else
your lust for someone of the same sex does not make you special
99 percent of people could care less what you suck or lick so stop flaunting your gayness like its some badge of honor

PorknBeans wrote:



But the gayness wasn't a factor. Her being a woman was.

The gay angle is just a smokescreen you're falling for.
PorknBeans
12 years ago
no ones falling for it if that is the way its playing it
tailgater
12 years ago

But the gayness wasn't a factor. Her being a woman was.

The gay angle is just a smokescreen you're falling for.

victor809 wrote:



I disagree.
If this was not a "set up", it is unlikely that a hetero woman would have even thought about making this a human rights issue. Most people aren't programmed to think that way. Getting jilted at an establishment would cause most people to do nothing, complain on yelp.com, or write a scathing letter of contempt to the owner.
But society has taught the LGBT community to swing away whenever they don't get extra sprinkles on their cone.

If it was a set up, as you suggest, then it was poorly conceived.
A hetero woman would have singled out the muslim as the bad guy with much more emphasis on their unjust religious views. The gay thing clouds the issue.

DrafterX
12 years ago
are there Chik-Filas in Canada.>?? 😕
victor809
12 years ago

I disagree.
If this was not a "set up", it is unlikely that a hetero woman would have even thought about making this a human rights issue. Most people aren't programmed to think that way. Getting jilted at an establishment would cause most people to do nothing, complain on yelp.com, or write a scathing letter of contempt to the owner.
But society has taught the LGBT community to swing away whenever they don't get extra sprinkles on their cone.

If it was a set up, as you suggest, then it was poorly conceived.
A hetero woman would have singled out the muslim as the bad guy with much more emphasis on their unjust religious views. The gay thing clouds the issue.

tailgater wrote:



You're stereotyping a bit. I know plenty of people, gay, straight, male, female who get incensed and human rightsy whenever they feel like their "god given rights" are trampled on. Hell, people here (putative straight males) practically hang themselves on a first amendment cross if their threads are pulled.

Remember, the author of this opinion article is the one highlighting the "lesbian vs the muslim" thing, not necessarily the woman making the complaint. And in canada the Human Rights Tribunal sounds like it covers any discrimination (so discriminating against a woman would count)...
HockeyDad
12 years ago
Lesbian ranks higher than woman on the "protected class". You gotta go with the higher point preference.
tailgater
12 years ago

You're stereotyping a bit.

victor809 wrote:



Well rub my belly and call me Buddha!
victor809
12 years ago

Well rub my belly and call me Buddha!

tailgater wrote:



No... fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice etc etc...

Last time you had a tiny P E N I S hidden under that belly.
tailgater
12 years ago

No... fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice etc etc...

Last time you had a tiny P E N I S hidden under that belly.

victor809 wrote:



What did it look like?
I haven't seen it in years...


bloody spaniard
12 years ago
^ I heard it looks like an orange cheeto, crumbles, and grows back


Faith McGregor(sp?) knew that to trump a nonwhite muslim barber she would have to be a lesbian woman in order to have a legit discrimination whine. In the past, human rights' commissions have been suckers for gay rights. Alas, it may not be in the cards this time even with that added goodie. Being a hetero (or even gay) white woman may not count for much these days when it comes to outrage that is, UNLESS you're going up against the universally hated and reviled white (preferably Christian) man. Then all she has to do is scream, soil her undies, and point.

Stay tuned.
fatwa at 11
tailgater
12 years ago
Note to self:
Never invite bloody over for Cheetos.


Buckwheat
12 years ago

But staged or not, she was refused service based on a religious reason... something which AZ legislators theoretically support.

victor809 wrote:



Arizona and pretty much all legislators support whatever has the best chance of getting them re-elected. This actually makes sense since they are trying to please the majority of their constituents. [sarcasm]
borndead1
12 years ago

mmmhhmmm...

And who would you like to not conduct business with? Whoever I choose. Is there any specific group you don't think you should be required to serve? My private thoughts are none of the government's business. And why do you think you shouldn't be required to serve them? Because as a free human being, I have the right to free association, which is also the right to free non-association. And because I am opposed to forced labor.

victor809 wrote:

victor809
12 years ago

Whoever I choose.

borndead1 wrote:



This is a very interesting idea.

On it's face, I would tend to agree with you. We should be allowed to freely allow or disallow customers for whatever reason we PERSONALLY have.

The problem arises, as with most problems, when people organize.

Let's say you don't trust gingers (really, who does... sick little soulless things), you don't want to serve them at your restaurant. Well, the local ginger family doesn't really want to give you business for being so anti-ginger so they're cool with that. But then the barber, the two markets, the seed store and auto repair store all realize that gingers are disgusting untrustworthy creatures as well and stop serving them. Suddenly, it's impossible for the ginger family to actually live in the town.

Now, that's fine... I mean, they're gingers...

But laws like that are in place to protect actual human beings (not gingers) from being overwhelmed when a majority decides to essentially deny them equality through a de-facto action. We read about these stories as only one-offs... oh, a single bakery somewhere, who cares... or a single diner somewhere, who cares. If it were only those one-off kooks doing it, then it would never be a problem. But we know through history that if it isn't illegal, people organize and it becomes a problem.
Users browsing this topic