Brian Lilley on same:
Excellent observations, especially in Ezra’s video.
If Ezra is correct (and I believe that he is), then the Muslim barber will win this one.
One problem with Leftist nonsense is that it is full of contradictions that are eventually going to meet each other and conflict. Also, Leftism, for all its bravado and finger-pointing is built on a framework of cowardice.
Now that it is showdown time between Lesbian and Islamist, the craven liberal human rights machine is going to be forced to pick sides. It will bow down to the Islamist.
Where will this leave Faith McGregor? Who knows? Only time will tell. But more importantly, where will it leave Gay rights? What will be the future for homosexuality? How will this fit in with the agendas of such organisations as ‘Queers for Palestine.’? I suspect that nothing much will change.
It is however, the start of Leftist collapse. Leftists have for years been flirting with the dangerous enemy of Islam and now they will feel its first bite. They’re incapable of learning lessons via reason, so they will learn the hard way. I’ve predicted before that when Islam becomes really powerful in the West, the PC brigade will be hit the hardest, a punishment that they will have earned.
This little barbershop court case is just a taste of things to come.
Ezra is correct indeed. However I suspect that in this one case they may find for the plaintiff using different calculus. If they find for the defendant, they have also created a precedent that allows for personal choice and individual rights.
That is anathema to those assholes at the CHRC. They want to make sure they are the arbiters of all things right and wrong on a more or less arbitrary basis as they see it. So if they figure out that by allowing discrimination by them it allows a small chance for us to discriminate as well, they will find for the spoiled entitled dyke-blonde.
@ Eeyore, why is the “dyke-blonde” as you call her either spoiled or entitled? For wanting equal treatment before the law? It makes sense to me that any woman who prefers short hair and who is looking for a good haircut would seek out a barber as they that’s their specialty.
She is spoilt for the reasons that Ezra gave, Equality before the law does not mean that she can dictate to a private business what service they provide for her, no more than I can go into a female changing room at a private gymnasium and dictate that they let me get changed in there.
She has the right to a haircut. There are plenty of other barbers that would do it for her and if she can’t find one, there’s a business opportunity for her – a gap in the market waiting to be exploited.
However, her stupid ‘rights’ have gone to her ungroomed head and she is now playing with fire!
I suspect that they won’t find for the plaintiff in this case.
You’ve forgotten one thing – the ‘fear factor’!
Leftists are cowards at heart. Yes, they make a lot of noise and intimidate those weaker than themselves, but for all their ramblings about protecting the rights of Muslims and accusing those who don’t of being racist, the truth is, they’re terrified of offending the Muslim community and all the angst that goes with it.
If anyone involved with this case even gets a whiff of a half-hearted death threat, then the Lesbian’s case will be thrown out straight away. Of course, they won’t give this as a reason, they’ll mutter some excuses about ethnic rights and multiculturalism.
When all is said and done, Leftists despise religion in all its forms, but fear has made them champion the Muslim cause. They reserve their anti-religious anger for Jews and Christians.
Actually she doesn’t have the right to a haircut. In no way is a haircut right other than you do it yourself. Like religion, it should mean you have the right to believe what you want but do not have the right to break rational secular and democratic laws in the practice of those beliefs and it was never meant to mean that.
This woman is spoiled and entitled because she feels that because they wouldn’t do what she wanted, that she can ruin their lives and business. I bet you anything that if straight men went into a lesbian bar and demanded a certain kind of treatment they expect elsewhere it would not go well for them.
WPF: i have very good reasons for not wanting to be in a bar or rest. that allow smoking. But I have fought and continue to fight for the rights of bars to allow what is in their interests. Because I cannot tolerate it does not mean that I can impose that on other people. A bar that allows smoking should be required to say so near the entrance and that’s all. It is my choice to go there or not.
There was in fact, a greater diversity of restaurants before the smoking ban hit my city as the non-smoking places which had a niche market vanished with the ban as their clientele could now go anywhere. Follow?
The same goes here. She could walk 50 feet to get a haircut somewhere else, do it herself or whatever. But no one has the right to force others to service them their way. Only if they agree to it.
How about a Catholic doctor that refuses to perform an abortion? Is that OK with you?
How about the gynecologist who refused to perform a labiaplasty on a male ‘transsexual’ because in his words, “I work on women, I really don’t understand what you have going on down there” and for that he was sued by the CHRC and lost.
Stunning but true.
I believe for a variety of reasons we have to pressure for a defense victory here. After all, if they lose then we can’t discriminate against Muslims for our own reasons.
As it is, when I see a line up of taxis I look for the ones hanging a cross from the rear view. I would like to believe that I have that legal right as well as the ‘natural right’ to do so.
You’re right about the haircut. She does not have the right to a haircut.
What I meant to say is that she is free to have her hair cut in any style she wishes.
As for smoking bans, I agree with you. I suspect that despite the reasons being given were all about ‘respecting the health of others’, it was really about controlling other people’s lives.
Leftists are very good at doing something for one reason, but giving another reason for it. We both know that Leftism is really about creating laws for no reason other than Leftists believe that they know best.
There’s the old saying about us ‘having too many laws, but sadly the few laws that we should have are not being enforced properly.’
This is true in a Leftist world. They are always bringing in new, unnecessary laws just to show that they are in control, but they are rubbish at policing the laws that we need.
For example. years of Leftist policies means that we now have more stupid laws than ever, but rapists and murders are often given light sentences or escape justice due to silly ‘human rights’ loopholes. This is clearly a case of law-making being given priority over law enforcement.
Her actions are showing that she is out to force people to do what she wants, she doesn’t care what other people think of believe she is going to force them to think and believe her way. Actions like this are as bad as the Moslem attacks on all non Moslems.
If the barbershop was advertised as men only, like female gyms , lesbian clubs etc. I could see your points, but it’s not. It’s a service for the public where anyone should be able to be served. As for abortions, they’re legally sanctioned and government supported, unlike hair cuts so don’t matter in this conversation.
I’m glad she’s forcing the point, this is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to “religions”, especially islam. I believe in equal rights for everyone. She has just as much right to walk into a public business and expect service as anyone else.
Or would you rather keep granting special privileges to muslims like the ones where they refuse you service in a taxi if you have a dog or liquor because of their “religion”?
It isn’t a special privilege to allow people to refuse service in most cases and I would hope that ALL Muslim cabbies deny Jews, people with alcohol or Pork, uncovered women or women with no male companion, frankly I would hope Muslims put themselves right out of business. The free market can actually fix this one pretty fast. I do think they have to accept blind people with dogs though, I think it should be part of accepting a taxi license not to victimize the helpless.
Businesses can’t cater to everyone, that would be asking Jews to cater to Nazi’s and Blacks to the Klan, all businesses should have the right to deny service to anyone they choose. During the 60s people decided that this was wrong and started passing laws taking this right away from the business owners. Everyone who reads this blog regularly knows I think the Moslems are one of the greatest threats freedom has, but in this case insuring freedom requires that we side with the Moslem barber. You can’t force people to do things that are against their religion and remain free,
I agree that business can’t cater to everyone. It would be impossible to cater to everyone whims and fancies. Saying that, I would not support any business or any country that pander to an intolerant ideology that is totalitarian or communistic that failed to give a choice to consumers .
By the way, Eeyore, where is my previous comment? Was it deleted?If deleted, why?
My guess is that if this female was heterosexual , almost all of you would back her against the islamic supremacists 100%, without question. After all , every time I’ve read an article here about someone being refused service by a muslim, almost everyone has condemned it. Till now.
1. I don’t think we have the right to discriminate for our own interests. That’s why I want them to win. So we also have that right.
2. Please save the white people stuff for Stormfront.
WPF: Of course you are right. But none of those previous cases involved going to the human rights commission. I still condemn these refusals but I don’t know if I want them to be illegal. I don’t want the government telling me I have to rent a room to a Muslim for example, or take a Muslim taxi. The right to discriminate is a critically important right. In fact it is beyond a right it is a basic freedom. The results should give you the value of your choices.
And if a straight woman was to go there, I would fear for her safety. I think straight women, or women overall should have the right to choose to avoid religious Muslims under all circumstances given what Islam believes about women.
Clearly they have the right to discriminate. So why can’t we?
The point is THEY & other minoerities have a right to discriminate, WE don’t, therefore the only way to stop them is legally if our two tier “justice” system will allow it. eg Ads for rental apartments. We are told not to discriminate while muslims advertise for muslim only tenants and not a word is said.
I believe in the same rights & laws for everyone, period. No one should be discriminated against on the basis of religious rights.
There is a lot of discriminations going around the world.IE: Moslems against nonbelievers and the West, Chinese against the West or against us poor people, it is even worst that people with money discriminate, abused, enslaved people who have little means as it is very prevalent in Asia.OR people who are forced to belong to a faith in Asia , even it it meaningless.
Ultimately one just hope that one can go somewhere that can help us or cater to us, who do not wish to belong to any faith group. I mean not everyone will help everyone and not everyone is able to help everyone.
WPF, you brought up a good point. If minority are allowed to discriminate, other people should also be allowed to discriminate.
I am Asian and have suffered living among abusive Asians from various groups and faiths.I think Asians and Moslems will always discriminate , whenever they have the means.
I should elaborate that I am Asian who do not belong to any faith group. it is even worst when those Asians and Moslems who migrated to the West start to discriminate against white people that do not belong to their group or faith That is why multicultural will always fail, whenever those Asians and moslems have the upper hand. .
I think she should win. Religious rights for muslims do not respect the separation of mosque and state.Separation of state and mosque is the issue here. No one seems to have mentioned that as of yet.
Not long ago I had a laugh I went to the gay part of Birmingham with someone. I am not gay but btw. We went to an all night store. In we found a muslim handling alcohol. He looked like the Taliban. He had the job of serving queers drink if they wanted it. Come on lets back the Gays/Lesbians. Its not just the Burmese who can beat the muzzies. The Gays can do it too.
Sorry quite a few typos in that. I should check more carefully.
In any case lumping all Asians with muslims is not quite right. I mean lumping chinese, japanese, Indians, shri lankans with muslims. Since when have these people ever made you submit to their religion. Now that you are free of religion wlil you are lumping people together in an unjust manner.
Don where do you stop? If you violate the religious rights of the Moslems where do you stop violating religious rights? Christiana? Buddhists? Hindus? You know I don’t like Islam or anything it stands for, but in order to protect my own rights I must protect their rights.
Don, I would lump those Asians of other faiths such as Christians buddhists, hindus, who forced us nonbelievers to submit to islam due to their business ventures. There are many Asians of other faiths who are who put halal label on their products, pandering to moslems only and causing us nonbelievers who wish to live a normal nonbelievers life to have no choice. I don’t agree with many Asian method of doing business. Why should those rich Asians of other faiths pandered to moslems only>? That does not make sense. I know they want to make money but I don’t agree with their method of doing business. I was just being analytical of the massive hypocrisy and unjust scenario in Asia.. Those rich Asians of other faiths who are imposing on us poor nonbelievers, are also as bad as those islamics who are imposing their islamisation on us nonbelievers.
Richard, what if nobody is protecting our rights or our freedom? I mean we should protect our own rights first and make sure other people respect our rights ( which is very rare in Asia), before we support other people rights. If we continue to protect other peoples rights and other people continues to fail to protect our rights, I just fear for the future.
Those Moslems would always make use other greedy Asians or opportunist Asians or other non-islamic individuals of non-islamic groups to further the islamic agenda, whenever their own islamic or moslem community failed to get any support in the West.
And then when I see people boasts about Asia, I just them as hollow and shallow who failed to protect rights and freedom .
Not to mention the prevalent and insidious spread of insecurity and brutally uncomfortable characteristics of most asians of various faiths.
Don, from my experience, don’t depend on the Burmese on anything. They are just another opportunist Asians who boasts mostly about their wealth than any so-called quality of life.
WLIL I am trying to protect my rights, my right to believe what I want and live the way I want, if we can force the Moslem to cut a woman’s hair against his religious principles then others can force us to do things against our principles. We treat every one the same or we are no better then they are, we can win without sinking to their level.
Indeed, we can’t force the moslems or anyone to serve anyone that they don’t want to and it is up to us individuals to support or not to support anyone rights without compromising our own rights. Hopefully, the person concerned will be able to find somewhere else that is more accommodating to her haircut needs.
However, I will never support the moslem, even though I will not opppose his refusal to serve anyone, due to one reason or another.