|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religious Freedom Laws
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
Part of my wariness about these kind of exemptions is that they're most often used to bolster existing prejudices. In the previous example we're supposed to be sympathetic to "a devout Muslim baker risking prosecution for refusing to bake a cake supporting gay marriage", but not for a devoted white supremacist baker risking prosecution for refusing to bake cakes for non-whites. Or even just cakes supporting inter-racial marriage.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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?
[ 14. April 2015, 15:55: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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?
Most of us are more sympathetic to former than to the latter, but I don't think that's a good basis for law.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Indeed.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
They're pretty much exactly equivalent. The big difference is that in the former case there's an appeal to a religion we (mostly) approve of. In the latter case even if the racist barber claimed a religious motivation most people would wave it off as being a false doctrine or not a true faith.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
They are not completely equal because the power differential is different. And I believe this makes a difference. However, as I said, I am not in complete sympathy with the Muslim barber.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Can you unpack what you mean by a power differential here and why you think it is relevant?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Well, I was going to compare the treatment of black people and women with the treatment of Muslims. However, whilst there is prejudice towards Muslims, it isn't at nearly the same level. So I need to think more on this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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.
[ 14. April 2015, 16:48: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Thanks, that's helpful.
The Asher case surely falls more into the latter (service)than former (customer) category.
[ 14. April 2015, 17:12: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
Oh, I never said it gave them a free pass. Never that. Just thinking that the effect of their prejudice is not as great.
Freedom of religion, like any other freedom, should have limits. One is free to believe whatever. One is not free to do whatever.
In this case, I think the barber in the wrong. He opened his shop in a pluralistic country, if he cannot abide by this, he should have chosen another profession. Now, I do not know his particulars and how easy that would be. This is where it could be made difficult.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
I'm hesitant to make what some are describing as a fundamental right so contingent on the actions of third parties. If someone has a right to religiously-based discrimination, don't they have that right regardless of whether a non-discriminatory venue exists? Plus there's the rather obvious question of what happens if every provider of the service decides to discriminate in the same way.
A CNN segment illustrates this rather well, visiting five florists in a small-town area of Georgia and discovering (not so surprisingly) that all five of them would refuse to sell flowers to a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony. (Georgia doesn't have legal same-sex marriage.) What does this do to the proposed right to religiously-based discrimination? Does the fact that there are alternate providers mean discrimination by all of them is okay? Or does the fact that they've effectively created a discriminatory cartel make their actions wrong? If one of them is forced, via legal action, to serve same-sex couples does this mean the other four can continue to discriminate because then there would be an alternate provider? That seems a little harsh on whichever had their case work its way through the legal system first.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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".
So how many services would she have to be refused, simply because she was a woman, before it did become discrimination?
Does the shop have a 'No dogs, no Irish, no women' sign?
Asian Taxi drivers and shopkeepers round here have refused Guide Dogs and fallen foul of the law.
[ 14. April 2015, 21:30: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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 ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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...
Because virtually the only male contraceptive currently available is on offer without a prescription, bypassing the need to go through a government-mandated gatekeeper. So yes, a doctor refusing to implant an IUD in a male patient is technically refusing the same service as denied to female patients, but (hopefully) on very different grounds.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I'm concerned about the 'available elsewhere' exemption criterion: surely this would then allow a return to 'no blacks, no dogs, no Jews, no Irish', as long as there is at least one establishment in the locale who caters to such ethnic groups (not counting the canines of course!)? Pretty uncomfortable with that outcome myself...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
... The State of Oregon, where a certain thieving rodent resides ...
Are we allowed to discriminate on the basis of lack of knowledge of Geography? Or has the "smallest State west of the Mississippi" gotten even smaller?
Mousethief lives by that fishing village significantly North of the Columbia River.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
By George!
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.
Thanks for the clarification.
It could be construed as pretty insulting by the (hypothetical) woman concerned and implies that she is being treated as a lower class of person - literally an 'untouchable'.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Barbers and hairdressers seem to be one of those services that seem like they are ethnically segregated at least in my town in the UK. I've always assumed that is because of differences in hair, skill and typical styles rather than any racist intent.
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.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The fifty United States are mysteriously afflicted with a very large number of cemetery and funeral associations. Usually there are at least two per state. The southern states have even more, usually three or four. The reason for this is rooted in the Civil War. Funeral directors embalm and inter white people. Morticians do the same for black people. so you have your South Carolina Funeral Directors Association, and your South Carolina Morticians Association, in addition to the South Carolina Cemetery Association.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
I'm not sure that's a legally meaningful distinction. Plus I'm very uncomfortable with setting the government up as the arbiter of which religious doctrines are worthy of legal protection and which aren't. I'm not sure the state is qualified to make judgements like "believing all women are whorish temptresses is okay, but believing black people are sub-human mud people is not". One of the big accomplishments of the Enlightenment was discarding the notion that the state was a good and effective arbiter of religious doctrine.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
There is a qualitative difference in not associating with people because you think they're scum, and not associating with people because you think you can't control your own flaws.
I grant you, difficult to define in law, but nonetheless real.
Commoner, nowadays, is not associating with a class of people for fear of allegations of impropriety/abuse. The opposite sex doctor will have a same sex chaperone, not seeing children alone for private tuition or whatever.
In these situations we accept the need for chaperone's for propriety's sake almost without question. Why is the barber's situation different ? Well largerly because we assume the hairdressers is not a closed environment - that the risk of discovery is too high for a high risk of iropriety - or because we don't believe that is the barber's real reason ?
[ 15. April 2015, 20:32: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Croesos - are you saying that no services can be offered on a unisex basis then in your opinion?
Our local pool offers women and children only swim sessions at specific times (mainly to help more conservative Muslim women to be able to exercise, and take their kids to swim to) - my preference would be for them to feel they had the freedom to swim at any time regardless of there being men in the pool but I think the solution the council provides is preferable to them feeling they need to stay at home and can't exercise at all.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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
It turns out that some objects in the world are dual use. A condom is a contraceptive that also works as a barrier to sexually transmitted disease. It also works as a fluid collection device unless some religious person pokes a hole in it with a pin. So Gay males buy and use large quantities of contraceptives. You might call it an off label use, except that they were originally sold as barriers to disease transmission and the contraceptive properties were ignored to deal with stupid laws against contraceptives.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I've heard of women-only swim times, and not just for Muslims--Orthodox Jewish women, conservative Christians, and just women who feel safer and more comfortable. I think it's great.
As to a Muslim barber: I'd think that a (conservative) Muslim woman wouldn't want a man to cut her hair. And US women generally go to a salon for women. Barbers are generally for men. I don't think we necessarily have to worry about this one.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The laws vary by state and have changed, but Barbers and Hairdressers may have different license requirements. In a number of states a barber has to be able to use a straight razor.
There are unisex hairdressing establishment, but I don't know what the license requirements are.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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.
But the effect is surely the same even if the reason/ motive is different.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
I'm not sure that "I personally find one form of discrimination much more distasteful than another form of discrimination" is much of a guide to anything beyond your personal opinions.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Although Matt culturally, in the UK at least, ordinarily swimming pools are a mixed sex environment while barber's and hairdressers are often single sex.
Croesos - can you seriously not see an objective difference?
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Croesos - can you seriously not see an objective difference?
I see plenty of differences. What I question is whether they're "objective" in any meaningful sense of the term.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Yes. In the first case, the public facility is excluding particular customers because of the religious or other foibles of some other customers. In the second case, the facility is excluding particular customers because of the religious foibles of the employees or business owner.
It's not obvious that that should make a difference.
An additional difference is that swimming pools and the like are often subsidized by public taxation, whereas barbers never are. Being denied services on the grounds of sex / race / whatever by a publicly-funded facility is worse than being denied services by a private individual or business.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
When we begin to overhear things like "Hey baby, nice bangs", "Ooh, look at the way she fills out that shampoo cape" or "I love watching the hair fall from your head when you exit the chair"; the pool and the salon might be the same thing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Although lilBuddah if the only reason why women feel uncomfortable in a mixed sex environment is because men are sexually harassing them the answer is to ban those specific men from that environment rather than creating some very specific and limited times when women can be in that environment with all men banned.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
With all respect, the banned men will soon be replaced by others who make similar comments.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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 ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) ) 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.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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.
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?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Different customs in different countries. My barber simply does not cut women's hair. One exception though - a woman now in her late sixties, wears a headscarf all year round, always dressed neck to ankle, and a rectangular prism in shape. Greg himself always cuts her hair. 2 employees - a man just 60, and a woman in her late 40s. There has been a woman employee for the last dozen years or so. None licensed or qualified as women's hairdressers, for men only. There are 3 predominantly women's hairdressers in the suburb, but they do cut men's hair as well - licensed and qualified to do both. Mostly women employees, but a mix.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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?
I think publicly funded things have a stronger obligation to be open to all the public than private things, yes.
With the famous signs, this is where I come unstuck trying to be logically consistent. There is a difference between a Muslim barber who doesn't want to touch women because of religious purity issues, and a guesthouse owner who doesn't want to condone gay sex under his roof - presumably the gay couple would be having sex, or not, behind their closed bedroom door and not inviting the hotelier to watch.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
How often do women seek out male barbers to do their hair?
I'd guess that the only reasons for a woman to want to have her hair cut at a "male" barbershop rather than a unisex place would be if she wanted a short back and sides or some other traditional male haircut, and expected that the barber would do a better job, or if she wanted some generic unisex haircut and the male barber was significantly more conveniently located.
It's probably not very common, but I don't think it's at all an unreasonable thing for a woman to want to do.
(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.)
[ 17. April 2015, 19:37: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
