quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

It appears that at this point, the Governors are trying to back pedal without admitting it. Any guesses on how this will turn out?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The religious "freedom" bills are bullshit. What freedom was being threatened? The freedom to worship as you choose? No. Merely the freedom to discriminate.
As far as the Hindu example, it is the same as the Christian one on the other threads here. If you cannot bear to serve all customers equally, don't get into an industry which provides service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
In the US, we're so accustomed to that mythical "separation" between church & state

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If you watch the back pedaling, the Republicans are busy saying.. "no,no,no it's a misunderstanding and there was no intent to discriminate." It's going to be hard to deal with any blurry edge between rights of conscience and rights of those being discriminated against when there's so much dissembling going on.

---

quote:

---

the Lord laid it on my heart that gay people aren’t the only people we should deny cake to. This got me pretty excited, because I really enjoy saying “no cake for you!”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
10 situations where Xn bakers should refuse to bake

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
In the US, we're so accustomed to that mythical "separation" between church & state

---

And rightly so, since it's not--thank God!--mythical at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why is that a problem? Genuinely mystified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why is that a problem? Genuinely mystified.

---

It's a problem for anyone who wishes to observe Sabbaths or their equivalent or holidays relevant to their religious traditions when they happen to belong to a "minority" faith -- especially for multi-day observances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
In some ways, it's unfortunate that this issue has so immediately been flagged as discriminatory specifically against gay people; important as I think it is not to discriminate against people on the basis of characteristics they can't change, it's also important to protect individuals' rights to freedom of conscience.

However such a law works out in practice, here's what strikes me:

What if religious people sincerely wish to conduct the businesses with which they support themselves in accordance with their religious beliefs?

Say I am Hindu. I sell pots and pans. It's against my beliefs to cook or eat beef.

However, when a customer enters my shop, I don't know how he plans to use the pot he asks to buy from me. May I ask him? Must he tell me? If he's cooking steak, may I refuse to sell him anything in which he could conceivably carry out this (to me) sacrilegious act?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's not at all easy to practice one's religion faithfully and never have it impact anyone but oneself. What of the person who truly believes he cannot work Sundays? The teen who will not skip church for soccer practice at the same time? The secretary instructed by her boss to lie to a caller? The employee told to be loyal to coworkers and claim to know nothing about a department-wide breach of policy when investigators ask? The notary public under great pressure to falsify her own records and say she witnessed a signature on a given day because telling the truth would put a family at risk of deportation? ̣̣This last is why I refused to become a notary when I had the opportunity. It would have put me at the center of so many conflicts between telling the truth and compassion/family loyalty/community loyalty...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Everyone should have the right to practice their beliefs as long as that does not include inflicting them on anyone else.

not sure why this is so difficult.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
... The staff person's religious modesty rules require him to keep his upper arms and legs covered in mixed company (there are no public pools in our area with one-sex swimming sessions). The pool requires swim trunks in the pool and refuses to bend (and we've already switched pools twice); the staff person must either stay out of the pool, or violate modesty rules.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's not at all easy to practice one's religion faithfully and never have it impact anyone but oneself. What of the person who truly believes he cannot work Sundays? The teen who will not skip church for soccer practice at the same time? The secretary instructed by her boss to lie to a caller? The employee told to be loyal to coworkers and claim to know nothing about a department-wide breach of policy when investigators ask? The notary public under great pressure to falsify her own records and say she witnessed a signature on a given day because telling the truth would put a family at risk of deportation? ̣̣This last is why I refused to become a notary when I had the opportunity. It would have put me at the center of so many conflicts between telling the truth and compassion/family loyalty/community loyalty...

---

Only the first two examples have anything to do with religion; an employer would be required to make reasonable efforts to accommodate the employee, but playing soccer is a voluntary activity. The other situations could apply to anyone of any or no faith. Christians are not the only folks who think it is important to tell the truth, nor are they the only folks who are sometimes pressured to do otherwise.

---

Did I say so?

But you are in effect defining as "religious" only activities that do not apply to the majority of the human race. Essentially, you are ripping the guts out of religion; because everybody will admit that truth telling is far more central to religion than, say, observing a particular worship hour or day, or wearing a certain kind of swim trunks. Even if they ALSO hold that those other things must be observed.

So if I follow your lead, I'm left with an empty shell of minor activities that most of the world considers crazy. Those are the only ones you'll consider religious, and therefore those are the only ones the law could apply to. No wonder you--general you here-- think we're lunatics. if that's what religion means to you, well, conversation over. We're never going to make a mental connection.

Look, truth telling, standing up for the poor, keeping honest, and the like are certainly all-human moral imperatives; but they happen to lie at the heart of religious--oh, screw it, Christian practice as well. They may not be deeply religious to you, but they are right at the beating, bleeding heart of it for me. And they are the kinds of things I get crap for. In fact I may be losing a paying gig as we speak because I can't do something that "everybody else is doing" which could conceivably, just possibly, result in someone's death. But, they say, my name won't be on it, and no one will ever know. That should make it all right with me, y'see?

And tomorrow I'm going to have to myself by saying the deeply uncool words, "Well, God would know, and I kinda care about his opinion. No, not because I'm afraid of him,because I love him. Wait a minute, this is getting too damn personal too fast. Pretend you didn't hear that. Delete, delete..."

̣̣̣́́́́̃́́...deep breath...

You know, I'm not really arguing in favor of religious protection laws, at least not wholeheartedly. That's because I frankly don't believe they'll ever do diddleysquat. It's so damned easy to make a person's life a misery by way of their faith, whatever the hell it might be; and there are plenty of bullies out there who take great pleasure in it. And I'm too cynical to think that our so-called "tolerant" society will ever learn to tolerate the handful of people it's still okay--even praiseworthy--to loathe. The religious. The uneducated. The fat. The poor. Because we won't. We like being self-righteous. We like the applause of the rest of the world. And if it puts some poor freak of a baker or photographer or swimming helper out of a job, well, we won't be sorry. Because we're going to make everybody tolerant, by God, and we're going to do it according to our own perfect understanding. Whether they like it or not.

Fuck that. I'm trying oh-so-slowly to learn to love even the intolerant. It's part of learning to love my enemies. And taking their freaking livelihoods away from them because their views don't agree with mine isn't love.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You know, I'm not really arguing in favor of religious protection laws, at least not wholeheartedly. That's because I frankly don't believe they'll ever do diddleysquat. It's so damned easy to make a person's life a misery by way of their faith, whatever the hell it might be; and there are plenty of bullies out there who take great pleasure in it. And I'm too cynical to think that our so-called "tolerant" society will ever learn to tolerate the handful of people it's still okay--even praiseworthy--to loathe. The religious. The uneducated. The fat. The poor. Because we won't. We like being self-righteous. We like the applause of the rest of the world. And if it puts some poor freak of a baker or photographer or swimming helper out of a job, well, we won't be sorry. Because we're going to make everybody tolerant, by God, and we're going to do it according to our own perfect understanding. Whether they like it or not.

Fuck that. I'm trying oh-so-slowly to learn to love even the intolerant. It's part of learning to love my enemies. And taking their freaking livelihoods away from them because their views don't agree with mine isn't love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
but playing soccer is a voluntary activity. T

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Everyone should have the right to practice their beliefs as long as that does not include inflicting them on anyone else.

not sure why this is so difficult.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Porridge--

You've probably already thought of this, but...

Question about your staff members' holidays: Are they at all amenable to taking different parts of those 3 days off?

I used to work in an office building that was very close to a Catholic church. Many of the staff in my department were RC, or other flavors of Christian. So when Good Friday came around, many people wanted to go to the 3 hr. service in the afternoon. We couldn't all take the day or afternoon off. So sometimes we went on our lunch hours, and IIRC we sometimes took turns taking an hour or so off. We couldn't do the full service, but we were there for at least part of it.

FWIW, YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
but playing soccer is a voluntary activity.

---

so is going to church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
but playing soccer is a voluntary activity.

---

so is going to church.

---

Not according to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
But these people aren't your enemies, they're enemies of other people who have conveniently served as a target for hatred abuse. It's real easy for you to love those who are intolerant of others when others don't include yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
but playing soccer is a voluntary activity.

---

so is going to church.

---

Not according to God.

---

Keeping Shabbat holy has nothing to do with going to church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Tell me that I don't know shit about discrimination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
That's basically how we've been managing. Not being a believer, I don't pray. If I did, I'd pray for those holidays to arrive on weekends.

---

Are there any holidays that other people take off? Maybe they could trade?

Long ago, I saw a TV movie about Jewish and Christian workers in New York who filled in for each other on holidays. So a Christian would fill in for a Jew on a High Holiday, and a Jew would fill in for a Christian on Christmas.

FWIW.
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
With all respect, painfully obvious solutions sometimes occur even to me.

Alas, I have no Jewish staff, and it wouldn't help if I had, with only 7 staff total. They are paid through Medicaid, which means my agency gets reimbursed only for actual services provided; we can't bill for travel time, reporting time (and reporting obligations are considerable), break time, etc. The clients live independently and are spread all over a largish rural catchment area.

Clients' needs (and hence services) are highly individualized. Some female clients cannot be paired with male staff, and vice versa, due to the nature of services provided or to aspects of the clients' behavior.

Each staff person is scheduled for a full 40-hour week, with 3 hours reserved for meetings, trainings, and supervision. These hours render my unit a money-losing proposition due to Medicaid requirements; it's part of my job to keep these losses to a strict minimum.

It would be ideal if we had one male and one female staffer whose responsibilities were just to "float" and fill in for staff out sick, injured, on leave, or observing holidays few people in our area have ever heard of, but this "float" job actually falls to me.

It's messy, inefficient, frustrating, and basically impossible, and we somehow pull it off every month.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Apologies.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
To return to the original topic;
Indiana Republican Leaders are shocked, shocked that law is seen as anti-gay despite having been repeatedly told so during the passing of the bill.

The article includes a picture of the Governor surrounded by anti-gay leaders during the signing of the bill.

There's still more tap dancing to come.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This is an interesting discussion.

Does not part of this depend on how the country and its laws balance individual and and collective rights? In Canada, it is generally the case that the individual's religious beliefs are fine to be expressed except when they infringe on the rights of others. Thus, justices of the peace who have the job of issuing marriage licenses and performing civil marriages (duties vary depending on the province) must issue marriage licenses to all couples regardless of their beliefs. Those who wouldn't had to lose their jobs.

It would also be entirely illegal for someone to refuse to sell anything to anyone unless they knew it would be used in a crime. Thus, it would be illegal to refuse the sale of a pot because it would be used to cook meat, just as it was for a bridal shop to refuse service to Rohit Singh, a transgender woman. I generally believe that discrimination however motivated is wrong, and that the truly religious would refrain from imposing their ideas on others, no matter how heart felt, and act decently. The law in Canada generally agrees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And if it puts some poor freak of a baker or photographer or swimming helper out of a job, well, we won't be sorry. Because we're going to make everybody tolerant, by God, and we're going to do it according to our own perfect understanding. Whether they like it or not.

Fuck that. I'm trying oh-so-slowly to learn to love even the intolerant. It's part of learning to love my enemies. And taking their freaking livelihoods away from them because their views don't agree with mine isn't love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Christmas is a federal holiday.

Pastors' signatures are fine for City Hall marriage licenses.

My state sells booze. You can't buy it anywhere before noon on Sunday. Why not close Wednesday morning instead.

There are official chaplains in the armed services and state and federal legislatures. Sessions generally open with prayers.

. . . and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Sincerity (despite my bringing it up in the first place) is actually not particularly relevant here. Only public profession of a belief, or overt practices and rites, are at issue, and they're at issue because, being public, they affect people outside the professing / practicing group.

If insincerity can be shown, that's another issue; then it becomes clear that the intent of the profession or practice is to discriminate, not to profess / practice.

---

quote:

---

But this [City of Bourne v. Flores] is only a partially weaponized use of religious exemptions; they’re being used as a weapon to advance the Church’s goals, but not striking against their political enemies. The quintessential case of a weaponized religious exemption is, of course, Hobby Lobby; Obamacare was to be the subject of a blitzkrieg, to be hit with any and every weapon imaginable, and that’s what the RFRA provided. Their efforts to make the claim appear credible could hardly be lazier or more half-assed. One possible check on weaponization, in a better and more decent society, could conceivably be a sense of embarrassment or shame; exposing one’s religious convictions as a cynical political tool to be wielded against one’s political enemies might be hoped to invoke enough embarrassment that it might be avoided, but we were well past that point. A remarkable document of this trend is this post from Patrick Deneen – fully, openly aware of the fundamental absurdity of Hobby Lobby’s case, cheering them on nonetheless. I mean, you’d think they’d at least have found a company owned by Catholics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

I am a teacher. I get paid for teaching children. I don't get to choose which children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

In the case of the pizzeria people, a refusal to cater a gay wedding holds no water if it can be shown that they regularly serve pizza to already-married gays in their establishment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

In the case of the pizzeria people, a refusal to cater a gay wedding holds no water if it can be shown that they regularly serve pizza to already-married gays in their establishment.

---

The pizza people explicitly say that they are happy to serve gay customers in their stores. They are not afraid of catching gay cooties from the pink dollar or something.

They have said that they will not help celebrate a gay wedding, because they don't approve. If they are consistent in their behaviour, they will also refuse to cater the local Islamic society's iftar supper, or a Diwali party.

But somehow, I suspect that to the pizza people, homosexuality is a special kind of sin in a class all by itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
The major difference with the wedding situation is that the owners would know, and know for certain, they were dealing with gay guys who marry. I think that IS discriminatory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But somehow, I suspect that to the pizza people, homosexuality is a special kind of sin in a class all by itself.

---

Actually I believe one of them actually said this in nearly so many words. For her, homosexuality was a special kind of sin that needs to be not supported, as opposed to other biblical sins that the interviewer asked about.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Why is it that people tend to think sexual sins are the worst? Non-consensual is very bad; but consensual???
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Coz it's icky.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
I've been wondering if atheists can have religious objections to serving customers or is this a prerogative which is given only to theists?
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I've been wondering if atheists can have religious objections to serving customers or is this a prerogative which is given only to theists?

---

In the American context of the OP, atheists have a general freedom of conscience under the First Amendment. Under the federal RFRA and its state-based copycat laws (like the one in Indiana), only the religious can claim exemption from generally applicable laws (like anti-discrimination statutes).
 

---

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
Though there are atheistic religions under US law. Both Ethical Culture and Unitarian Universalism have no problems with atheists being members.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
I can't wait for Scientology to start exploiting this.
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Coz it's icky.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And if it puts some poor freak of a baker or photographer or swimming helper out of a job, well, we won't be sorry. Because we're going to make everybody tolerant, by God, and we're going to do it according to our own perfect understanding. Whether they like it or not.

Fuck that. I'm trying oh-so-slowly to learn to love even the intolerant. It's part of learning to love my enemies. And taking their freaking livelihoods away from them because their views don't agree with mine isn't love.

---

Nobody is putting the intolerant baker out of a job. The baker is there to provide baked goods, not to decide on the morals of the customer. It's so simple. If you want to get paid for doing your job, do your job.

I am a teacher. I get paid for teaching children. I don't get to choose which children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
You do if you tutor privately. In other words, if it is your own business, there is surely a degree of control of what work you accept and what you don't...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I was thinking more in terms of type of work myself eg: you can say that you teach English but not mathematics, that within your English-teaching specialism, there are certain genres of literature which you don't teach etc; there is more largesse involved in being self-employed and freelance compared to having to kow-tow to a state-dictated curriculum. Of course all of this has to be done within whatever regulatory framework exists but there is more freedom involved nevertheless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
it's both legal and acceptable to limit the services offered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Where we get into "let them (not) eat cake" grey-er territory though is where the business says, "I won't restrict the customers I sell to but I will restrict the types of goods or services I provide eg: I won't supply any good or service I consider to be offensive."

So, for example, assuming the following are all self-employed, a Muslim or Jewish butcher refusing to sell pork or non-halal/ kosher meat,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
a black printer refusing to print publicity material for the KKK,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
and...er...a conservative evangelical baker refusing to bake a cake bearing a slogan endorsing gay marriage(....?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
'So, for example, assuming the following are all self-employed, a Muslim or Jewish butcher refusing to sell pork or non-halal/ kosher meat,' Does no harm to the provider or customer.

---

quote:

---

black printer refusing to print publicity material for the KKK,'
Does harm to the provider.

' and...er...a conservative evangelical baker refusing to bake a cake bearing a slogan endorsing gay marriage(....?)'
Gay people getting married in no way harms people who are opposed to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Are you not therefore in the above falling into the same category as you accuse others of being unable to distinguish between things (messages on a cake) and people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
'So, for example, assuming the following are all self-employed, a Muslim or Jewish butcher refusing to sell pork or non-halal/ kosher meat,' Does no harm to the provider or customer.

---

If the customer demands pork though, satisfying that demand arguably does do harm to the provider.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not sure that works: if a Trinitarian Christian is asked to print a flyer promoting Arianism, then to that Christian that would be as 'bad' as denouncing the Trinity. I am also not sure the provider would agree with you anyway: if they are having to put their name to something which they find offensive then, to them, it is offensive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
If I'm secretary to a committee that has agreed a policy I find abhorrent, should I refuse to draft a minute?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
If I'm secretary to a committee that has agreed a policy I find abhorrent, should I refuse to draft a minute?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
If I'm secretary to a committee that has agreed a policy I find abhorrent, should I refuse to draft a minute?

---

You can always resign in disgust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
Does the US have anything like the laws which outlaw hate speech in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not sure that works: if a Trinitarian Christian is asked to print a flyer promoting Arianism, then to that Christian that would be as 'bad' as denouncing the Trinity. I am also not sure the provider would agree with you anyway: if they are having to put their name to something which they find offensive then, to them, it is offensive.

---

Are they putting their name to something? Do we assume that because Karl Marx's Capital is published by Penguin Books (a division of Penguin Random House, 2014 revenues of €3.3bn) that the publisher is necessarily advocating Marxist economics and communist revolution? It seems an odd position for a massive and profitable capitalist organization to take.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
If I'm secretary to a committee that has agreed a policy I find abhorrent, should I refuse to draft a minute?

---

I think the real answer is yes if you think it is bad enough. If I was on a committee that had just voted for something utterly awful like a resolution supporting torture, then I would walk out and refuse to take minutes.

And that is what seems so offensive, to me, about the position that says gay marriage is such an awful thing that I'll react in a way that would normally be reserved for extreme situations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
If I'm secretary to a committee that has agreed a policy I find abhorrent, should I refuse to draft a minute?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
why should what we regard as offensive trump that which others regard as offensive?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not sure that works: if a Trinitarian Christian is asked to print a flyer promoting Arianism, then to that Christian that would be as 'bad' as denouncing the Trinity. I am also not sure the provider would agree with you anyway: if they are having to put their name to something which they find offensive then, to them, it is offensive.

---

Are they putting their name to something? Do we assume that because Karl Marx's Capital is published by Penguin Books (a division of Penguin Random House, 2014 revenues of €3.3bn) that the publisher is necessarily advocating Marxist economics and communist revolution? It seems an odd position for a massive and profitable capitalist organization to take.

---

Fair point, but that's their choice. Others, perhaps smaller, more personal businesses may choose not to thus endorse something with which they profoundly disagree. Surely that is their choice too in a free society?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Spinning my earlier question a different way, therefore, why should our perception of what may or may not be endorsed trump their perception?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
why should our perception of what may or may not be endorsed trump their perception?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Harm. One course does demonstrable harm to another group, the other does not. Any anguish in that direction is self-inflicted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

In short, the question of whether someone can be obligated to publish an opinion they do not endorse is secondary and is only really of interest if we can first demonstrate that any kind of endorsement is taking place at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Harm. One course does demonstrable harm to another group, the other does not. Any anguish in that direction is self-inflicted.

---

Are you therefore happy to call a Jew or Muslim's harm/ anguish at serving pork self-inflicted?

(Good luck with that one...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Kosher and Halal meats are particular classes of product with a substantive nature. There is no substantive difference between a wedding cake with "John and June" or "Margeret and June". A "gay" wedding cake is not a different product to a "straight" one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Kosher and Halal meats are particular classes of product with a substantive nature. There is no substantive difference between a wedding cake with "John and June" or "Margeret and June". A "gay" wedding cake is not a different product to a "straight" one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Kosher and Halal meats are particular classes of product with a substantive nature. There is no substantive difference between a wedding cake with "John and June" or "Margeret and June". A "gay" wedding cake is not a different product to a "straight" one.

---

Again, I am not talking about that, but rather a cake which has a slogan endorsing equal marriage. To the socially-and-religiously conservative Christian/ Muslim/ etc producer, that does make it a 'substantively different' product, so 'close, but no cigar'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...because one is about the customer and the other about the product. Not sure why you're having difficulty seeing that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Kosher and Halal meats are particular classes of product with a substantive nature. There is no substantive difference between a wedding cake with "John and June" or "Margeret and June". A "gay" wedding cake is not a different product to a "straight" one.

---

Again, I am not talking about that, but rather a cake which has a slogan endorsing equal marriage. To the socially-and-religiously conservative Christian/ Muslim/ etc producer, that [i[does[/i] make it a 'substantively different' product, so 'close, but no cigar'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
It would only make a difference I suppose if the baker objected to calling the coach the world's greatest. If the baker doesn't have an issue with the wording, what's the problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:
Or a cake with "Leslie and Francis" on it: the effort is the same regardless of the genders, and in this case, either name could be of either gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:
Or a cake with "Leslie and Francis" on it: the effort is the same regardless of the genders, and in this case, either name could be of either gender.

---

<tangent> The girl's name is usually spelled Frances, no? </tangent>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If I walk into a Jewish bakery and order a ham and cheese sandwich, do they have to make it and sell it to me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

If a woman walks into a Muslim barbershop and asks for a hair cut, must the Muslim man perform it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:


I suppose you could argue that requiring him to touch women was a greater imposition than requiring the baker to show up and smile at the same-sex wedding, and draw a line between them that way, but that line's pretty fine.

Otherwise, I think the two cases are the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Who required the baker to show up and smile at the same sex wedding? All he had to do was deliver the cake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

If a woman walks into a Muslim barbershop and asks for a hair cut, must the Muslim man perform it?

---

It seems to me as though this case is a close parallel to all the various bakeries that don't want to cater same-sex weddings.

The Muslim barber in question has a religiously-based objection to touching unrelated women. It's his business - this isn't a case of a Muslim being hired to work at the supermarket deli counter, but refusing to handle pork products, for example. He wants to be able to offer haircuts to male customers. It's not a case of a lack of skill with traditional female styles - he refuses to give a woman a short back and sides.

I suppose you could argue that requiring him to touch women was a greater imposition than requiring the baker to show up and smile at the same-sex wedding, and draw a line between them that way, but that line's pretty fine.

Otherwise, I think the two cases are the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

If a woman walks into a Muslim barbershop and asks for a hair cut, must the Muslim man perform it?

---

Sex Discrimination as a Consumer

There are some exceptions when it comes to sex discrimination, which are listed here. The Muslim barber situation would potentially fall under more than one of these: Different Skills s.29(s); Serious embarrassment and state of undress s.35 (1)(c) - which it is from a Muslim perspective; and Physical contact s.35 (2).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It seems to me as though this case is a close parallel to all the various bakeries that don't want to cater same-sex weddings.

The Muslim barber in question has a religiously-based objection to touching unrelated women. It's his business - this isn't a case of a Muslim being hired to work at the supermarket deli counter, but refusing to handle pork products, for example. He wants to be able to offer haircuts to male customers. It's not a case of a lack of skill with traditional female styles - he refuses to give a woman a short back and sides.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
Hairdressing is given as an example of where different skills apply.

---

quote:

---

In this country, barbershops are generally men only. I would regard a woman who sought out a barber, when hairdressers, either women-only or unisex, are much more common, to ask for a haircut as being deliberately provocative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
It would only make a difference I suppose if the baker objected to calling the coach the world's greatest. If the baker doesn't have an issue with the wording, what's the problem?

---

The baker's opinion of the coach is irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
I would regard a woman who sought out a barber, when hairdressers, either women-only or unisex, are much more common, to ask for a haircut as being deliberately provocative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
LC spells it out pretty explicitly: a Muslim who works for someone else does not have religious liberty of a sort that gets legal protection, but a Muslim who owns his own business does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Should being deliberately provocative make a difference? Perhaps the barber is the only hair-cutting establishment in walking distance of the woman's home. Perhaps she wants to affect a masculine appearance and thinks a traditional barber is more likely to do a good job than a unisex place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
It would only make a difference I suppose if the baker objected to calling the coach the world's greatest. If the baker doesn't have an issue with the wording, what's the problem?

---

The baker's opinion of the coach is irrelevant.

---

But he surely has the right to turn down the work if he profoundly disagrees with the statement; he has to retain some control over his work - he's a baker not a serf!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

The article puts it well -

"Yet she also sees these rights as 'diametrically opposed' — on contrary sides of the rights spectrum, hurtling towards one another in a crash of willful identity, in which each personal right feels too vital to concede. Human rights in gridlock with one another."
...
Why should she have to find another barbers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
It would only make a difference I suppose if the baker objected to calling the coach the world's greatest. If the baker doesn't have an issue with the wording, what's the problem?

---

The baker's opinion of the coach is irrelevant.

---

But he surely has the right to turn down the work if he profoundly disagrees with the statement; he has to retain some control over his work - he's a baker not a serf!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
It would only make a difference I suppose if the baker objected to calling the coach the world's greatest. If the baker doesn't have an issue with the wording, what's the problem?

---

The baker's opinion of the coach is irrelevant.

---

But he surely has the right to turn down the work if he profoundly disagrees with the statement; he has to retain some control over his work - he's a baker not a serf!

---

And what if the requested writing on the cake was offensive in a non-religious way - for example, "Obama is a @$!#$@#!" Would it be allowed to refuse to provide such a cake?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
There has surely therefore to be a reasonable 'conflict of rights' accommodation between on the one hand a devout Muslim baker risking prosecution for refusing to bake a cake supporting gay marriage and one the other hand a sign that says, "No Jews, no blacks, no dogs".

---

You honestly cannot see the difference between these examples?
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
It disadvantages people who think Obama is a @#$*#

More seriously, no more does icing a slogan supporting gay marriage disadvantage a particular class of people other than those who support gay marriage
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
There has surely therefore to be a reasonable 'conflict of rights' accommodation between on the one hand a devout Muslim baker risking prosecution for refusing to bake a cake supporting gay marriage and one the other hand a sign that says, "No Jews, no blacks, no dogs".

---

You honestly cannot see the difference between these examples?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
It disadvantages people who think Obama is a @#$*#

More seriously, no more does icing a slogan supporting gay marriage disadvantage a particular class of people other than those who support gay marriage

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
There has surely therefore to be a reasonable 'conflict of rights' accommodation between on the one hand a devout Muslim baker risking prosecution for refusing to bake a cake supporting gay marriage and one the other hand a sign that says, "No Jews, no blacks, no dogs".

---

You honestly cannot see the difference between these examples?

---

Yes of course I can! That was my point: therefore we have to steer a middle course between those two extremes and find a place where we can best balance anti-discrimination rights with rights of freedom of expression, religion and speech where those rights come into conflict.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
It disadvantages people who think Obama is a @#$*#

More seriously, no more does icing a slogan supporting gay marriage disadvantage a particular class of people other than those who support gay marriage

---

Wrong. Saying gay people cannot marry is saying they are lesser people. It is in the same class as racism.

---

So are you now saying that the Muslim baker referenced by me above should be prosecuted? And as far as I am aware, no baker has iced a cake saying gay people cannot marry.

[ 14. April 2015, 15:39: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Same as a Christian baker.
The true test is the barbershop case mentioned above. It truly does stand straight in the middle and creates a rights clash.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Sorry for the confusion: I thought you were saying earlier that there was a difference but apparently now you're not.

So can you foresee Muslim bakers being prosecuted over these equality test cases?
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
There has surely therefore to be a reasonable 'conflict of rights' accommodation between on the one hand a devout Muslim baker risking prosecution for refusing to bake a cake supporting gay marriage and one the other hand a sign that says, "No Jews, no blacks, no dogs".

---

You honestly cannot see the difference between these examples?

---

Yes of course I can! That was my point: therefore we have to steer a middle course between those two extremes and find a place where we can best balance anti-discrimination rights with rights of freedom of expression, religion and speech where those rights come into conflict.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So what about the devout Muslim barber referred to earlier refusing to touch women - are we supposed to be sympathetic to him as opposed to the white supremacist barber refusing to touch black people's hair?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So what about the devout Muslim barber referred to earlier refusing to touch women - are we supposed to be sympathetic to him as opposed to the white supremacist barber refusing to touch black people's hair?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So what about the devout Muslim barber referred to earlier refusing to touch women - are we supposed to be sympathetic to him as opposed to the white supremacist barber refusing to touch black people's hair?

---

Not saying I completely sympathise with the Muslim barber, those examples are not equal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I agree that Muslims in the west have historically been less-privileged, as it were, than the dominant WASP ethnic groups - and still are - if that's what you're getting at, but I'm not sure that gives them any more of a free pass to discriminate than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Some additional issues are of note with this sort of thing.

1. Is the service essential?
2. Are there other options?
3. Is the focus the person or the service/product?

Both of these have come up when physicians have refused to provide birth control to patients. The general understanding is that it is a service that must be available, thus meets the test of essential. The second question is whether there are other options to receive the service. Thus, a physician in a large office or city where there are many other physicians probably can avoid prescribing birth control, but one in a isolated community where there are few doctors can not.

Could a bakery or barber refuse service to a customer and refer? This seems to offend in a different way because the people are the target regarding an essential personal characteristic. Whereas the request for a service is not about the defining nature of a person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The second question is whether there are other options to receive the service. Thus, a physician in a large office or city where there are many other physicians probably can avoid prescribing birth control, but one in a isolated community where there are few doctors can not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

The article puts it well -

"Yet she also sees these rights as 'diametrically opposed' — on contrary sides of the rights spectrum, hurtling towards one another in a crash of willful identity, in which each personal right feels too vital to concede. Human rights in gridlock with one another."
...
Why should she have to find another barbers?

---

I fail to see how this is a human rights issue. As far as I know, no country in the world has a human rights code that is based on "life, liberty and a haircut by the barber of my choosing".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
It could very easily be argued the contraception denial is also targeted based on "an essential personal characteristic", specifically gender. In fact, I find it hard to come up with a reason to restrict someone else's contraceptive choices that doesn't involve gendered assumptions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]How is someone who refuses to provide contraception to either men or women discriminating based on gender? It might well be discriminating against heterosexuals...

---

As someone who has been a volunteer in a Gay lead anti-Aids organization and as a result ended up knee deep in condoms on occasion, I can tell you it's not only gay people who use contraceptives. For prevention of disease only, as the traditional label said.

The "not the only provider" or "not an essential service" arguments pretty much got trashed in the anti-segregation fight. Allowing colored people in the balconies doesn't make segregated theaters right. The State of Oregon, where a certain thieving rodent resides originally had a clause in the state constitution prohibiting Black people from living in the state. You could argue that it wasn't necessary and there were plenty of other states that provided the same service. Nevertheless, the state constitution was changed.
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I can tell you it's not only gay people who use contraceptives. For prevention of disease only, as the traditional label said.

---

Unless we're talking about a gay couple, one member of which is trans with all original working parts, contraception, qua contraception, is not required
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Just thinking that the effect of their prejudice is not as great.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
It could very easily be argued the contraception denial is also targeted based on "an essential personal characteristic", specifically gender. In fact, I find it hard to come up with a reason to restrict someone else's contraceptive choices that doesn't involve gendered assumptions.

---

How is someone who refuses to provide contraception to either men or women discriminating based on gender? It might well be discriminating against heterosexuals...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Just thinking that the effect of their prejudice is not as great.

---

Sorry, again to avoid my misunderstanding, please clarify what you mean by 'their prejudice': do you mean the religious prejudice of some Muslims against gays and women or do you mean the religious or racial prejudice of some Christians or whites against Muslims?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
... The State of Oregon, where a certain thieving rodent resides ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Just thinking that the effect of their prejudice is not as great.

---

Sorry, again to avoid my misunderstanding, please clarify what you mean by 'their prejudice': do you mean the religious prejudice of some Muslims against gays and women or do you mean the religious or racial prejudice of some Christians or whites against Muslims?

---

What I meant was that, specifically, the Muslim man not wanting to cut a woman's hair has little practical effect on a non-Muslim woman. But this does not make it legal, reasonable or acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Mario:
Apart from that aside surely there is a difference between a white supremist not wanting to cut black people's hair and a Muslim barber not wanting to cut women's hair in that the first is based on a belief in superiority/inferiority while the latter is based (at its root) on a desire, no matter how odd or extreme it might seem to non-Muslims, to avoid sexual temptation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I can tell you it's not only gay people who use contraceptives. For prevention of disease only, as the traditional label said.

---

Unless we're talking about a gay couple, one member of which is trans with all original working parts, contraception, qua contraception, is not required

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Mario:
Apart from that aside surely there is a difference between a white supremist not wanting to cut black people's hair and a Muslim barber not wanting to cut women's hair in that the first is based on a belief in superiority/inferiority while the latter is based (at its root) on a desire, no matter how odd or extreme it might seem to non-Muslims, to avoid sexual temptation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Mario:
I'm not convinced the effect is the same. To use my other example (where I don't need to speculate) I am not able to take my kids swimming later on a Sunday afternoon because I am a man. While this is a bit inconvenient I can appreciate the reasons so I don't resent the inconvenience, if I was excluded on the basis of my race I would be furious and resentful in all probability so the effect on me would be much greater.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Mario:
Croesos - can you seriously not see an objective difference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
And there is a difference between single-sex pool sessions I think and a qualified haircutter refusing to cut a woman's hair just because she's a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
With all respect, the banned men will soon be replaced by others who make similar comments.

---

Also, I rather suspect that if you are used to expecting those kinds of comments, you might find effectively disrobing in front of strange men a challenge, because you will expect the strange men to be thinking those comments even if they all act like perfect gentlemen.

I can easily see why some women would prefer women-only swimming pools and gyms. I have no issue at all with a private facility offering women-only times, or even only serving women at all.

I'd have an issue with a publicly-subsidized pool if it prevented me from swimming at the times that reasonably fitted my schedule because it was a women-only slot. (Somehow, I suspect that a men-only slot wouldn't attract quite the same kind of clientele ) If two relatively nearby pools coordinate their schedules such that their women-only slots don't fall on the same days, my complaint would mostly go away.

But I'm also happy for Muslim barbers to turn away female customers. I wouldn't be happy for a publicly-funded Muslim dentist, say, to turn away female patients.

(LilBuddha's comments are, I think, a little wide of the mark - the Muslim hairdresser wasn't wanting a single-sex operation in order to preserve the modesty of his customers, but in order to preserve his own. It's probably rather simpler for hairdressing customers requiring privacy and a haircut from someone of a particular sex to order in.)
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
How often do women seek out male barbers to do their hair?

*Sorry if this is convoluted. I'm just trying to think through this. Please bear with me.**

FYI: I'm used to barbers being men cutting men's hair; beauticians being women cutting and styling women's hair; and hairdressers can be either and working on either.

I may be way behind the times on this, but I think most women would either go to a women's salon or a unisex salon. (It's been many years since I've been to either. The latter was Supercuts, or some such. At the time, I think all the hair cutters there were women.)

In my experience, barber shops are man caves--places where men can hang around and talk. A woman might take her son in, but wouldn't get her own hair cut there. I suppose women who wanted a simple, very masculine haircut might go a barber--perhaps lesbians, bisexual women, and F>M transgendered men. Whether they were accepted would depend on the barber shop. But it would probably feel inappropriate to have women (currently or formerly) of any flavor there.

When I was growing up, hair salons were strictly for women, staffed by women. The atmosphere was kind of like being dressed for home (bathrobe, etc.), rather than the public. So having men there (whether clients or hairdressers) would've felt very inappropriate. (There *might* possibly have been some male hairdresser in some high-class salon. But people would've expected that to be more in NYC or LA.)

I would think that a barber who is an observant Muslim man probably wouldn't work at a unisex salon. If financial circumstances forced him to, he'd either have to work something out with his supervisor, or find a way to cope with cutting women's hair.


Re the comparison of a white supremacist barber not wanting to touch a black person's hair: That would be a horrible thing. I see two options: the barber goes out of business (in which case he and his like-minded buddies might decide to express their reaction in dangerous ways); or the barber is forced to take clients of all ethnicities. If I had someone like that, who thought I was lower than slime, working on my head with sharp instruments...I think I would take my business elsewhere, find someone who has an unofficial shop in their home, or learn to cut my own hair.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
With all respect, the banned men will soon be replaced by others who make similar comments.

---

I can easily see why some women would prefer women-only swimming pools and gyms. I have no issue at all with a private facility offering women-only times, or even only serving women at all.

I'd have an issue with a publicly-subsidized pool if it prevented me from swimming at the times that reasonably fitted my schedule because it was a women-only slot. (Somehow, I suspect that a men-only slot wouldn't attract quite the same kind of clientele ) If two relatively nearby pools coordinate their schedules such that their women-only slots don't fall on the same days, my complaint would mostly go away.

But I'm also happy for Muslim barbers to turn away female customers. I wouldn't be happy for a publicly-funded Muslim dentist, say, to turn away female patients.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But if - as you seem to be saying - it is public funding that's the game-changer here, then applying that principle would give licence to those private guesthouses with the infamous signs, surely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
How often do women seek out male barbers to do their hair?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Actually its price, if you look in a unisex hairdressers you'll see cuts priced by gender. Men's are nearly always cheaper, regardless of cut. Barbers are generally cheaper than unisex hairdressers. Frankly, I don't know how the hairdressers get away with gendered pricing in this day and age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
.(Gee D: There's no structural difference between male hair and female hair. The differences are in typical male styles vs typical female styles, and in the fact that women don't usually grow beards. I see no reason why a barber trained and qualified to cut men's styles couldn't successfully give a man's style to a woman.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
As you say, the training is in the styling. I thought that was inherent in what I was saying.

---

quote:

---

Bu with the one exception I mentioned, Greg will not cut a woman's hair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
That's why hairdressers charge more, regardless of what they're doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
How often do women seek out male barbers to do their hair?
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
[And what if the requested writing on the cake was offensive in a non-religious way - for example, "Obama is a @$!#$@#!" Would it be allowed to refuse to provide such a cake?

---

During Dubya's presidency, the existence of such a cake might have resulted in a visit from some sort of Fed (FBI, Secret Service, etc.). Here in California, a man's car had a bumpersticker telling Dubya to go to hell. Didn't threaten to send him there. Some woman saw that, freaked out, and reported him to the Feds!


The man was gifted with a little visit. Afterwards, the Feds said that they didn't think the man was out to hurt Dubya--he just didn't like him.
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't see any contradiction. And yes, Greg does it as a favour. The woman is a local identity, not much money, and a women's hairdresser would charge triple what Greg (and his father before him) do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
So...are we saying that single-sex customer environments are never allowed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Mario:
significant differences between men and women both physically and in the way we think

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Greg is a man's hairdresser and only cuts men's hair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Mario:
significant differences between men and women both physically and in the way we think

---

Would you care to explain to me how men and women think differently? Or indeed why minor physical differences should lead to segregation?

I am also inclined to think that the physical differences between, say, an American of West African descent and a Scot of Irish descent might be more noticeable than the difference between, say, a man and a woman of white German descent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I doubt that many of the customers ask for a short back and sides. But despite everything you say, I cannot see Greg's act of charity in cutting this woman's hair as a clear-cut act of sex discrimination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
What you say makes a lot of sense at first read. There was however a lot of work done here 30 years ago into why boys did much better than girls in the final high school exams. The conclusion reached was that both the subjects, their teaching and their marking favoured boys. Both were changed and the performance of the girls improved dramatically; the sad correlation was that that of the boys dropped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Replacing gender divided changings rooms with a unisex changing room and a few private cubicles for the easily embarrassed or prudish would be a more efficient use of space and make more sense for children visiting with one parent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Segregating schooling has pretty much no advantages and lots of problems, so quite easy to ditch that.

---

There has been research which shows that in subjects seen traditionally as male, such as maths and physics, girls perform better in a single sex environment. That is one pretty hefty advantage.

[ 20. April 2015, 07:08: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I can understand what you're saying, but there is this:

In 2001, the Australian Council for Educational Research after six years of study of more 270,000 students, in 53 academic subjects, showed that boys and girls from single-sex classrooms "scored on average 15 to 22 percentile ranks higher than did boys and girls in coeducational settings. The report also documented that boys and girls in single-sex schools were more likely to be better behaved and to find learning more enjoyable and the curriculum more relevant.'

Admittedly from Wikipedia, but it confirms my understanding. The ACER is a highly respected body and does not push barrows. It may only be relevant here and other countries, societies, or cultures different. Earlier studies along the same lines led to substantial changes in the curriculum when they found that girls were disadvantaged by those then existing. The changes saw an improved performance from girls.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
What Penny said, re comments on changing rooms. I found the original comments very offensive. What, anyone who doesn't want to strut their stuff in front of the opposite (binary) sex while changing clothes is warped???


Cultures have different ideas about privacy and nudity. Most (broad brush), AFAIK, aren't for everyone routinely being in the altogether. Plus there are safety concerns. I worked some place where the ladies' room had a combination lock, because there'd been problems. (The men's room did eventually get a lock, too.) Plus many individuals have had very bad experiences with the opposite (binary) sex, so sharing a dressing room or rest room would be scary, stressful, and disturbing.

TMI:

I worked where there were about 12 men and 2 women. We all shared a one-stall bathroom. I will just say that there was a *very* strong smell that wasn't (IME) a female smell. Testosterone? If the situation were reversed, a strong estrogen smell would probably bother guys, too. (Not to mention taking care of our montly needs. And breast-feeding moms sometimes use a breast pump in the restroom.) Give me a women-only restroom and changing space any day.

/TMI

I know this can get very complicated for trans people. I've heard that some US public schools (here in California, anyway) are putting in restrooms just for them, so they don't have to deal with being hassled.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I'd 'third' the comments about mixed-sex changing: I would be very uncomfortable at female strangers catching sight of my 'nads and I would imagine they would too (catching sight of me, never mind about me catching sight of them!); that's not 'prudery', it's basic human decency and respect.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
<tangent>
ETA: It's like the difference between having oh, say, Renee Fleming sing at your wedding instead of the soloist from the church choir. They're both professionals, but if you ask them to sing the same song, Renee will charge more. </tangent>

---

And the church soloist probably isn't a favorite, repeat guest on "Prairie Home Companion"!
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Apologies for any offence caused; the reference to embarrassment and prudery was not meant to be an exhaustive list of reasons why people might not be comfortable changing in mixed company (that would be a whole other kettle of fish).
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'd 'third' the comments about mixed-sex changing: I would be very uncomfortable at female strangers catching sight of my 'nads and I would imagine they would too (catching sight of me,* never mind about me catching sight of them!); that's not 'prudery',

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

it's basic human decency and respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What I don't get is the assumption we are comfortable hanging around naked in front of our own sex - what is wrong with cubicles ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I understood that was what you were arguing. Would you say that he was discriminating on a religious basis against Muslims and Jewish people because he is open on Fridays and Saturday mornings, but closed Sunday and Monday? Is a restaurant that includes pork, ham and shellfish dishes discriminating against Jewish people because it does not maintain a separate kosher kitchen, chinaware and cutlery?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Leorning Cniht, I think that if you follow your line through to its logical conclusion, you'll abandon you earlier assertion that Greg is guilty of sex discrimination.

---

quote:

---

In Greg's case, providing a traditional male haircut is different from providing a traditional female haircut. "I don't cut women's styles" is the equivalent of the restaurant not serving kosher food, and isn't discrimination.

"I won't cut a woman's hair" is the same as "I won't serve a Jew". Probably there aren't many Jews that would order a bacon sandwich, but a bacon sandwich salesman who refused to serve a Jew would still be discriminating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Mario:
So I won't serve skin head customers who I suspect are neo-nazis is discrimination but I won't decorate a cake to celebrate Hitlers birthday wouldn't be.

I won't serve an orangeman would be discrimination but I won't decorate a cake to celebrate a specific controversial date in Irish history would"t be.

---

quote:

---

What if the thing people want to celebrate or promote is viewed as good by most people in society but not by the cake shop owner, is that different then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'd 'third' the comments about mixed-sex changing: I would be very uncomfortable at female strangers catching sight of my 'nads and I would imagine they would too (catching sight of me,* never mind about me catching sight of them!); that's not 'prudery',

---

Yes it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

it's basic human decency and respect.

---

This is also true.

Much of what affects our comfort is cultural and that can change. This is not to say that even if we all walked around starkers that there would be no sexual notice of genitals. This is how we are wired. But much of what we think of as "decency" is more tightly linked to the subjective.

*It is good to remember that simply because their are no women it does not follow you have not been ogled. Same for women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

I'm not too sure that what you have said is logic, but I did see a substantial change in your position, from which you are no back-pedalling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
A pity - I thought that you were coming to see that Greg's behaviour (and Greg is in RL his name) did not amount to sex discrimination. I can't think of any further argument that may assist you to this conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
And I see you as simply repeating a position, without taking the matter further - that's why I attempted to bring this aspect of the thread to an end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I doubt that many of the customers ask for a short back and sides. But despite everything you say, I cannot see Greg's act of charity in cutting this woman's hair as a clear-cut act of sex discrimination.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0