Posted on 03/02/2014 10:44:42 PM PST by Impala64ssa
So a lesbian walks into a Muslim barbershop, and asks for a “businessmen’s haircut”.
It sounds like the beginning of a joke, but it really happened, and now a government agency called the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario will hear her complaint.
Faith McGregor is the lesbian who doesn’t like the girly cuts that they do at a salon. She wants the boy’s hairdo.
Omar Mahrouk is the owner of the Terminal Barber Shop in Toronto. He follows Shariah law, so he thinks women have cooties. As Mahrouk and the other barbers there say, they don’t believe in touching women other than their own wives.
But that’s what multiculturalism and unlimited immigration from illiberal countries means. A central pillar of many immigrant cultures is the second-class citizenship of women and gays.
So if we now believe in multiculturalism, and that our Canadian culture of tolerance isn’t any better than the Shariah culture of sex crimes and gender apartheid, who are we to complain when Omar Mahrouk takes us up on our promise that he can continue to practise his culture — lesbian haircuts be damned?
He’s not the one who passed the Multiculturalism Act, and invited in hundreds of thousands of immigrants with medieval attitudes towards women and gays and Jews, etc. We did.
Mahrouk’s view is illiberal. But in Canada we believe in property rights and freedom of association — and in this case, freedom of religion, too.
But McGregor ran to the Human Rights Tribunal and demanded that Mahrouk give her a haircut.
In the past, human rights commissions have been a great ally to gay activists. Because, traditionally, gay activists have complained against Christians. And white Christians are the one ethnic identity group that human rights commissions don’t value, and that multiculturalism doesn’t include.
(Excerpt) Read more at torontosun.com ...
It seems they settled out of court, with undisclosed terms.
Here Ezra Levant follows up on it last month with Chris Schafer of the Canadian Constitutional Foundation, who sums up the counterfeit rights shakedown industry nicely:
Yes, and create one big one. Unless you see the solution as starting all over again. Reset. That may happen in spite of whatever we may desire.
We're not going to go back to segregated lunch counters, no matter what. But by restoring to businesses the ability to decide who they will interact with, without fear of lawsuit, we will eliminate the profit incentive of the Perpetually Aggrieved in going to businesses in the hopes of finding a way to file a discrimination lawsuit.
If the laws need tweaking, I’m fine with their being tweaked. There are many “religions” in the world, however, and if we start getting into the fine points of who can refuse what to whom for what reason, there will be no end to it. We could be in for some nasty surprises, as well.
The principle should be nondiscrimination, not a total eradication of the concept that a business is a semi-public entity. Unfortunately, there has been such a complete destruction of the concept of community standards that something like that would probably never hold up in court again.
And here's where we disagree. I'm in favor of businesses having the right refuse to interact with anyone, for any reason, or no stated reason.
Reflecting on this, I think s/he must have got a cash settlement from the barber. Can’t see how they would have resolved it otherwise.
>>The most puzzling thing, though, is how the mohammedan could have known that that thing was not a male.
S/he told him?
I’m guessing you weren’t around in the sixties, when this fight was fought and won. And I’m guessing you don’t remember what it was like before that fight. I don’t want to go back there. You are welcome to your time-travel fantasies. It wouldn’t be as you think it would, or maybe you are now in a group that was never discriminated against and you think you would like it just fine.
A lot of our problems come from the fact that people are too young to remember what it was like in the past. We have all the history-challenged morons clamoring for communism too.
I grew up in the 60's. In my old neighborhood, in the 60's a kid could ride his bike all over in complete safety. When I revisited in the 80's, it was really ugly.
I'm currently in a group that is heavily discriminated against: straight, white Christians. I'm real tired of it, too. I once was idealistic. Now I care about my own family and friends first, second-place goes to people who share my culture and can be assumed to be of good will. People who hate me and mine, I do not care about their welfare at all.
I think you just threw your medals over the wall. As a fellow Christian, I feel obligated to suggest that you think again. Don’t let Obama’s divisiveness claim you as a victim. He can redefine the word “brother” according to current slang but that doesn’t mean we have to do it.
Alle Menschen werden Brüder.
And as we all know well, there are plenty of gay-owned and gay-friendly businesses. Particularly in creative fields like cake design.
These particular gays went out of their way to find a business they could sue.
Well, duh!
only if she was a prostitute. the suing cases are about discrimination against customers
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
