Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service

Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

CreativeDominant -> Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/26/2015 7:29:35 PM)
In case of competing rights, a Toronto woman has lodged a complaint against a barber who refused to cut her hair because he's Muslim. (So???) In June, Faith McGregor requested a man's haircut at the Terminal Barber Shop in downtown Toronto. Co-owner Omar Mahrouk told her that his Muslim faith prohibits him from touching a woman who is not a member of his family. All the other barbers in the shop said the same thing. (Goddamn bigots) "In our faith, I can cut my mother's hair, I can cut my sister's hair, I can cut my wife's hair, my daughter's hair," shop co-owner Karim Saaden told The Star. "We are people who have values and we hold on to (them). I am not going to change what the faith has stated to us to do." (wonders if that edict comes from his "imaginary friend" in the sky or mere mortals?) McGregor is not seeking monetary damages, but wants the tribunal to force the shop to offer men's haircuts to both genders. (No money? Doesn't she know she's been "damaged"? Oh well...don't go seek w haircut elsewhere, force someone who doesn't want to...for silly reasons...to do it) http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2140277

KenDckey -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/26/2015 7:37:03 PM)
Not sure, but he claimed her as a slave he could do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Concubinage

quizzicalkitten -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/26/2015 7:41:07 PM)
But but but its my right to force someone to do something I want them to do... its also my right to never be forced to do anything I dont want to..... (Logic of those who cant understand go some place else) ((Sarcasm))

CreativeDominant -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/26/2015 7:52:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Not sure, but he claimed her as a slave he could do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Concubinage Now why didn't she think of that and suggest it to him?

quizzicalkitten -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/26/2015 7:55:01 PM)
CD heres an update http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/rights-complaint-against-muslim-barber-who-refused-to-give-woman-haircut-quietly-resolved Apparently both were made happy some how but are sworn to secrecy, some say that he had to pay a small fine and she agreed to go elsewhere

Real0ne -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/26/2015 8:03:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten CD heres an update http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/rights-complaint-against-muslim-barber-who-refused-to-give-woman-haircut-quietly-resolved Apparently both were made happy some how but are sworn to secrecy, some say that he had to pay a small fine and she agreed to go elsewhere yep, its always confidential when the results are against the protected 'status' quo. If I could show you guys some of the ones I have gotten you would be shocked [:D] One of them was 11 pages! (a record) 99% of the time protecting the state or status quo. In other words the muslim guy most likely won.

BamaD -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/26/2015 8:11:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten CD heres an update http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/rights-complaint-against-muslim-barber-who-refused-to-give-woman-haircut-quietly-resolved Apparently both were made happy some how but are sworn to secrecy, some say that he had to pay a small fine and she agreed to go elsewhere You mean they didn't force him out of business?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/26/2015 8:15:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten CD heres an update http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/rights-complaint-against-muslim-barber-who-refused-to-give-woman-haircut-quietly-resolved Apparently both were made happy some how but are sworn to secrecy, some say that he had to pay a small fine and she agreed to go elsewhere You mean they didn't force him out of business? Wrong faith..."injured" party doesn't want money...nothing to see here.

BamaD -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/26/2015 8:29:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten CD heres an update http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/rights-complaint-against-muslim-barber-who-refused-to-give-woman-haircut-quietly-resolved Apparently both were made happy some how but are sworn to secrecy, some say that he had to pay a small fine and she agreed to go elsewhere You mean they didn't force him out of business? Wrong faith..."injured" party doesn't want money...nothing to see here. To be fair this was Canada. So the rules are different. But we were told that a penalty less than putting someone out of business wouldn't make the point.

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/26/2015 8:33:17 PM)
Three year old news from the perpetually offended.

Sanity -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/26/2015 8:40:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Three year old news from the perpetually offended. Offended and poking fun at leftists is two different things (No one threatened to burn his shop down?)

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/27/2015 4:35:04 AM)
It isnt america, so no. having to use a different country to take the piss out of lefties/ lesbians/religious freedom, is a brave and moral thing to do, oh ...i mean fucking idiocy. but then you know this with your attack on austrians we know how well that turned out

KenDckey -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/27/2015 5:29:30 AM)
Lucy isn't that what they do when they talk about universal healthcare.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/27/2015 6:00:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Three year old news from the perpetually offended. No...if it was about the perpetually offended, it would: Be about a member of a group Said member of said group would be claiming damage (like 88 different symptoms) Said member's damage could only be fixed with money and/or forcing the offending party to close OR do things in the manner chosen by the offended party.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/27/2015 6:09:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Lucy isn't that what they do when they talk about universal healthcare. Or the U. S. gun laws?

kdsub -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/27/2015 7:56:38 AM)
These types of threads have been coming and going here of late with the same groups saying the same things over and over. Who’s rights are righter. I think it is time to look at the problem from a different direction and ask a few basic questions… at least in the United States and other free Democracy’s. Who determines basic rights? Is it religion or government? I propose on a basic level it is our Constitution first… the rights spelled out were purposely written to stop religious oppression within a framework of freedom to practice your religion, or not practice any religion, as long as basic rights are guaranteed for all. Muslim barbers… Christian bakers…etc must decide to abide by the human rights guaranteed by the Constitution and law OR find a profession where they can follow their religion without suppressing the rights of others. I believe the Constitution quite plainly, and the courts agree, has determined that basic human rights for all are more important then individual rights of a particular religious belief… especially when individuals can follow those beliefs as long as they do not impinge the rights of others. Otherwise if you do not want to touch a woman’s hair or bake a cake for a gay wedding then find another profession open to the public where you can follow your beliefs without taking away the rights of others to follow their beliefs. Butch

RottenJohnny -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/27/2015 9:23:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Otherwise if you do not want to touch a woman’s hair or bake a cake for a gay wedding then find another profession open to the public where you can follow your beliefs without taking away the rights of others to follow their beliefs. Or, as a consumer, you could take the time to find out if that person is someone you can do business with and if not, go somewhere else.

kdsub -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/27/2015 9:30:45 AM)
How would you know? Should I be expected to check out the religious beliefs of my pharmacists... my mechanic... should I find the owner and check out the religious beliefs of the hotel motel I plan to stay at on vacation... maybe the cook at a roadside restaurant? Don't you think there should be a certain guarantee of service of a business open to the general public? I deal with a lot of businesses every day so do you... do you want to spend hours on the net trying to find compatible businesses? Butch

NorthernGent -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/27/2015 9:43:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Otherwise if you do not want to touch a woman’s hair or bake a cake for a gay wedding then find another profession open to the public where you can follow your beliefs without taking away the rights of others to follow their beliefs. Butch The problem with that is that private property is not necessarily open to the public; it's open to whomever the owner chooses to do business with. In the event the Muslim hair specialist or the cake baking bigot was in the public domain employed by the tax payer, then of course they would be beholden to the desires of the public.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/27/2015 9:46:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Otherwise if you do not want to touch a woman’s hair or bake a cake for a gay wedding then find another profession open to the public where you can follow your beliefs without taking away the rights of others to follow their beliefs. Butch The problem with that is that private property is not necessarily open to the public; it's open to whomever the owner chooses to do business with. In the event the Muslim hair specialist or the cake baking bigot was in the public domain employed by the tax payer, then of course they would be beholden to the desires of the public. You are SUCH a radical, N.G. [;)]

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875