Barber fined $750 for refusing to cut woman's hair

[blaxshep]

What if the man has a syndrome where touching women makes him EXTREMELY uncomfortable?

You mean he is gay?

 

[roguenuke]

And they're wrong.

According to you. Fortunately for the rest of us, you don't have authority to make that determination for the country.

 

[Henrin]

According to you. Fortunately for the rest of us, you don't have authority to make that determination for the country.

Protecting everyone's right to association, property and labor is hardly unfortunate.

 

[Henrin]

You mean he is gay?

It would be an anxiety issue, not something associated with sexual attraction.

 

[blaxshep]

It would be an anxiety issue, not something associated with sexual attraction.

Well there is an easy fix for that ... :drink

 

[vesper]

:roll:

No, they really don't.

Hair is hair is hair is hair. No one is saying the barbershop needs to offer extensions, or coloring, or perms, or straightening. And of course, men can easily request extensions, or coloring, or perms, or straightening.

The tools required to cut hair are the same for men and women: Scissors, clippers, apron, chair etc.

We've already had a professional cosmetologist in this thread, pointing all this out. Your claims that there is some sort of vital gender difference is factually incorrect.




Seriously?

We're not talking about genital hair remover here. We're talking about a freaking haircut.



If you want privacy with your barber, then find a barbershop with private booths.



lol... sorry, but I see no indication that a salon / barbershop for kids is in any way discriminating against adults in an illegal fashion.

I hate to break it to you, but: It is not 1955. Discrimination is not legal. You might want to get used to it, because anti-discrimination laws are not going away any time soon.

What part don't you understand that there are people who do not wish to share something as personal as grooming services in front of the opposite sex? They feel uncomfortable. Take the guy who wears a hair piece. A full hair piece must be removed to cut his natural hair short. Depending on the toupee, it may need to be removed also. Don't you see how uncomfortable that would be for a man to have to do that with women around? If he can't find a men's only shop you force him to have to pay for a private club.

You bring up private booths, well they are few and in between. The overwhelming majority of all salons are designed in an open concept divided up with stations for specific services. And others have mobile units where they bring the supplies to the chair and you get everything done right next to the patron sitting in the chairs next to you. I don't go to such places as I don't care to have my eyebrows shaped or my upper lip waxed or sit there with my hair full of foil packets for a weave, or head full of perm rods covered with a plastic bag for some man to sit there and watch it all. There's a reason I do my hair and makeup before going out into public. Fortunately I have a salon that caters to women. But for how long who knows with so many people hell bent on insisting everything be gender neutral

 

[roguenuke]

Protecting everyone's right to association, property and labor is hardly unfortunate.

It conflicts with other rights to commerce in the public domain. Especially when those who enter into business receive benefits from the public as a whole, so should have to serve the whole public unless they can show an actual detriment/harm caused by not doing so.

 

[roguenuke]

What part don't you understand that there are people who do not wish to share something as personal as grooming services in front of the opposite sex? They feel uncomfortable. Take the guy who wears a hair piece. A full hair piece must be removed to cut his natural hair short. Depending on the toupee, it may need to be removed also. Don't you see how uncomfortable that would be for a man to have to do that with women around? If he can't find a men's only shop you force him to have to pay for a private club.

You bring up private booths, well they are few and in between. The overwhelming majority of all salons are designed in an open concept divided up with stations for specific services. And others have mobile units where they bring the supplies to the chair and you get everything done right next to the patron sitting in the chairs next to you. I don't go to such places as I don't care to have my eyebrows shaped or my upper lip waxed or sit there with my hair full of foil packets for a weave, or head full of perm rods covered with a plastic bag for some man to sit there and watch it all. There's a reason I do my hair and makeup before going out into public. Fortunately I have a salon that caters to women. But for how long who knows with so many people hell bent on insisting everything be gender neutral

What part do you not get that not only were women allowed to wait in the shop (meaning women could watch any man get a cut, shave, wash, whatever, but they also employed a woman (at least according to one report)?

 

[Texmex]

And people should challenge the law when this crap comes up and tell the supporters of the law how they are nothing but filth. People have to stop being nice to these people and tell them that forced labor is not ok.

Society will no longer accept this type of discrimination regardless of what you believe or what you do. It's really not that bad, treating people with respect. You should try it sometimes.

 

[Henrin]

It conflicts with other rights to commerce in the public domain. Especially when those who enter into business receive benefits from the public as a whole, so should have to serve the whole public unless they can show an actual detriment/harm caused by not doing so.

There can be no such thing as a right to commerce that ignores the consent of one or both parties. Whatever benefits someone gets from the public(what does that even mean anyway) wouldn't trump their rights.

 

[Absentglare]

So no one has a Right to form a business? To provide for their families? To provide for themselves?

Except of course no one has a Right to other peoples labor. A person has a right to provide their labor, or deny it. Why do you think slavery was abolished?

It's called Freedom of Association. So yes, we have the Right to associate with whomever we want. We also have a Right to deny our personal labor or provide as we choose.

It is how the Courts decide whether or not a Right can be abrogated. Or should we just get rid of that and simply enforce peoples Rights no matter the cost? Or perhaps we should just simply deny everyone their Rights, no matter the cost. Do you really want to give the government that kind of power? Or should we do what is right and take the middle road and demand that the government be allowed to abrogate a Right so long as they can prove that there is a valid reason to do so in order to prevent harm? That way our Rights are protected, yet make allowances in those times that our Rights cause harm.

And the Government has to prove to the People that X law that will violate a Right is done because in Y instance it causes harm. In this particular case the government has to prove that not cutting this woman's hair would cause her harm before denying the barber his right to choose who to provide his labor to and denying his right to associate with who ever he wishes to.

Nobody has the right to circumvent federal law in order to operate a public business however they see fit.

Nobody is forced to run a business open to the public, but if they do, they must operate within the laws such as charging sales tax.

You do have freedom of association. A public business does not.

No right is being abrogated. You do not have the right to dismiss potential customers for racially or sexually discriminatory reasons. If businesses were allowed to do this, it would be an infringement on the rights of discriminated individuals.

 

[Absentglare]

What part don't you understand that there are people who do not wish to share something as personal as grooming services in front of the opposite sex? They feel uncomfortable. Take the guy who wears a hair piece. A full hair piece must be removed to cut his natural hair short. Depending on the toupee, it may need to be removed also. Don't you see how uncomfortable that would be for a man to have to do that with women around? If he can't find a men's only shop you force him to have to pay for a private club.

You bring up private booths, well they are few and in between. The overwhelming majority of all salons are designed in an open concept divided up with stations for specific services. And others have mobile units where they bring the supplies to the chair and you get everything done right next to the patron sitting in the chairs next to you. I don't go to such places as I don't care to have my eyebrows shaped or my upper lip waxed or sit there with my hair full of foil packets for a weave, or head full of perm rods covered with a plastic bag for some man to sit there and watch it all. There's a reason I do my hair and makeup before going out into public. Fortunately I have a salon that caters to women. But for how long who knows with so many people hell bent on insisting everything be gender neutral

If privacy were a need, they could find a more private barber shop. You could even hire a barber to cut your hair at your own home.

 

[Henrin]

Society will no longer accept this type of discrimination regardless of what you believe or what you do. It's really not that bad, treating people with respect. You should try it sometimes.

I tried it once and I got cookies. I really shouldn't eat cookies, but **** man, they're cookies, and I'm a sucker for cookies.

Anyways...society and government are not the same thing.

 

[Visbek]

What part don't you understand that there are people who do not wish to share something as personal as grooming services in front of the opposite sex?

The part where you think such anyone would take such absurd rationalizations seriously.

Take the guy who wears a hair piece. A full hair piece must be removed to cut his natural hair short. Depending on the toupee, it may need to be removed also. Don't you see how uncomfortable that would be for a man to have to do that with women around?

I don't see the slightest difference between him being embarrassed in front of other men, as compared to in front of women. Certainly not enough to justify eliminating anti-discrimination laws.

I mean, what's next? Can a white person say "I'm going to be embarrassed getting my hair cut sitting next to a black person, therefore blacks should not be allowed!" Should we have men-only shoe stores, because some men might be embarrassed if a woman sees them buying lifts?

You bring up private booths, well they are few and in between.

That's probably because getting your hair cut is not embarrassing.

Fortunately I have a salon that caters to women. But for how long who knows with so many people hell bent on insisting everything be gender neutral

Your salon is certainly able to market itself to women. But it is already the case that they cannot refuse services to a man. That's been the case since 1965.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

You mean he is gay?

No. You think straight men have issues cutting other men's hair? A syndrome where they cant bring themselves to touch a woman.

 

[vesper]

If privacy were a need, they could find a more private barber shop. You could even hire a barber to cut your hair at your own home.

I believe there are health/safety codes against doing hair in people's homes.

 

[wolfsgirl]

I believe there are health/safety codes against doing hair in people's homes.

Most states allow it, but it requires a lot of BS in my state. You have to send a copy of your schedule and the location of every residence you will be at 30 days in advance. Most of us don't, because of the hassle.

 

[Absentglare]

I believe there are health/safety codes against doing hair in people's homes.

Okay then haircuts on wheels in your office building.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You fail to articulate or explain this alleged right, or how something like a zoning law, food safety law, tax law or other regulations still apply.

I've already explained what rights I'm talking about. If you haven't been paying attention that is not my fault.

Zoning law does not interfere with our rights. In fact it often preserves it by providing safety, such as not allowing a steelmill to sit right next to a residential neighborhood. Food safety law...that should be obvious, if we didn't have it people would be harmed. Tax law is allowed by an Amendment that was put into place. So on and so forth.

There is no right to discriminate. The right of association is preserved by allowing people to operate as a private club.

So, if the government restricted people to only be able to use muskets do you think our right to bear arms is preserved? That is essentially what you are saying here. That so long as we can exercise a right in a small way its perfectly acceptable to restrict it in a major way.

"Doowutchyalike" is also not generally recognized as a right.

Strawman. No one has stated that people can "Doowutchyalike".

Every member of the public has the right to be treated like every other member of the public, when entering a public accommodation.

No, they do not. There is a law that states that they must be in certain cases. But that law, as I stated, goes against our Rights. In order for that law to be valid it must be proven that it is needed every single time that a dispute comes up. Which means that it must show harm. What harm is held by this barber refusing to cut hair? Laws cannot supersede Rights unless there is harm.

The owner reserves the power to refuse to serve individuals, but cannot do so on the basis of race, class, gender, religion, and in some states (and I'd say it should be all states) sexual orientation.

In other words you support discrimination.

To state the obvious: If the customer was a black man instead of a woman, the owner does not have the right to say "I don't serve blacks." And yet, the objections would almost certainly be the same -- e.g. "it's his shop" or "black hair is different" or "he might get sued if he did a bad job."

The owner does have that Right. But that Right has been abrogated. Unrightfully in the case of a barber since not cutting someones hair does not harm anyone. Which is the only time the government may legitimately abrogate a right.

 

[Kal'Stang]

:lamo:lamo:lamo


Wait, wait, wait...let me see if I have this right. In order to prove that it is okay to treat people differently based on genetics, you use an example where it wasn't okay to treat people differently based on genetics? That's awesome. I literally laughed out loud.

No, I used an example of a law that was in the wrong to show that not all laws are always right. So simply arguing that "its the law" does not mean anything.

 

[roguenuke]

There can be no such thing as a right to commerce that ignores the consent of one or both parties. Whatever benefits someone gets from the public(what does that even mean anyway) wouldn't trump their rights.

There are rights in conflict. And no one is being forced to commence in the commerce. The business operator/owner is free to not open up a business to the public.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

Most states allow it, but it requires a lot of BS in my state. You have to send a copy of your schedule and the location of every residence you will be at 30 days in advance. Most of us don't, because of the hassle.

That sounds like a "breed um out" law where they make you jump through hoops to kill the business. Who the hell schedules a hair cut 30 days in advance??? 0.0

 

[vesper]

The part where you think such anyone would take such absurd rationalizations seriously.



I don't see the slightest difference between him being embarrassed in front of other men, as compared to in front of women. Certainly not enough to justify eliminating anti-discrimination laws.

I mean, what's next? Can a white person say "I'm going to be embarrassed getting my hair cut sitting next to a black person, therefore blacks should not be allowed!" Should we have men-only shoe stores, because some men might be embarrassed if a woman sees them buying lifts?



That's probably because getting your hair cut is not embarrassing.



Your salon is certainly able to market itself to women. But it is already the case that they cannot refuse services to a man. That's been the case since 1965.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

Well you are wrong, salons/spas for women only do exist just like this barber's establishment. According to the owner, his barbershop is a place where men go to be around other men. He referred to it as “a little getaway,” which features complimentary spirits and beer on tap. And for women, yes it is a get away to have a couple of hours from the kids, the husbands, and chew the fat with the girls while getting pampered. It's good for the soul. But thanks to a minority of jerks whose definition of discrimination is so bastardized they seek to force everyone to their group think. They also seem to enjoy pissing in someone else's cheerios. I bet that barber and all his patrons were enjoying their day until that woman showed up.

 

[Kal'Stang]

We do not need to show the harm based on one individual instance. The harm comes from the failure to protect of civil rights in general, and the need to enforce the law equally to all public accommodations.

E.g. if one barber can refuse to cut a woman's hair, why can't they refuse to cut a black man's hair? If one barber is empowered to refuse to cut a black man's hair, why can't every barbershop in town? If a barber can refuse service to women or black citizens, why can't a bar, or a restaurant?

Because refusing service at a restaurant means denying food, which is essential to life. Denial of food shows a verifiable harm committed. As for bars and barber shops...why can't they? Where's the harm in denying alchohol or denying a haircut?

And yes, you do need to show harm based on individual instances as Rights are individual.

Consider food safety laws. If we look at one piece of food, from one farm, reaching one person, and it is not contaminated, does that prove that food safety laws are violating the rights of the farmer and distributor? No, because we know that those laws prevent harm in other instances.

Food is a commodity that is required for people to live. Your example is nullified by that as things that are needed to survive overrides peoples right to free association and right to serve or not serve other people.

And again: The underlying concept is that someone who operates a business as a public accommodation does not get to unilaterally decide who is, or is not, a member of the public. And yes, it is the responsibility of the business owner to understand public accommodation laws. If you don't like it, either figure out how to operate as a private club within the confines of the law,

No one is deciding who is or isn't a member of the public by refusing service. What you should figure out is the difference between a public business and a private business. Too often people confuse a business privately owned and operated with a business that is not privately owned and operated and mix them together as if they were the same. This barber shop is a privately owned business. Owned by one man. It has no stock options. Is not given money by the government. It is considered by law a private business that is opened to the public. Public accommodation laws should be adjusted to reflect that. Instead of labeling any and all businesses as something that its not.

And yes, laws are required to avoid this general harm. We've grown so accustomed to businesses abiding by them that we take broad compliance for granted. But even if we are reduced to outliers, the laws still stand, and are still valid.

So we ignore the harm that is caused by violating rights? This barber was harmed by that violation of rights despite his refusal not causing a single bit of harm. Tell me, how far are you willing to go to let your rights be abrogated without just cause?

 

[Henrin]

There are rights in conflict. And no one is being forced to commence in the commerce. The business operator/owner is free to not open up a business to the public.

So he has to close his doors in order to not be forced into commerce? How is that an acceptable solution?

What rights are in conflict if someone won't trade with you?