A can of worms
There is this woman in Los Angeles, Kendall Oliver, an Army veteran who claims to be “genderqueer”, which means that she doesn’t subscribe to any gender. She went to get a haircut at a barber shop, and she went to the only barber shop in LA, apparently. The guy who runs the shop, Richard Hernandez, belongs to a Christian religious sect (I think Apostolic Pentecostals are one of those sects) that doesn’t allow him to cut women’s hair. So you can see that the cultures clashed. A person who doesn’t identify herself as a woman, can’t get a haircut from a guy who does classify her as a woman for religious reasons. She even called the owner and explained that she thinks she’s more man than woman, but that didn’t change his mind – you know because he’s bound by his religion to not make the distinctions.
Of course, because the barber shop is apparently the only barber shop in LA, Oliver has to make a stink, according to the Washington Post;
Peter Renn, a lawyer at LGBT rights organization Lambda Legal, is talking to Oliver about the incident and may pursue legal action. He said that California law that prevents discrimination on the basis of gender or gender identity should have compelled Hernandez or one of his employees to cut Oliver’s hair.
If the shop offers a service — in this case, the haircut that the other person with Oliver’s hairstyle was getting that day — then it must offer that same service to any person, Renn said.
“Religion can’t and shouldn’t be used as a shield for discriminatory business practices,” he added.
I say that it’s the only barbershop in LA because she didn’t take her money else where to get her hair cut, you know like every other consumer does who is dissatisfied with their treatment in a service-related industry. Like the gays who couldn’t get their wedding cake baked at one certain bakery and instead of taking their business else where, they had to make a nation-wide stink about it. I’m sure there is probably even a hair cutting place in LA that caters to genderqueers. But, like everything else these days, it can’t be that easy.
Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit
“Curioser and curioser!” said Alice. Or Alex. Or . . . whoever.
Yeh but going to a different shop doesn’t give you the opportunity to sue and steal their money! Shoot the lawyer first , then the pervert imho
Can…..worm….something something…punchline.
The End.
WTF ever happened to the right of a business to refuse service? Oh wait, nowadays it’s all about catering to those who whine and bawl the loudest regardless of common sense and logic.
Yep. In an ideal Ayn Rand world, a sign saying “We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service To Anyone For Any Reason”, would be honored, and let the free market sort our the winners and losers.
Now there’s the Special Snowflakes and their Gubberment Protectors and The ACLU and SPLC, making mud of everything.
So does this douchebag lawyer think that Muslims should be forced to serve customers pork at a restaurant if it’s against their beliefs?
Just curious.
This whole thing is retarded from all sides. Seriously. Find another fucking barber!
You really need to stop riding the Metro. Its not leaving you with a warm fuzzy feeling.
Have a Snickers, embrace the diversity.
She certainly ain’t riding the Metro today, amigo. News reports say the entire DC metro system is shut down today for emergency inspections.
Apparently a 1980s vintage Jaguar got took a wrong turn and got stuck on the tracks in Bethesda. Jacked up the entire Metro line.
Those years reputedly did have fairly crappy electrical systems . . . .
Ouch, find another barber…okay I guess…. We have public accommodation laws for a reason to prevent some businesses from refusing service to people for no other reason than race, creed, or religion. We have some states that are adding gender/sexuality to that as is the states right to do for their own people. Unfortunately for the barber and the wedding cake people we are not a religious society, we protect people’s right to worship but we make laws designed to allow access to services offered to the public regardless of how the business feels about certain segments of the public. Why do I have to choose a different barber because I’m a man or a woman? If you cut hair, you cut fucking hair. Period. If your religion doesn’t let you cut the hair of women then you might not be suited for operating a business in a society that recognizes men and women as equals. If you bake cakes you bake fucking cakes. Period. If you don’t like how some of the public lives then maybe you shouldn’t operate a bakery in a pluralistic society where people are not obligated to conform to your religion. Sure she could go to another barber, just like blacks could go to a different diner instead of sitting with the white folks…but it’s wrong to refuse services that you offer to the public. We are not a theocracy, we were never a theocracy. We welcome people from all over the world (sometimes) and we protect their rights to believe as they wish. We also protect the public’s right in a business environment to enjoy access to the goods and services offered to the public at large. Signs that state NO GAYS ALLOWED OR SERVED or NO WOMEN ALLOWED OR SERVED won’t stand here in the United States nor should they ever be allowed to stand here in the United States. Kendall Oliver isn’t someone I’d ever hang out with, but Kendall has a right to get a hair cut wherever the fuck Kendall wants to get a hair cut. The guy with the… Read more »
So we should all pretty much just fall in line with your way of thinking? We’re all wrong for not believing as you do? Putting yourself up on a pretty high pedestal there, VOV.
It’s not how I think that matters, it’s how the law thinks.
The law doesn’t see gay or straight or black or white. I own and operate a business. I manufacture a product for a variety of clients. I bid on jobs, when I get the job I can’t turn it down because you’re gay or transgendered I have to take the job I bid on and win.
If I am worried about your religion or sexuality I shouldn’t be offering these services to the public.
I do work for religious people, straight people, and one of my best clients is a gay arts organization in New York. Their money is all equally good at paying my mortgages, car loans and boat and providing a nice lifestyle.
I am not allowed by law to refuse service because I don’t care for your religion or lifestyle. My way of thinking has nothing to do with it.
Anymore than your way of thinking changes the reality of the public accommodation laws. People are free to press for PRFAs in their own state to deny serving some of their fellow citizens.
I serve anyone with money who accepts my bids. I treat all my fellow citizens and potential clients the same with my business. It’s the right thing to do, period.
I’d be careful there, VOV. Lifestyle is not generally on a par with religion, race, ethnicity, or gender when it comes to the law. The latter three are recognized as protected classes under Federal law. Best I can determine, “lifestyle” is not.
Sexual orientation may or may not be considered a protected class under California law. If it’s not, as I see it the shop owner may well have the right to refuse service under these conditions.
Not a lawyer, so any lawyer readers please feel free to correct me regarding the above.
I chose my words poorly, many here still talk lifestyle when discussing sexual orientation and I chose that word instead of orientation.
You are right about protected classes, if not enumerated under the law it makes no difference. The barber may not be able to hang a sign stating men only which is why his religious preference might not come into play as women are clearly a protected class under a great many laws and I’m willing to bet California lists women among the protected classes.
it was what made one of the cases a year ago interesting in that the pizza makers could already discriminate without any legal repercussion because being gay wasn’t a protected class under their public accommodation laws.
There will however be other ramifications of publicly declaring that you don’t consider every citizen to be equal under the law.
You want me to do the work I bid on, I take your money. As long as your money is good I don’t care about your life, your god, your politics…etc. I don’t discriminate against anyone with money, I only discriminate if you can’t pay after we agree on a price. Then if I delivered product that you use I take you to court to get compensated.
The SCOTUS fucked up the waters on a lot of this by stating a corporation could carry its’ owners views as if it were a person. The entire reason for incorporating is to legally SEPARATE yourself from your business so it is clear under the law that YOU AND YOUR FINANCES are not the business finances for purposes of litigation. It would seem odd that my business can be me for religious reasons but not financial reasons. I expect this to be heard again at the SCOTUS level and quite possibly see a different outcome.
Turns out that in this case, you could well be right anyway. I got curious and checked; CA is one of 20 states that apparently does recognize sexual orientation as a form of “protected class”. Don’t know the specifics of CA law and how that interacts with CA’s case law regarding religious freedom.
FWIW: NM also recognizes sexual orientation as a protected class. That is apparently why the state of NM was able to screw over the bakery owners there.
I agree that once a businessman has agreed to do a job they are bound to do that job. Where we disagree is that I do not feel the law has the right to compel a businessman to do business with literally anyone who drops by.
The business owner has rights, too. If he wants to turn away business, that’s his prerogative.
As gitarcarver observes in comments elsewhere, your position here would compel any printer in the US to print pro-Dae’sh fliers advocating “Death to America” or “Death to Israel”; anti-Semetic tracts; KKK posters; or any type of similar vile screed. You might feel that is acceptable. I think the business owner has the right to tell that prospective customer, for whom he/she has not yet agreed to do the work, “No thanks. Take your business elsewhere – we don’t do that kind of crap.”
In my world, a business owner shouldn’t be required to give up that right by law. Apparently you’re OK with the law compelling him/her to do business under such circumstances.
While everyone here is talking about “lifestyle” and what not, that is not really the issue in this case. The business owner says he wouldn’t cut the woman’s hair because she is a woman.
You might want to read up on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I might be wrong, but best I can tell the Equal Rights Act of 1964 only covers sex discrimination in Title VII. That part of the law only covers employment discrimination, and protects the employment rights of female employees of “covered employers” (15+ employees). It doesn’t seem to address business-customer relations.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 obviously doesn’t apply here. Pretty sure that’s the only other legal basis for gender as a protected class.
Can’t speak to CA law, which may well be different.
I’m okay with compelling him to do the same thing for me he does for everyone else which is cut hair.
He’s not being asked to print something offensive, he’s not being asked to create something.
That’s where gitacarver and I separate I think on this. I am not asking anyone to “create” an art piece. Some wedding cakes are art pieces sure, others are just a round cake in several layers with congratulations John and Deb or Bob and Bob for gays….not the same as being asked to create a cake of penises dancing around a baby jesus with ejaculate squirting from their openings…
I’m not asking a printer to print death to America, but if the printer offers for sale signs I’m asking that he sell them to gays and straights alike….
I also think that’s where the laws are designed to separate from what is essentially someone selling a base product or simple service versus someone creating something from scratch…a haircut might be an artwork if the design is something unique but mostly it’s just more of the same, a little off the top and high and tight over the sides…not the Mona Lisa…
You don’t want to serve gays, pick a business where you can create an environment that most gays wouldn’t even know they were being discriminated against…like where you bid on something. You could jack the price up and avoid the work or offer a no bid…simple. I no bid on deadbeats, usually here in Massachusetts that means I don’t waste my time with state contracts because they’re nothing but a giant pain in the ass and I stick to high end clients who sell high end goods and need my design and production skills.
I love it when my competitors no bid the gay contract I have for the New York organization. It made me only have to outbid 1 other competitor which was easy because I’m not in the city. The more people that dislike the client base the better for me.
Actually, in both cases you’re advocating the government compelling by law a businessman to perform a service which may violate their religious principles, or which they otherwise find morally objectionable. I have a problem with that. As I said earlier: business owners have rights as well.
There is no essential difference between this particular case and a minority-owned printer being required, by law, to accept an order consisting of printing 1,000 copies of pre-designed posters for a white supremacist group. In both cases, the government is mandating that the business owner perform work they find morally objectionable simply because that individual is a member of a “protected class” (remember: Caucasian is a race). In any sane world, the business owner in both cases should be able to tell that prospective customer to get lost.
The argument for the first case is precisely the argument for the second. I don’t buy either argument as valid.
You two are arguing over nothing.
The point is, as I have indicated elsewhere, that there are shops that ARE gender-neutral and cater to BOTH men and women. Supercuts, Sportslips and Greatchips are three of those companies. Kendall MADE A POINT of picking out a shop that does not serve women. She had alternatives but did not go to any of them. Her act was intentional, for the purpose of seeking attention, unless she can prove otherwise.
That’s where gitacarver and I separate I think on this. I am not asking anyone to “create” an art piece. In this particular case, two of the three things that I said come into play. If the barber cannot cut women’s hair because of a licensing issue, he shouldn’t cut the woman’s hair. If he has a sign on the wall saying “haircuts $10,” that’s the offer and the gay person can accept the offer. If the barber can legally cut the woman’s hair and has made an contractual offer, the woman should be able to accept it without issue. Cut the woman’s hair. Some wedding cakes are art pieces sure, others are just a round cake in several layers with congratulations John and Deb or Bob and Bob for gays….not the same as being asked to create a cake of penises dancing around a baby jesus with ejaculate squirting from their openings… And this is where you go off the rails in my opinion. In essence, you are saying that the written word is not speech. If my religious and or moral beliefs don’t allow me to support the idea of a gay marriage, the government should not be able to force me to write that message on a cake in violation of the my religious rights and freedom of speech rights. Business should not be forced to support causes and events with which they disagree (and have not made an offer.) To illustrate, if I am a baker and I have two dozen cookies in the case at $5.00 a dozen, whomever walks in and wants to buy the cookies can do so. Now if a gay couple wants to come in and say “write ‘congratulations Bill and Joe on your wedding’,” I should be able to refuse that order. It almost seems as if you are happy with the idea that the government can create laws that violate the Constitution. The next time a law restricting gun use or ownership comes up, for the sake of consistency, I would hope you would support that law because “it… Read more »
The courts will decide if those laws actually violate the constitution or not. We’ve already determined that our right to free speech is not an unrestricted right to say anything at any time without repercussion. As our country matures and our knowledge of the world and the universe continue to expand one thing has been consistently true. The resistance to progress has always come from those whose religion has been threatened by that new understanding provided by science. I realize I’m in a tiny minority when I say there’s no god. But it was a tiny minority who said the earth was round, it was a tiny minority who said germs kill people and it was a tiny minority who said black people should be treated the same as white people. Some of those folks were identified as religious because they had little choice during their lifetime to tell the world they didn’t believe as they risked being executed for stating such things. Even as it was many risked their lives making such claims against their all powerful deities. To this day we have people of faith who refuse medical treatment for children based on their god’s instruction set. I guess their freedom trumps their child’s right to treatment in one of the most advanced nations on the earth in terms of health treatment options. I’m really not interested in protecting that parent’s right to let their kid die based on supernatural mythology. I’m sorry if come off as being snarky and rude as I realize my ideas are offensive to a lot of my fellow Americans and I’m not very diplomatic, but at the end of the day just because 200 million people think their imaginary friend tells them it’s okay to treat gays differently doesn’t make it right any more than knowing how many people once thought everything revolved around the earth made that true. What keeps me awake at night: wondering whether the human species is just too stupid to figure out the Universe. Because we define ourselves as intelligent— because we made up the test to… Read more »
So does that mean I can scream, bawl and sue a Muslim-owned restaurant or diner for refusing to make me a BLT?
If they offer pork sandwiches they can’t refuse selling you one, if they don’t of course not….
no more than a seafood restaurant isn’t obligated to serve steaks…c’mon now this isn’t that hard to make proper analogies.
Agree with you, VOV.
These are cases where rights of people clash. That is what makes them so difficult. What makes them even more difficult is that if an employee was asked to do a job that was against their religious or moral beliefs, the law requires “reasonable accommodations” for that employee. Yet the business owner is not afforded the same accommodations for his beliefs. That is simply wrong on many levels as it means that the owner of a company must give up rights in order to make a living and to provide for their families. The rights of the employees and the presumed “rights” of the customer are protected but the rights of the owner is not. There are two generally two different things going on in these discussions and third enters with this specific case. You are correct that a person who makes an offer to sell a burger should sell the burger to whomever. The menu itself is the first part of a contract and if accepted by a person, should go forward. (offer, acceptance, intention, and consideration) The same is not true for wedding cakes where there is no offer. “We sell wedding cakes” with negotiation on the cake and the decorations is not the same as “chocolate cake for $5.99.” Wedding cakes are works of art and creation. The Supreme Court has already held that creative works are a form of speech and speech may not be compelled by the government. No one (I hope) wants a Jewish graphic designer to be forced to create a poster for the Nazi Party. A printer who is pro choice should not be forced to print t-shirts that read “Pro Choice People Are Murderers.” A white media consultant should not be forced to create a press release extolling the Black Panthers “Kill a Honkey” party. Acts of creation and speech are different from a lunch counter. Where this case is even more different is that to cut women’s hair here in Florida requires a different level of training than that of cutting men’s hair. It doesn’t matter that the cuts are… Read more »
Unruh Civil Rights Act
Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, all persons are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments, including both private and public entities. The Unruh Civil Rights Act protects all persons against arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination by a business establishment (Civil Code section 51).
In cases alleging an Unruh Act violation, complaints must be filed with DFEH within one year from the date of the alleged discriminatory act. Please contact us immediately if there is any likelihood that this one-year period is about to expire.
You may file a private lawsuit under the Unruh Act (business establishments). You are not required to file a complaint with Department and you do not need a Notice of Right to Sue.
This law provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations, because of:
Age
Ancestry
Color
Disability
Genetic Information
Medical Condition (cancer and genetic characteristics)
Marital Status
National Origin
Race
Religion
Sex (which includes pregnancy, childbirth, medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth, gender, gender identity and gender expression)
Sexual Orientation
Citizenship
Primary Language
Immigration Status
However California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics. The Act is meant to cover all arbitrary and intentional discrimination by a business establishment on the bases of personal characteristics similar to those listed above.
The above is from California’s website: http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_Unruh.htm
Sexual Orientation is clearly considered a protected class and the law states all business public and private are covered under this law.
I guess we’ll see how it’s handled by the court system.
It also indicates that religious discrimination is prohibited, VOV. An argument can be made that the state is compelling the business owner here to violate religious beliefs, and will fine him if he does not. Sounds like religious discrimination to me – which would be a violation of state law by the state itself.
We appear to have rights from two different protected classes in conflict. I believe that’s essentially guitarcarver’s underlying point above.
It will indeed be interesting to see how this turns out in state court. And possibly in Federal court as well, if the business owner then sues the state of CA for compelling him to violate his religious practices via threat of loss of livelihood.
Again, the customer was being discriminated against because of their sex, not their gender identity. The barber wouldn’t cut their hair because he determined the customer was a woman.
And again, you need to read up on the specified Federal laws. They don’t appear to prohibit that. Those laws only appear to address employment discrimination on the part of the business owner – and only then if the business is of sufficient size.
I agree that the business owner appears foolish to refuse business. But it also appears that Federal law allows it in this case. CA law may well say otherwise.
Personally, I think that the guy should have told the individual he didn’t cut women’s hair well – and when he/she/whatever persisted, told her he’d have to do it blindfolded and wearing leather gloves because of his religion. If she still persisted, he should then have blindfolded himself, put on gloves – and begun giving her a “high and tight” crew cut by touch alone. (smile)
I have no belief to elevate over you gitacarver, I’m addressing only the law. Your beliefs are irrelevant under a public accommodation law. This is not someone creating something, it’s someone cutting hair. I posted the protected classes under the California law. It would appear that if there is a separate licensing structure in CA as FLA then perhaps he is safe, if there is not then there would be a problem. He’s not creating art, he’s cutting hair. It’s not that difficult. I wouldn’t want anyone cutting my hair who didn’t approve of me as a human, and I wouldn’t sue. But if everyone always goes the easy way nothing gets done. Rosa Parks could have just shut the fuck up and sat in the back too, but she chose another path. You mentioned the founders, it’s interesting to note they could have chosen the easy path of just paying the tax but as I recall they chose a different path as well. Ms. Oliver could easily have gone where she was welcome, she chose to make a statement with her actions. That’s her right as an American as well. Now the law will determine if her course of action was a mistake or the correct path for the State of CA to pursue with her litigation. That’s how it’s all supposed to work when we don’t agree as citizens. For me I choose to serve everyone with good money who comes into my business seeking a bid. I only refuse to serve those who can’t pay and the law agrees that I have that right. Others can choose to start a business designed to exclude potential customers, but they should be prepared for a short stay in business. Most businesses fail anyhow, limiting your client base seems to be a really fucking stupid idea. But there are a lot of stupid business owners finding out they don’t have what it takes to keep their doors open every day. Maybe the fundies can start a collection for the barber and keep his odd business model working for him. The… Read more »
I have no belief to elevate over you gitacarver,
Wasn’t it you who wrote: So fuck him and the people who think like him, they’re no different than those that thought Native Americans, or blacks, or Asians or any other people weren’t their equals for whatever reason.
and The guy with the problem is the one who believes that a fairy tale makes it wrong to cut her hair. Fuck him and his bullshit beliefs that make some people less than others in his god’s eyes.
That sure sounds like you disagree with the guy and want your beliefs to take precedence over his.
You mentioned the founders, it’s interesting to note they could have chosen the easy path of just paying the tax but as I recall they chose a different path as well.
I don’t recall “the right not to be taxed” listed anywhere. Can you show me where I can find that in any documents (foundational or otherwise.) As there is no “right to not be taxed,” there was no clash of individual rights.”
The wrong side of history never goes quietly into that long good night. I’m not surprised by any of this either.
Once again, I want to make clear that I am talking about creative works – not offers of services already made. Time will tell if the suppression of human rights by the government in forced contracts and speech is the wrong side of history.
The entire idea of laws that say I must serve a person at my business is bullshit.
Yes, I understand the so-called reasons for it, and those reasons are crap as well.
They government should be prevented from any kind of discriminations, but as a private person I am not the government and should be able to serve whomever I please and deny service to the same.
The idea that somehow I must conform because the great and powerful Oz has decided that it is a bad thought to not do X is bullshit forced conformity that is based on one groups decision on what they feel is moral.
Don’t like that they won’t bake you a cake, cut your hair or serve bacon then go somewhere else. But someone being sued because they won’t go against their beliefs is a load of Bernathian size crap.
Good point, some ambulance chasing scumbag lawyer needs to find a wino on the street and give him a fresh bottle of wine and tell him to go to the nearest mooslime deli and order a ham sandwich, if they don’t serve it because of their “pardon the expression, political agenda” then sue their worthless asses!!
S/he/it couldn’t find a convenient Supercuts shop? They don’t care what you think you are. They only care about your cash.
As usual, this isn’t about getting a haircut based on what is/isn’t in your pants. It’s about getting attention.
Nothing new here. Move on.
And another small business go’s out business.
And a SJW (pond scum) is gonna get paid.
Come on! This was a setup from the very start. What are the chances that in the Greater LA Metro area, that this “GenderQueer” picked the one Religious Barber? No such thing as coincidence. Like the David Duke thing with Trump, too convenient.
Like a number of posters said, there are no other barbers in the LA Metro Area? You could not go to the predominantly gay area, every city has one, and got Her/His haircut.
Setup from the start. They claim to love diversity but only in their favor.
Every f**cking place you go! It never stops. Some dick swap, nasty snatch wannabee picks the only barber shop possible of being annoyed by their intended actions and decides to get a high and tight there. Why? For the shits and giggles, pint making sake of it, period. Knowing the LGBT will support a puppy with twp peckers or someone who self identifies as being neither gender or Klingon or anything abnormal. Fuck em’ all.
Sorry for the misspellings, I was pissed.
If you own a business, any sort of business, and you think your business plan to serve or not serve any group or individuals, then why is that decision any of my business, someone who has absolutely nothing invested in your business? If you can succeed by only serving people wearing burkas, or with green eyes, or who drive vintage T-Birds, why should the rest of us intercede? Your business = your business. If I don’t like your business plan, until I am required to frequent your business it’s simply none of my business.
This is just another example of a very simple concept being made unnecessarily into something difficult, with no acceptable resolution. Makes you almost think that it is an intentional set up to create chaos and cause harm to people vindictively targeted for nothing more than tending to their own business.
Public accommodation laws disagree with your perception of this issue.
If your business offers services to the general public (many services are defined in the public accommodation laws) then your business must comply with the public accommodation laws. No different than complying with OSHA rules or ACA rules or tax laws. There is no “right” to own a business enumerated in the constitution therefore how a business operates in our communities is completely subject to the legislative laws enacted to direct businesses in each community and the nation.
PRFAs are designed to allow you to discriminate against your fellow citizens and avoid public accommodation law. Those who are concerned about these issues have the right to ask their legislature to enact a PRFA in their state. Otherwise all businesses must comply with the law surrounding public accommodation.
Conversely, there is no “right” enumerated in the Constitution allowing government to mandate how and with whom you must do business.
Every one of us “discriminates” all day and every day. It is a practice which allows us to make decisions from the mundane (Decaf or fully leaded? WalMart or Kroger? Allstate or Geico?) to less mundane things (Do we retire in FL or remain here? Retire this year?). Having government decide what criteria we use is disturbing. I support your right to make your decisions based upon whatever criteria you wish to use, whether I agree or not. Until you ask me to pay for it, it’s you business, and not mine.
See my comment above, VOV. Lifestyle is not a recognized protected class, at least not Federally. It may or may not be under state law, and state laws differ widely.
Public accommodation laws disagree with your perception of this issue.
The problem is that you are assuming that the laws are right to begin with. (see “Jim crow laws, the Dred Scott decision, women”s voting laws, etc.)
While you are correct that there in no specific right to own a business, there is a right to liberty and pursuit of happiness (property) which can and does come through owning a business. There is also the stated right of religious freedom. And there is the right of association which is being able to join a group and act in furtherance of goals which is exactly what a business and corporation does.
If you want to go down the path of “what’s in the Constitution,” I cannot find anything that says the government can force a business to enter into a contract for services.
I get and understand what you are saying, but going the “its the law” and “it’s not in the Constitution” route doesn’t help your argument.
I can’t either, guitarcarver. But it must be there. The SCOTUS says so – see their decision re: ObamaCare.
(Yes, I’m being sarcastic as hell.)
Public accommodation laws should only apply to government entities.
There is no reason the government should be telling any private business who they should, or should not, cater to.
We claim to be a nation of laws, not a nation of laws we like and choose to obey.
You might be right that the law is wrong, the way to deal with that is through the legislature or through the courts which is where this is headed.
There is no right to own or operate a business in the constitution but this is in the constitution: “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” That’s where the constitution allows the Congress to decide how you get to operate commerce among the states….it’s not a top 5 clause to be sure….but it’s still a top 10.
You are right in that laws change, and the law is starting to change now regarding how we treat gay people in this country. People used their religious beliefs to justify your examples above, just as they use them now. Eventually that argument will be rejected in reference to gays just as it was in reference to blacks and women.
As I said earlier, the wrong side of history never goes down without a roar and a fight. That’s what makes us great. We eventually put down the wrong side of history and move forward to ensure that all our citizens continue to be treated as equals under the law.
The problem with the religious folks is they no longer completely rule the roost as they’ve been used to in the United States. For 240 years the religious people have elected a president and had their way, things are changing and they don’t like it. They don’t like it any more than when we abolished the slave trade or had the audacity to let women vote.
I don’t feel bad for them. The good old days that religious folks dream of were usually bad old days for some of our fellow citizens.
Welcome to the brave new world.
And how, precisely, does a barber shop in LA engage in interstate commerce, VOV?
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate intrastate business. That is a power reserved to the states.
The interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is the most judicially abused phrase in that entire document.
Fair enough Hondo but the reason it’s so oft quoted is because it’s clear the founders wanted Congress to regulate trade even if “among” is interpreted to mean between only. After 1865 it became pretty clear that for the most part federal laws would supersede state laws where applicable. Public accommodation laws are superseded by the federal ADA in every state. A state can be stricter than than the ADA but not looser. At some point, as with gay marriage, a declaration about what constitutes acceptable discriminatory practices will be adjudicated for the entire nation.
California’s laws are indeed different from other states, and it would appear that their code addresses the issue of gender identification and sexuality.
The courts will indeed address this issue, rightly or wrongly the system has become extremely litigation dependent instead of legislatively dependent. Perhaps that’s so because so few legislators seem willing to do their jobs these days. That’s true at the state and national levels, which makes most Americans feel their only recourse is litigation.
The roar of those on the wrong side of history doesn’t change the reality of their being on the wrong side.
Discrimination has always been wrong, it will always be wrong and it’s patently un-American to endorse discriminatory practices regardless of the reasoning behind it.
It was ever so and will always be so.
Um, no. The Founders intent was to preclude states placing tariffs on goods transiting state borders, or otherwise screwing with trade between the states. That would have led to disunity, as well as a plethora of different rules that could well have ended the US in the 1700s – much like the US government under the Articles of Confederation failed.
That’s why the power to regulate such trade was granted to Congress vice being a power reserved to the states. They realized that failure to do so was risking chaos.
You keep using the phrase, “Wrong side of history.”
You are aware that this was a phrase of the Left in the 1930s, right? You know, when Stalin was liquidating his opponents, starving the Ukraine, and setting up his Gulag?
I agree that discrimination is wrong. But it’s no less wrong when practiced against business owners than when practiced against others.
Are you suggesting that business owners who refused service to blacks were somehow on the right side of history? And when forced to comply by the law with something they didn’t believe in because god told them blacks were lesser humans they were on the right side of history?
Discriminating against gays is as wrong as discriminating against women, blacks, Irish, Asians, Native Americans…etc.
And all of those were justified with religion at one time, certainly if not justified those doing the discrimination thought they were god fearing and god respecting people.
Business owners who discriminate against their fellow Americans for whatever reason aren’t business owners that concern me at all. I’ve no more use for bigoted business owners than I do the bigots at the KKK.
Being wrong is being wrong Hondo. You are someone I respect immensely here, I understand the cerebral point you’re making but I don’t believe you would stand with bigots against gays due to religion.
Religious bigots are no better than any other bigot.
I can’t stop anyone from being a bigot or holding their bigoted view, but I sure as hell can tell them over and over again I don’t give a rat’s ass why they are attempting to justify their bigotry I’m not having any part of it.
Could it not be true that fellow Americans are discriminating business owners, i.e. with their personal issues? I agree with some others: if that person really wanted a haircut and was refused because of the owners religious beliefs, then why not seek another business to cut her hair? The business owner loses income to his business, which in his eyes may not be a loss. The disatisying customer would in turn give her payment for services to another business. And wow, the qyestion is: In the end, if she wins, will she be willing to go back to that same business and ask the same guy to cut her hair? Talk about awkward. And if he is forced to do something against his faith? Awkward!
Was busy last night, and also wanted to let this reply sit in draft for a while before posting it. The situation here is not at all comparable to discrimination in the Jim Crow South. There, you were talking blatant and unacceptable racial discrimination that had been prohibited by then-newly passed Federal legislation. Here, we have rights from two different (under CA law, not Federal) protected classes that are in direct conflict. Obviously you support the customer in this case. However, the business owner’s rights are being impacted by the state here as well – and in this case, unlike racial discrimination in the Jim Crow South, it’s a protected class of rights of the business owner that are being impacted. Sorting out such a conflict and deciding which “ox is to be gored” is for the courts to decide. Being CA, the CA courts may well decide that the business owner’s religious rights here are irrelevant and that they wish to “support the cause”. CA is . . . well, it’s CA. ‘Nuff said. You apparently missed the point of my last comment above entirely. My last comment above was intended to highlight the fact that here you have reverted to classic Northeastern Liberal modus operandi in your comments here. Specifically: you are using – hopefully unthinkingly – classic Leftist unethical rhetoric and argumentative techniques. You’re obviously not interested in rational discussion here; you have determined the outcome you want to see, and are willfully ignoring counterarguments at least as valid as the ones you are making. When challenged, you resorted to an ad hominem attack, effectively claiming that those with a different opinion were “being backwards Neanderthals” and were “on the wrong side of history.” In reality, as guitarcarver observed, this is not a clear cut case of one party being right and the other wrong. Here, we have rights from two different protected classes – religion, and, under CA law, gender orientation – in conflict. (Gender orientation and/or identification is not yet recognized Federally as a protected class, nor is it yet legally so recognized as such… Read more »
Reasonable people can often disagree about which two protected classes should take precedence in any two party conflict. Most folks here have decided that the business owner is on the right side of this issue. And denigrated the woman on the other side as a mere attention seeking side show. For me that’s the trigger that says religion is upset at being challenged yet again for holding to a belief system that allows discrimination. For you it’s a matter of two equally competing rights, for me it’s not. It’s yet again another attempt by religion to stall the equal treatment of all our citizens under a public accommodation law. I might have some sympathy for the owner were this in fact as gitacarver suggested some sort of artistic creation. It’s a fucking hair cut. Maybe he shouldn’t be a barber if this is such a big thing. It’s interesting that everyone wants the young lady to go somewhere else. Why not the business owner? Maybe he and his version of reality have no place in the modern United States where gays, transgenders, and a variety of other people have the audacity to request that they be treated the same as you and I are treated when entering a barbershop. It’s an ad hominem if the analogy doesn’t fit but it does in fact fit here, just not with those whose idea of reality includes a belief system based on mythology. I didn’t suggest he was a racist I suggested he was a bigot. His bigotry appears to be religion based and not necessarily race based but race based bigots thought themselves good christians as well. So perhaps the analogy is closer than I thought. Pretending that his religion makes it okay to avoid women’s haircuts is no different than pretending it’s okay to avoid letting women receive equal pay or drive a car or have a say in her marriage because god tells him women aren’t equal to men. Fundamentalists religionists are the bane of the world. I find his discrimination blatant and unacceptable as well. Perhaps the law will… Read more »
“The problem with religious folks…”
Does this mean eventually, Chick-Fil-A may oneday be forced to open their businesses on Sunday to accommodate those who do not practice any religion? (I see it coming). And I may be wrong, but I think there was an issue about Same Sex Marriage that Huckabee was involved with this business,even though the company states they do not discriminate based on race, creed, gender, etc.etc.
Nobody is forcing them open on Sunday any more than anyone forces them to open at 8am.
What they are being told they must do is to serve everyone who enters which they already do without issue. That’s all. Nothing more, nothing less.
Religious folks have had it their way for 240 years in the country. People have used religion to justify mistreating women, mistreating other races, mistreating gays…etc…now that someone has the audacity to once again point out that religion is backing a losing cause the religionists once again cry foul which is nothing new, they’ve cried foul at every turn throughout history as the world moves beyond what religion is teaching at the moment.
It’s wrong to treat people differently, period. Just because some folks like to use their religion to justify doesn’t change the fact they’re wrong it just misdirects the reason why they’re wrong.
Just because a million people agree that a fantasy being exists and offers them life eternal doesn’t make it right.
You and I are both atheists really, you perhaps happen to believe in one god and not all the others in the world. What makes you recognize that all those other religions are bunk is what works as well for me with respect to your religion.
Jefferson once pointed out that someday the birth of baby jesus from the womb of a virgin will occupy the same place in history as minerva being born in the brain of jupiter. For me that time has already arrived. For a lot my fellow Americans they still struggle with the concept.
Shaw’s quote remains the best about the bible.
Don’t be so sure, VOV. The SCOTUS has in the past ruled Sunday Blue Laws to be a valid exercise of state power, irrespective of the disparate effect on those of non-Christian faith. It’s no great stretch to think they might rule a law mandating all public accommodations to be open 7 days a week to be valid – or to be open 24/7, for that matter.
In my book, either of those is wrong; setting the hours of operation of a business is and should be the business owner’s call. But given that mandatory closings on Sunday have previously received SCOTUS approval, who’s to say they won’t also say mandatory hours of operation are similarly OK?
And don’t say the SCOTUS would never do something like that. They already have. They’ve ruled that the government can tell you you must buy a product you don’t think you need simply because you breathe, with no legal way to avoid doing so.
You have a legal way of avoiding buying that product, it’s a penalty tax….
And it sure does suck…how does someone who couldn’t afford insurance before now pay the tax they can’t afford to pay for the insurance they couldn’t afford to buy?
Seems like a Kafkaesque version of hell on earth as it were.
I’d agree – if the law actually said it was a tax. It does not, irrespective of what our “fine” Chief Justice claims.
The law says that is a penalty, not a tax. It is explicitly called that in federal law (26 USC 5000A). And unlike other penalties imposed by the IRS, it is not related in any way to taxation. Rather, it is essentially a fine imposed without benefit of trial for not buying something the Federal government says you must buy. And as written, imposing such a penalty was not lawful under other provisions of Federal law.
There are any number of ways the Federal government could have done this lawfully. In this case, they failed – and the “wonderful” Chief Justice of the SCOTUS allowed them to get away with it. It in essence imposes a fine without benefit of trial because someone failed to buy a commercial product for which they have no need.
Uhm, VoV? You ARE aware, are you not, that it was those religious folks who finally, after many decades (if not centuries) of bloodshed, abolished the slave trade in this country and in England? My ancestors are among that bunch, a fact about which I am exceedingly proud. It was, often the same exact people, those religious folks who managed finally to secure the vote for female citizens of this country.
Its disconcerting how widely the lefty revised history is believed.
I hear you, I have two Great great grandfathers who fought for the Union in the Civil War and I’ve NEVER heard a fuckin’ thank you from any of the PC crowd. I’ve never bawled for a reparation either, mainly because I’m not some limp-wristed perpetually offended candyassed little snowflake who thinks the world owes him/her/it because they’re breathing and I believe that good things still come to those who aren’t afraid to honestly work their asses off for it!
Revised history? Nope both sides thought god was on their side…
That’s been my point all along OWB
When Shaw said, :No man ever believes the bible means what it says, he is convinced it says what he means….Shaw was spot on.
People use their god to justify doing the wrong thing the right thing, all sorts of things.
Keeping people as slaves is wrong, I don’t need the benefit of god to understand that anymore than I need the benefit of god to understand treating some people as lesser humans under the law because they’re different from me is also wrong.
Imagine no religion indeed. And don’t give me the horseshit about commies being atheists because commies are their own totalitarian religion they just worship the state instead of a god….
Me? I prefer no gods and no masters.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Agree with above, let the ‘free’ market and ‘free’ press handle this shit.
When you rat to the teacher that Richard is hogging the swing is the wind whipping through that unkempt hair as sweet?
Nothing new here.
The False Commander Phil Monkress (CEO of All-Points Logistics) and his MC have had this issue for years.
There’s a particular bookstore on 4th Avenue Tucson that caters to a certain female demographic. I, an average white heterosexual male, stepped into the aforementioned business in search of a book by a local author that was advertised in the window. I was greeted not as a customer, but as a hostile intruder in their “protected space”. Angry hostile glares interspersed with comments alluding that I was not welcome. I wished them a good day and exited the premises, taking my money with me. Maybe I should have returned with legal assistance. I was blatantly harassed and purposefully made to feel unwelcome BECAUSE OF MY SEXUAL ORIENTATION. If I had done what these SJW types do, I would now own that business and it would be a gun shop.
You would only own that Gun store if you promise to equally shoot Gender Queer people in the ass for doing dumbass stuff.
Isn’t Queer a slur?
Some people just need shooting. There are no restrictions due to race, creed, color, religion, or whatever the protected class of the week is.
SFC D & CB Senior…I like both of your posts. To a similar point, the wife and I were watching an old movie this last weekend. Fred Astaire and some gal he danced and sang with. (I was pleasing the wife by watching it. You gotta grab those bonus points when they’re on the table if you know what I mean.) Anyway, I made a point to mention to her every time in the dialog, when they used a word or a word in a phase, that today is anathema for me to use unless I am one. Fred and his gal must have said a “queer this or that” 3 dozen times and about as many references to things being “gay”. We can’t have “gay ole times” anymore or say something like, “this is rather queer” or you “queered the deal”. This small minority of folks have taken hostage not only of our behaviors, business practice choices and a large segment of the political left but our vocabulary. Try as hard as they may, they can never control thoughts though and that is what they hate the MOST and is the mainstay of their litigation efforts. It sucks…as do they. Both figuratively and literally. If they had it their way, PC would become PCTP or the Politically Correct Thought Police. It essentially is now, they just haven’t gotten that whole Vulcan Mind Meld down quite yet to know what rattles in my head.
Sparks: I can’t sing the Theme Song to The Flintstone anymore? I’m crushed!
AnotherPat…Yea, bummer dude.
The funny part about this to me is that historically shops cut either women’s hair (salons) or men’s hair (barbers.) It’s only in the last few years that they have blended.
You have to wonder what the consequences would be if the barber posted a prominent sign that said “We don’t do women’s hair because we suck at it”.
Me, I go to a Vietnamese salon where they speak little English but every barber in there gives a great haircut for $6… they’re more worried about eating than religion.
Instead of agendas, I like the concept of the undertaker who “treats every man alike, as another future customer”.
If getting a haircut was so important, as I said before, why pick a shop that caters only to men? There are several shops/chains that are gender-neutral. This incident was NOT about getting a haircut, it was about making a scene and getting attention, and nothing else. The ‘I’ll show ’em attitude’ is a manifestation of the spoiled brat in all its obnoxious non-glory.
This act was intentionally doing something to drive someone out of business, nothing more.
The same goes for bake shops that won’t cater to gay/LGBT customers. Offer to send them to a shop that will serve their needs. If they won’t take that offer, then they are only there to make a scene and put the company out of business, not to get help with a wedding or birthday.
This spoiled brat crap will die down at some point. Tomorrow is not soon enough.
Am smiling when I read your post, Ex-PH2,about she/he/it/they wanting to make a scene and get attention.
In looking at her pictures, she has a Tattoo on her collarbone….hmmm, why is that familiar…
😉
Dont’cha just love the ‘look at me’ kiddies?
Probably for the same reason why ‘go somewhere else’ wasn’t good enough when it came to the Jim Crow laws. After all, those Black and Brown customers could have gone someplace else, right?
The phrase ‘open to the public’ needs to mean exactly that – the public, excluding only for good reason (disruptive, shoplifter, no shirt / shoes, etc). The fact that someone is genderqueer is not a good reason, any more than them being of a certain racial / religious / ethnic / whatever group.
See what Sharp training does. It makes you gender queer. ?
When you open to the public, you need to do business with the public. Public accommodations are for all paying customers.
If this business owner has a problem with serving the paying public regardless of religion, then he needs to get out of the business of serving the public.
Now, I can understand if we’re talking about someone drunk / disorderly or ‘no shirt, no shoes, no service’ but that’s because the law already requires these restrictions be in place. If this guy’s religion requires he not cut women’s hair, he will simply have to find another job.
It’s not too often that I go along with this whole ‘gender identity’ business, but in this case, I’m taking the customer’s side. I have no doubt I’ll take a lot of flak for that, but I’m sticking by my guns on this one.
I’m with you…100%.
Heaven forbid he just cut her hair and asked his god for forgiveness later in the quiet of his room.
He cut her hair???
Was wondering what she/he/whatever that person wants to be was going to do about her/his haircut until the issue has been resolved.
Heaven forbid if others that fall into the same category purposely show up at his shop asking for the same haircut for harrasment purposes only. Then again, his business may start booming with all those haircuts that he could retire early and not worry anymore and can stick to his faith/beliefs about hair.
Hair…hmmm…. Don Shipley…where are you?
🙂
This has been an interesting read…the debate here has been more interesting than the Political ones…and I learned alot today from others on this Blog.
Thank You!
Time will tell.
I keep wondering about worshiping a god who has nothing better to do than worry about hair cuts.
All right, Semper Idem, but I will take the opposite side of that and ask why Kendall could not go to the trouble of find a gender-neutral shop like Supercuts or Sportclips for the haircut s/he wanted?
This behavior as it is presented raises my doubts that there was anything more involved than throwing an attention-seeking hissy fit over nothing, when there are alternatives readily available. I see this as an intentional act, not simply seeking a service provider.
And hair grows…
So, in the meantime, until this issue gets resolved, is that person going to stand on their principle (just as the shop owner) and let her/his grow out so that durn owner has to cut the hair or will they seek another business to get that durn haircut.
Unless the owner turned the other cheek, gave up his personal beliefs to pacify another person’s wishes and did give that durn haircut…
Durn it.
You’re right in that she probably did it to make a fuss…
Sometimes EX -PH2 we have to confront bigotry and do it openly and loudly. Hiding his bigotry behind his religion is inappropriate.
During the 60s the loud mouths who dared to be uppity in service to the civil rights clause were called outside agitators who were upsetting the fine, upstanding, god fearing bible believers who thought blacks should drink from a different fountain and ride the back of the bus.
Change doesn’t come from everyone going along to get along it comes from loudly contesting the status quo and forcing uncomfortable truths to shine brightly on bigotry wherever it exists.
Religious bigots who want to treat people differently based on some religious ideal are no less bigots because their god instructs them to treat people differently. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.
You and I aren’t the ones treating our fellow citizens differently Mr. Barber is, and he’s wrong. She’s no less worthy of a hair cut because he doesn’t like her based on god’s instructions.
So fuck him and the people who think like him, they’re no different than those that thought Native Americans, or blacks, or Asians or any other people weren’t their equals for whatever reason.
I accept your argument, VOV, but give me a good reason for Kendall to NOT use the alternatives that are plentiful and available AND gender-neutral. In this case, the protection argument does not hold water. Kendall had plenty of other options that would serve her as well or better, but sought out ONE shop owner for the service. Other than choosing this one with the intent to be the center of attention over nothing, why else would Kendall have chosen this particular shop?
As Jonn points out in the article above, she didn’t take her money elsewhere to get her haircut, which she could easily have done. Instead, she made a public stink about it.
VOV: In researching this man’s faith, he is Church of God.
Am familiar with their faith and beliefs even though I am not affliated with their denomination. Have lots of friends of this Faith.
I don’t think he is a bigot because of his belief. He is following his Faith, just as others have done for years.
Just as other Faiths have their own doctrine, belief, whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddists, Devil Worshippers, Wicens (Witchcraft), Mother Earthers, any Faith.
He is hanging on his Faith. He did not make an issue of it. Kendall Oliver did, either out of her principles or just wanting to get attention.
One can say they are both right…or both wrong, depending on a person’s perspective on what is right and what is wrong.
What makes this case interesting and confusing at the same time is that this person claims to be Neither Gender even though that person comes across as a Male.
Thank you again for your perspectives. I learned a lot today ( in sincerity and not sarcasm).
This is what I like about this place we can disagree and remain civil.. I have enjoyed this discussion immensely and appreciate all the differing opinions offered.
And when did it become our governments job to regulate morality? You address the issue by saying that bigotry is wrong, but do you really want the federal government deciding what is moral or not?
If a person is a bigot, so be it. Let them live their life and you live yours. If that bigotry turns violent or criminally impacting on another person THEN the law should come into play.
But to say that laws should demand and regulate who my customers are and who I must serve is an infringement on the basic rights of every free person to determine who we wish to associate with.
Laws should deal with criminal actions – You did something to someone, took their property, hurt them in some way. They should not be used as behavior modifiers because an elected official decided that they don’t like this or that.
Is Mr. Barber wrong? Sure, but it’s his RIGHT to be wrong. You don’t have to use his services, you can go somewhere else and his business will suffer the consequences of his own actions. THAT is how you solve it, not by BS lawsuits and laws that say “You must think this way and act this way.”
I walked into a gay bar once, quite by accident. It took me five seconds to see my error and I walked the hell out. No hard feelings. I went elsewhere. My local grocery store changed manager and employees overnight. The place is now an annoying shithole. So, I now drive 20 miles round trip to avoid the place, which is about 1.5 miles from my home. I walked into my barbershop about two years ago and found a woman barber. She had nearly no customers. We regulars waited for the male barber. Today, that woman barber has a separate room in the shop where she does mostly women’s hair. A male barber took her chair up front. Now there are two male barbers. We all make choices. I make mine. You make yours. No need to sue. Suck it up and just go somewhere else.
Another Tucson story. There used to be a small restaurant/bar on Speedway that I was told had awesome Gumbo. I decided to check it out. Halfway through my second bowl, I notice I’m the only guy in the place, and it’s pretty full. Turns out it was a popular lesbian bar. But this group of lesbians didn’t care if I was straight, gay, all of the above or none of the above. They got more of my business. Unfortunately, it’s now an auto parts store.
Short hair? Manly walk? Male attire? Maybe you passed. I bet if you talked with a slight lisp and sashayed around the place, they would have kicked your ass for fear that you were scouting for a takeover.
Well… maybe… except my mustache could’ve been a clue as to gender
So here is my next question…
Is this person still a Drilling Army Reservist/NCO?
And, if so, how is this person governed under AR 670-1, which covers the regulation for hair for male and female Soldiers?
Does that person follow the guidelines for a Male Soldier? Female Soldier?
Anyone know?
Kinda odd that you don’t hear about this kind of thing when it comes to going to jail.
In Texas for instance, what is or isn’t between your legs determines whether you go to boy prison or girl prison. We didn’t care what you thought you were or wanted to be.
Reckon it’s only a matter of time before taxpayers get stuck building prisons for the criminally confused.
This wasn’t about getting a haircut. It was about causing a stink because she/he/it could.
Some need to be a victim of SOMETHING every day of their life. If not, their life is without purpose. Get over it he/she/they/it/etc. You don’t have to be a victim every day of your life.
And now a word from the Simpleton. Since I don’t know how to bake crap, at least I don’t have to worry about dealing with any characters in the future whom I might not care to work for, even if only baking a cake. Now if I were a working barber and ANYBODY walked in that I would prefer to NOT cut their hair, when they would walk out the door and look in the mirror, I’d be reasonably certain they never wanted to come back again. By the time I was done with them, they’d walk out the door looking like a collie with mange. There’s ALWAYS a solution folks!
First, in my book, cooking popcorn or Hot Pockets in a microwave qualifies you as a baker. Second, I love your solution to unwanted customers. Treat them like crap and they won’t return. Most excellent, grasshopper. Of course, if you’re going to do that, you had better be the boss.
“What!? I demand to see the supervior!”
“I am the supervisor.”
“Then I demand to see the manager!”
“I’m also the manager.”
“I want the owner!”
“You have him. This is my place. May I help you?”
I did that once to a customer. She demanded to see the manager so I walked away and then walked back and said “I’m the manager, how can I help you?”
She left in a huff.
Hmm. Sounds kinda familiar. (smile)
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=64834&cpage=1#comment-2817449
As is so often the case, this one is about choices – yours, mine, those of others, and just how protected some choices should be while others are ignored or quashed. It is also about privacy. This LGBT agitator (or common variety attention seeker) chose to confront another human being over an issue which could and should have been private.
What consenting adults opt to do privately is not something most of us care about. Many of us are more concern with the privacy issue than with the details of who is screwing whom. Those who are confused about it all are asking for more than I am willing and/or able to provide when they demand that I become involved with their private lives.
Being allowed to not care what you do privately seems no longer to be an option. Live and let live is unacceptable to folks like this one who demanded that we focus on her sexuality. That is just not my thing, and it is NOT her right to force any of us to give the attention to her sexuality that she demands or participate in her choices.
In case this is unclear – count me among those who avoid places where lots of skin is exposed without regard to if that skin is of a sex organ, on a male or female, fat, ugly, or none of the above. I appreciate that under most circumstances I am not yet forced to participate in such activity during casual outings in public. Some folks like it, and for them there are plenty of places to participate. Doesn’t bother me one whit, until the rest of us are forced to watch.
That is not how it happened.
She booked an appointment, went, was denied a haircut because the owner said that according to his beliefs women are not allowed to cut their hair.
She tried to explain that she identifies on the masculine side of the gender spectrum. He refused.
She surprised and offended. She walked out.
She got a haircut somewhere else.
She posted about her experience online with others in her community of friends and online colleagues. Much like many on this board post about shit that piss you off with others in your “community”.
The members of her community became outraged because the barber broke the law. They shared it with the larger internet. The internet became outraged for her. And Lambda legal reached out to her.
This is not when you get outraged for someone stealing valor, share it on this board, we get outraged, spread the awareness, and others also get outraged leading to authorities initiating an inquiry.
The owner of the barbershop violated California law (many states have laws like this).
And gender has scientifically been proven to be a spectrum. 1.7% of people are born with aspects of both genders or are intersex or have ambitious genitalia and a gender is “assigned” at birth. Sometimes with a surgical “correction”.
Often gender assignment is wrong. And often physiological identity differs from biological genitalia.
It is just the way it and there is. People are not born perfectly formed according to your personal expectations and gender is not binary.
And you guys are missing the point when you say a business should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion. That
I have a lot of typos in that but since I can’t correct it now…
Besides it really does not matter much to me whether you guys “get this”, or agree.
It is the law and in this case a JUST law, and it provides constitutional protection from individuals who would use their religious liberty as a justification to discriminate.
No, it’s not a ‘just’ law. It’s a law that is designed as behavior modification. It is a law that is set to try and define morality. THAT is wrong in and of itself.
Some jackass decided “I don’t like people doing this” and so they make it illegal. THAT is wrong.
If it’s my business then I and I alone get to decide who I want to serve. As long as I pay my taxes and do not actually harm someone the state should have no other say in how I do things.
One day, perhaps Taylor the Infallible will deign to back his claims with verifiable source material us mere mortals can peruse.
Not holding my breath, but as the little kid in Angels In the Outfield put it: “Hey – it could happen!”