Gender Vs Religion: Woman Refused Haircut by Muslim Barber Highlights Problem of Colliding Rights

Sarah Boesveld, National Post, November 30, 2012

She may not have felt it in the moment—the day she called the Muslim barber a sexist for denying her a haircut due to the rules of his faith, turned on her heel and filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

But now, after the ensuing media storm about her case two weeks ago, Faith McGregor is frank about how Omar Mahrouk’s right to religious freedom and her right to be free from gender discrimination coexist.

“They are equally important—they definitely are equally important,” the Toronto resident said in an interview this week. “They’re both steeped in history in their own right with regards to freedom of religion and what that means for the owner and the history of religion, [and] freedom of a woman to be able to be treated with respect and not be treated as something that’s subordinate to a man.”

Yet she also sees these rights as “diametrically opposed”—on contrary sides of the rights spectrum, hurtling towards one another in a crash of willful identity, in which each personal right feels too vital to concede. Human rights in gridlock with one another.

Faith McGregor

It’s the same kind of case Bill Whatcott and gay rights activists in Saskatchewan have been waiting almost 18 months for the Supreme Court of Canada to decide—whether his right to freedom of expression for distributing flyers about his views towards gay people trumps their right not to be discriminated against based on their sexuality. And it’s reminiscent of another case also before Canada’s highest court—whether a Muslim woman should be allowed to wear a niqab during testimony at a sexual assault trial; a matter that pits religious rights against the right of defendants.

When then-Quebec premier Jean Charest argued in 2007 that when women’s rights conflict with other rights, women’s rights should prevail, he highlighted the fact that there are necessarily choices to be made when it comes to balancing human rights in a Canada that is more diverse than ever—welcoming more new immigrants, feeling the social effects of same-sex marriage, and seeing women’s continued ascent in the workplace. Inevitably that results in drawing lines between which rights Canadians consider to be legitimate rights, and therefore, inviolable, and things we have come to call “rights,” but may be something less.

And in a far more diverse Canada, we’ll continue to see more and more clashes between the two. A new policy from the Ontario Human Rights Commission released this year suggests that stand-offs between rights are only going to proliferate. The OHRC is the first Canadian human rights body to release a framework for how to consider cases that arise when unexpected tensions fuelled by social changes collide. It followed up on that policy this week with the release of Balancing Competing Human Rights Claims in a Diverse Society—a wonkish book of articles on how tribunals, judges, lawyers and regular citizens can better broach the near impossible task of ironing these struggles out.

But as the Ontario Human Rights Commission fashions itself as a leader on this issue—having intervened on both the Whatcott and niqab Supreme Court cases with its “framework” on competing rights—critics are skeptical of whether these rights can actually be balanced; whether rights like freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of contract carry a different kind of weight than rights under the Human Rights Code, like freedom from discrimination.

“The problem is that you’ve got an irreconcilable contradiction between the classical liberal rights which impose virtually no obligations on others, versus the new ‘human rights’ which do impose obligations on others,” said John Carpay, the president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms in Calgary. “There’s no way to bridge that difference. Those two sets of rights are inherently contradictory… It’s like asking for cool sunshine or dry water.”

Karen Selick has a stronger word for human rights granted under the code: “phony.”

“When we in Canada talk about human rights in foreign countries, we’re talking about rights like the right you have for the government not to kill you—that is a genuine right,” said the litigation director of the Calgary-based Canadian Constitution Foundation. “When we talk about rights in Canada we talk about rights [that require] someone to do things for you. I don’t see that as a right at all.”

It’s misguided to try to balance these competing rights—which, she says, should have been anticipated when human rights codes were created in the 1960s—because “genuine rights don’t conflict,” she said.

“It undermines the meaning of the word ‘right’ because if they say this woman has the right to force the barber to cut her hair, essentially they’re saying he doesn’t have the right to practice his religion.”

Market pressures should prove enough of a deterrent from discrimination, she said. Ms. McGregor has a right to express her disgust with being turned away, she can boycott the barber, which may drive male business away. But to ask Mr. Mahrouk to hire another person who is not Muslim and will be able to cut a female client’s hair (he and his colleagues follow the Muslim teaching that a man should not touch a woman who is outside his family) would be an unreasonable burden.

Societal changes—some more noticeable than others—tend to spark these competing rights clashes, said Bruce Ryder, a professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School who studies equality rights and freedom of expression. For example, the legalization of same-sex marriage highlighted the expectation that people not be discriminated against because of their sexuality—a religious-rights-versus-sexuality-rights issue faced by Ontario Catholic Schools as they meet requirements laid out in the province’s new anti-bullying legislation.

“They seem new as values and social realities shift over time, giving rise to new forms of conflict or new understandings of rights, and accordingly, the legal balance drawn between different rights shifts too,” Mr. Ryder wrote in an email to the Post. For example, he said, property rights and contract rights used to prevail over equality rights until the civil rights movement drastically shifted public opinion.

“Many of the current clashes involve religious rights competing with rights to sexual and gender equality. I don’t think it is helpful to think of them as clashes between new and old human rights, at least not in the Canadian context where they are all of the same vintage. We have some difficulty around the margins, but I think we generally have a clear understanding of which rights prevail in which context.”

If judges, tribunals and the people involved in these claims pay more attention to context, how much the competing rights interfere with one another and make sure the core of the right is more protected than “its periphery,” this will help balance these competing claims, said Barbara Hall, the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

“You can see how courts have come up with different solutions depending on the context,” she said. “If you’re a priest or an imam, you are not required, can’t be required to marry people contrary to your faith. But the courts have found that if your job is as a civic marriage commissioner and you’re hired to do that, that your religious rights are different in that situation and the difference is context.”

While critics argue these rights can’t be balanced, “the law is not good at compromise” and will be forced to pick a winner or loser should mediation not be pursued or fails, said Lindsay Lyster, a former member of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, and current president of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

People can and should try to work out these problems without someone else deciding for them, and 80% of cases that come to the B.C. tribunal are resolved in early mediation, she said.

“I think you clearly can [balance rights]. That’s what tribunals applying human rights codes do, that’s what judges applying the Charter of Rights do because it’s inevitable that there will be rights that come into competition and will have to have a means of managing that clash,” she said. “Sometimes one’s going to win out. In that sense it may be impossible to balance in a given case—it may be that one is going to win out.”

But rights can’t be balanced if people regard their own as absolute, Ms. Hall says—and because people are very passionate about their rights, that does tend to be the mindset when people file human rights complaints and are forced to respond to them, fuelled by stubborn emotion and the strident belief they shouldn’t have to bend to the demands of others.

“If people want to only think of their [right] and for it to be absolute, then they misunderstand rights in Canada and how courts and the law have responded to them going back generations,” she said, adding she believes there is no hierarchy of rights in Canada either.

Bill Whatcott believes his rights are indeed absolute. Back in 2005, the social conservative activist was ordered to pay $17,500 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal for distributing literature the human rights body deemed hateful—a ruling the Saskatoon Court of Appeal overturned five years later.

“Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to own property, the right to life with due process. These are fundamental rights and that’s what they’ve been historically called,” he said, adding that these rights have been “trampled” in cases where they clash with “equality rights.” He can tell the Supreme Court is struggling with his case, he says—while a typical case takes around six to nine months to sort out, his has taken twice as long.

Trying to balance competing human rights gets tricky when individual rights clash, like in the barbershop case, since the system is set up to deal with claims of institutional discrimination—such as in the workplace, said Shauna Van Praagh, a professor of law at McGill University, who points out that Quebec’s human rights laws recognize that a person cannot “harm” another person while trying to uphold their own right—that their freedom is limited in that regard.

In the rest of Canada, however, human rights tribunals are often weighing the unique rights of individuals against each other.

“The state can’t discriminate against its citizens—the state has to be impartial,”said Ms. Selick of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. “But I don’t see why an individual has to have the same obligations. There’s an interesting lack of parallelism.”

Mr. Mahrouk, the barber, and his lawyer David Kolinsky declined comment as they await mediation before the Ontario tribunal in February. And at that meeting, Ms. McGregor hopes they can come to a mutually agreeable decision.

“I think in this particular situation, we have to be accommodating,” she said. “I believe that he’s going to have to accommodate in some capacity in order to meet requirements as a business-owner and provider of a service within this province and in this country, or he runs the risk of running into this time and again.”

 

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • David Ashton

    And Gays versus Muslims, watch this space.

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    These are the exigencies when arise when your society accepts the doctrine of “positive rights” as the legal equal to “negative rights.” A negative right is a presumed pre-existing liberty as a natural consequence of being human and whose exercise cannot possibly cost another human being anything, and the trick to securing them is limiting the power of the state with a panoply of “thou shalt nots.” “Positive rights” are “rights” such that someone is compelled to give some consideration to another person or a third party to make it happen, e.g. health care, education.

  • puffdaddy

    Well, here’s my take if it happens here: could Muslims inadvertently bring back true private property rights? I mean, if it turns out it’s okay for this guy to refuse service, then it should be okay for other businesses to refuse service to certain people based on beliefs or preferences or simply because they feel like it. But you can’t have it both ways. It can’t be just okay for Muslims to refuse service…it means the Bed and Breakfast owner does not have to take reservations or accept business from gay couples if they do not approve of them. It means that landlords do not have to rent to people with noisy kids. It means that some restaurants do not have to serve white people, and others do not have to serve black people. But it can’t be special rules for Muslims only. I wonder….will Muslims give us back our personal property rights?

    • Alex

      Insha’allah! Nothing quite as nice as watching when poorly thought out social policies force some truth and conflict to come out by their own fallacies :) Everybody is equal in whacky leftist land (except straight, White men), but let’s see just which of the oppressed groups is more equal. It should be interesting.

    • i am

      Haven’t you seen those signs at businesses that say: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone… except if you are gay, black, Mexican, jewish, Asian, short, handicapped, stupid, useless, worthless, ugly, bald, smell bad, loud and obnoxious, rude, impolite, politically-correct, blah, blah, blah…”

    • http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/ Reuben H

      Right now, as we write, the U.S. government refuses to prosecute “hate crimes” committed against whites by non-whites, but aggressively prosecutes white on non-white crimes. They make no pretense of being fair or equal. So don’t be surprised if only Muslims can refuse service to women or gays – but white non-Muslims are not allowed to pick and choose.

      • puffdaddy

        That’s true – but it’s an opening if it DOES happen here. This story is from Canada, and I am actually not well informed on Canada’s private property laws, but I assume from what I do know about Canada that they are not particularly pro private property owner. Perhaps they will become more so from this or it might well be likely to result in even more maze like laws determining acceptable behavior from an ever growing list of special interest groups.

        • FourFooted_Messiah

          Mm, private property rights are kind of sticky here, and seem to depend on the province. Under Alberta law, a farmer can’t refuse an oil/gas company from exploring on his property, and he must take the bribe that allows them to set up a rig on his farmland. Yes, the farmers have been up in arms the past few years since this was put in place (a sort of anti-Wiebo Ludwig law), and yes, I agree with the farmers; many of them keep fenced off portions of land that they know houses real native prairie grass, and don’t want anyone messing with it.

          However, we just recently got the right to defend ourselves, yay. That doesn’t mean we can carry handguns (never a part of Canadian culture), but it does mean I can knife anyone who tries to break into my apartment.

          However, businesses have to hold to certain laws, which means no obvious discrimination is allowed. Ah, it does happen though, especially towards Indians (feather type) in small towns; I can name off a few hotels that do not allow any of them in, on sight. They will be told that all rooms are booked. This sort of thing goes on surreptitiously, in businesses that can get away with it. This guy had no more right to refuse a woman (even a lesbian) service, any more than I have a right to refuse to serve Pakistanis on general principle, if I was still in the workforce (and to be honest, I was kind of forcibly removed from it on just that issue.)

          • puffdaddy

            Dear FoorFooted – Thank you, I really did not know a great deal about Canadian laws and culture so thank you for your insights. I was making an assumption that private property laws were not as strong as in the US, where they have gotten increasingly weaker (starting with the Civil Rights Act, which is why Goldwater voted against it, but it was and is still seen as racism on his part). Now we simply play certain music or move to a certain neighborhood and customers do their part in making unwanted guests uncomfortable. If someone wants to get in the owner’s and patrons’ face about it, good luck in some neighborhoods. The most successful people at this are of course minorities. While you would certainly be served in these establishments, you would want to get out very quickly and never return.

  • WmarkW

    This woman obviously wanted a grievance more than a haircut.

    I’m waiting for the trial of the century, over culturally diverse conceptions of what “rape” is.

    • kjh64

      No, I think she just wanted her hair cut. In Canada, she has the right not to be refused because of her gender. If muslims can’t abide by the law, they should go home. No muslim immigration however, problem solved.

    • Canis Lupus

      I agree and wouldnt be surprized if she intentionally went into that shop looking for attention and may even see herself as a “civil rights” advocate.
      As a white man who gets no special consideration, I do not feel bad for her at all. Go someplace else and get a haircut.
      Personally, I dont care one bit about her appearance. But I find it ironic that she looks like a white man but dosent like being treated like one.

      • FourFooted_Messiah

        I don’t give a damn about her apperance OR her sexual preference. What I do appreciate is her opening that special can of worms that pits one set of rights against another.

        And yeah, I’ll take a white, gay true Canadian over some damn Muslim of any stripe or colour any day (even though the militants can be annoying, at best – but at least militant gays don’t set bombs around, for the most part, as far as I know.)

        • IstvanIN

          If a person is white, gay or not, male or female, smart or dumb, nice or rotten, they are one of us, like it or not. The Muslim can never be one of us.

  • Biff_Maliboo

    Multi-culti freaks should file this under: Be Careful What You Wish For.

  • Unperson

    Not that I want to encourage gay troublemakers to further whining, but if forced to choose between a white domestically-born lesbian and a Muslim foreigner who refuses to adapt to Western ways, I’ll side with the Sapphic, s’il vous plait. Faith McGregor may have a horrible hairstyle and a strange definition of “rights”, but at least she BELONGS in Canada.

    But I don’t expect the Human Rights Tribunal will see it that way. I think that in the power struggle between Oppressed Gays and Oppressed Muslims, Canada’s cultural-marxists will give the top spot on the totem pole to the Muslims. To the mind of the leftist, Muslim trumps Gay. The gays are outranked because the multikult prizes Otherness — and Islam is more Otherly than same-sexers. It is not because Islam is somehow more “moral” or “deserving” than homosexuality; but simply because Muslims are far more DANGEROUS than homosexuals. Gays unhappy over an unfavorable decision by the Human Rights Tribunal might throw a hissy fit, but unhappy Muslims throw bombs.

    Therefore, Muslims > Gays.

    • kjh64

      “Faith McGregor may have a horrible hairstyle and a strange definition of “rights”, but at least she BELONGS in Canada. ”
      Agree fully. She belongs in Canada, the muslim does NOT.

      • i am

        I think the place she belongs is called Sodom and Gomorrah.

        • kjh64

          Regardless of what anyone thinks of homosexuality, she does belong in Canada. Gays have always existed. I personally find the gay lifestyle rather gross but I don’t believe gays should be persecuted or discriminated against in jobs etc. for being gay.. I believe in live and let live and one’s private life is their business. However, I also believe that the gay lifestyle shouldn’t be promoted, especially among children, as an “alternative lifestyle” but should be kept in private where it belongs.

      • George

        Amen to that.

        Lesbian or not, she’s white. She belongs in Canada.

        The wogs, especially the Moslem wogs, are seeking to destroy all that is good in white society.

    • The__Bobster

      I see it more like:

      Chosen > gays > blacks > muzzies.

      Just look at which groups can never be criticized.

    • FourFooted_Messiah

      That, and the only thing homosexuals really have to whine about in Canada any more is people not liking them. That’s it. They have everything else legally covered, which leaves nothing for Left activists to really do for them any more, because you really can’t force people to like one another (even though some would like to institute this kind of Happiness Patrol or some darned thing).

      But Muslims, ohohoho. We all know that they won’t be happy at all until Canada (and other Western nations) are run by Shariah law … so the Lefties have LOTS to keep them occupied there.

  • whiteyyyyy

    To hell with her, there’s a certain breed of white’s I’d throw to the wolves. They blame patriarchy and White men, they picked their side let them live with it.

    • Winston_Jack

      Me neither, but SHE?????? Seriously?

      • whiteyyyyy

        I’d want to see the birth cert, who knows maybe she was a he once upon a time. She’s got a huge noggin for a woman.

  • SAM

    LOOK AT THE PICTURE. iS THIS A CLASSICAL LESBIAN SHOCKTROOPER? POOR BARBER.I AM NOT A MUSLEM BUT I WOULD NOT CUT HER HAIR EITHER.SOON WE WIIL SEE BLACK AND MEXICANS MUSLIMS AND PAGANS LESBIANS AND GAYS BROWNS AND YELLOWS GOING AT IT. GET SOME POPCORN.

    • Michael_C_Scott

      Yes, she’s a classical lesbian shocktrooper, and our Muzzie played right into the hands of her and her enablers. If McGregor wanted her hair looking like a corporate America male haircut, the Muzzie should have done that on request: “Short, above the ears, blocked in the back, and take the sideburns off.

      One pays for the privilege of choice here, don’t you know.

  • i am

    Gays have a right to go anywhere and be served; Muslims have the right to refuse service to anyone; White men get kicked in the groin. All business as usual.

  • kjh64

    “When we in Canada talk about human rights in foreign countries, we’re talking about rights like the right you have for the government not to kill you—that is a genuine right,” said the litigation director of the Calgary-based Canadian Constitution Foundation.

    This lady is wrong. In some countries(muslim ones especially), it is perfectly ok to commit “honor killings” or rapes of women not wearing a burka.

    “When we talk about rights in Canada we talk about rights [that require] someone to do things for you. I don’t see that as a right at all.”

    Legal rights are relative and depend upon the country. The definition of what are rights also varies according to different people. Under rights in Canada, (even though I’m from Texas,) it’s the same in regards to businesses there as here. You can’t refuse service based on gender, race, religion etc. These are the “rights” in this country and Canada. This is just another of many reasons why multiculturalism does NOT work and why we should NOT have muslim immigration.

    “It undermines the meaning of the word ‘right’ because if they say this woman has the right to force the barber to cut her hair, essentially they’re saying he doesn’t have the right to practice his religion.”
    Nobody is saying one can’t practice their religion but not at expense of the law. For example, if it’s your religion that young girls can be forced into marriage, it violates the law and you don’t have the right to violate the law because of your religion. Same with the hair cutting muslim.
    .

    • The__Bobster

      You can’t refuse service based on gender, race, religion etc. These are the “rights” in this country and Canada.
      __________

      Could you show me where these “rights” are enumerated in the Constitution? If we had true freedom of association, we could refuse service to anyone, especially the “protected groups”.

      • kjh64

        I didn’t say anything about it being in the constitution. I said that it is the law, in both Canada and the USA that a business can’t refuse service on the basis of gender, sex, religion and so forth. Every nation, as I said, has its’ own definition of rights and laws dealing with rights and this is what the law says in Canada/USA.. Personally, I support anti-discrimination laws when it comes to businesses serving the public. If you didn’t have these, you could have chaos with men refusing to serve women, women refusing to serve men, different religions refusing to serve someone not of their religion etc.etc. Freedom of association to me means dealing with private things such as the right to have a private club or private school paid for by dues that can accept or reject whom they want, not with businesses dealing with the public or providing a public service.

        • IstvanIN

          While the government should treat everyone the same private individuals, including businesses, should not.

          • kjh64

            I disagree. A business that serves the public should not be allowed to turn people away based on their race, gender, religion etc. If they could, you would have chaos. Suppose a small town only had one store and decided that anyone White couldn’t shop there? A society has to have uniform rules.

          • Michael_C_Scott

            Then the whites would either shop elsewhere or move.

            You are also being disingenuous when you said “A business that serves the public..” Businesses do not exist to serve the public. Businesses exist to make money for the stock shareholders. Any other expectations of a business are bull-poop.

  • Katherine McChesney

    Faith MacGregor looka lika man. – Bunny Swann

  • Diamond_Lil

    That’s a female? Yikes.

    • Oil Can Harry

      Yes, of course it’s a woman.

      And if you don’t believe me you can even ask her husband Rosie O’Donnell.

    • Michael_C_Scott

      Face is sorta masculine, but the shoulders are narrow. I wish the neck wasn’t covered; or we could see hands in the picture. Lack of an Adam’s apple or small hands would clinch it.

    • fsagas

      I was shocked. I scrolled past at first thinking it was a dude.

      Upon closer inspection I still that it was a dude.

      Until I read a comment saying it was a girl and then scrolling back seeing the name “Faith” underneath the picture.

      No. I’m not joking.

  • The__Bobster

    What’s with the picture of Conan O’Brien?

  • Eagle_Eyed

    It’s fun to see the Left attempt to do the impossible. But here is a hint. If two “rights” are at odds with one another, this is probably a good sign that (at least one) of them isn’t a right.

    Mark Steyn a while back had a good story out of England. A Muslim group was protesting a gay group which it saw as sinful while the gays in turn protested the Muslims for being intolerant and bigoted. The Orwellian government prosecuted Muslims for being “homophobic” (essentially saying homosexuality was against God and was morally wrong) and the gay group for being “Islamophobic” (for saying that Islam is intolerant and bigoted toward gays). So in the end, both groups were in agreement. Islam and homosexuality were conflicting ideologies, yet both were at fault for some “human rights” offense against each other.

    As the West gets more diverse and more perverse, expect more of these phony rights battles to be weighed by those with the logical understanding of a kindergartner.

    • fsagas

      Except with there are kindergartners that make up a bigger group. It becomes harder for the Liberal Teacher to reprimand both trying to promote some egalitarian fairness.

      Homosexuals will lose out because Muslims outnumber them 10 to 1.

  • Cesare

    After seeing Faith McGregor’s photograph, it’s safe to say her biggest grievance is not being treated like one of the boys. Why so many of these leftist “modern independent women” want to look like men is beyond me.

    • cecilhenry

      “Why so many of these leftist “modern independent women” want to look like men is beyond me”

      ANSWER: One word, same word that motivates all liberalism and the quest for ‘equality’.

      ENVY

  • Lou406

    Now that white folks have been beaten into tolerating every bit of cultural garbage that gets flung our way the Diversity Groups must now keep themselves occupied by making life miserable for each other. Consider it a Diversity Death Match. Wouldn’t expect the media to cover these instances much, they’ll simply maintain the status quo. White models dressing as a Geisha will portrayed as the height of intolerance, cultural insensitivity and ignorance. Muslims lynching homosexuals,,,, move along,,nothing to see here, you Islamophobe you!

  • Angry White Woman

    I’m quite sure this Muslim’s barbershop was not the only establishment in town where this “woman” could get a haircut. If he declines to cut her hair, she can just choose to spend her money at another business. Personally I wouldn’t want a haircut from someone who was unhappy about providing it. A barber can do atrocious things to your hair if he is being forced to do it under duress.

    • kjh64

      I’m sure this woman could have chosen another barber. She may be a plant, I don’t know but I don’t care. Muslims seem to think their religion gives them special privileges to break the law. This is just another example of why multiculturalism is a failure and why muslims don’t belong here Whatever people on here think of this lady, as has been said, she is White, Canadian and belongs their. The muslim doesn’t.

    • FourFooted_Messiah

      Let’s put it this way. Say I was a haridresser who refused to serve a Muslim. Do you think that Muslim would “simply find somewhere else to go”, or would it make a stink?

      They make a stink all the time about “discrimination” against them. It’s time we started stinking back.

      This kind of recalls a case where a woman was refused admittance to a bookstore owned by a Muslim, because she was accompanied by a service dog of some sort. She made a stink, and the Muslim actually tried to make a stink about being “forced” to admit service dogs, because he had a prayer room in the back of his store, and the presence of ANY dog would defile it. He lost, and hopefully went back to whatever dog-free Islamic paradise he slimed out of originally.

      So, yeah, get skunky. It’s the only way we’ll be able to preserve ourselves and our culture.

      • IstvanIN

        Good point. I didn’t think of it that way. They get their way in our countries too often while we would never get our way in theirs.

      • kjh64

        This happened recently here(in Texas). A blind man at an airport had a seeing eye dog and the muslim cab driver refused to take him even though the law says he must. The blind man complained to the state.

  • Anonymous

    Is she the brother of Ewan McGregor?

  • Michael_C_Scott

    The acme of diplomacy was once described as “Let’s you and him fight”, and it’s hard to find two more obnoxious groups than self-righteous Muslims and militant gays. Have at it, folks!

  • rebelcelt

    What if a conservative christian had the same convictions? The law would be against him. Special laws for certain groups.. ahh… the heaven of equal rights for all.
    Liberals are stupid.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/NQHEAYZCMBOERHG2VZRDQ3YUSQ Felix

    That this happened to a she-male makes it even funnier.

  • SLCain

    Perhaps we should just stop referring to lesbians as women. Who are they to assume the mantle of something they are not? We should insist that a proper understanding of the world “woman” is “the mate of a man”. And as lesbians are not that, they are not women. Why should we allow them their “priveleged” point of view (to use a fashionable po-mo term).

    • Angry White Woman

      Can’t do that Cain. They are still anatomically female humans. And what would you call old-fashioned “old maids” who never were the “mate of a man” (or anyone else) but are most certainly not lesbians. I think “lesbian” is about the best term we are going to get, since it does denote that they are …different… from normal women.

  • Magician

    I wonder if that is a transgender woman, who used to be a male but became a female, or a lesbian who tries so hard to appear to be a man

  • Anonymous

    Not all hair salons are unisex, even in the US. A lot of them cater to one gender or the other exclusively. So I don’t understand why she is making a big ruckus out of this.

    • FourFooted_Messiah

      But if a lesbian wants a manly haircut, she’s going to go to a barber and not a girly-girl hairdresser, correct?

      • IstvanIN

        A hair dresser should certainly be capable of giving her a regular men’s haircut. Or she could have just gone a unisex discount place that cuts everyone’s hair. She sounds like a trouble maker, not that I am siding with the muslims.

      • Anonymous

        That’s like saying if a man wants to use the toilet seat rather than a urinal to pee for whatever reason, he is entitled to use the women’s restroom.

        • Michael_C_Scott

          Silly analogy. There are sit-down toilets in men’s rooms.

  • KD_Did

    When rights are in conflict i doubt they truly Natural Rights. people are mixing up human rights with natures or God given rights.

  • pcmustgo

    “When pet PC groups collide.”

    Too funny- the writers and commentators on this site are some of the most gifted comedians alive.

  • Michael_C_Scott

    One one level, I don’t understand what the fuss is. I wouldn’t consider allowing a Muzzie near my neck with anything sharp. There’s a place where a Korean gal works a short walk from my front door, on Academy, just north of Dublin. She charges US $7, does a very good job, and does it quickly. Last I checked, Koreans as a group haven’t developed an obsession with stabbing/beheading folks, so I think I’ll stick with that place.

    Of course the other reason to refuse to patronize Muslim-owned businesses is that some of them may actually go away if they can’t make a living in the West.

    And yes, Faith McGregor was every bit as much a plant as Rosa Parks; she’s too obviously a lesbian.

  • FourFooted_Messiah

    I wonder if I can test out my right to not have to live amongst Pakistanis …

  • fsagas

    Liberalism destroying itself through its own contradictions.

    *waits by the campfire*

  • Michael_C_Scott

    Perhaps Faith isn’t even gay. It’s quite possible that she, like some other straight women just consider long hair too much trouble. We may be reading too much into a single picture in this respect.

    I used to know a gal who enjoyed technical rock climbing, who kept hers that short; she didn’t like the wind blowing it into her eyes while she was ascending a cliff face. She was also as heterosexual as could be; she was dating (living with) one of my male friends. It looked cute on her, in a Julie Andrews sort of way.