Indiana Religious Freedom Bill

[maryjane48]

can we get back on topic? homophobes in the states wanting to refuse service to gays and lesbians? who cares if greenie wants to pretend to be better than a poor person? i dont . who cares if some chinese place wants limit plates to certain amount? this bill and the other 20 states that have them are homophobic , plain and simple , discuss

[logicalview]

If you don't have a legitimate source I'm not interested.

Facepalm. What a cop-out. Whenever anyone presents anything to contravene your narrow-minded world view you pull this excuse out of your rectum to dismiss it. What else is new.

If you are a hairdresser you are expected to cut hair. It's pretty straight forward and there is no force involved.

And this is what happens when you are too lazy to even bother reading the elementary background facts of this case. This Muslim person in question was a "barber", not a "hair-dresser". There is a big difference. He was trained specifically to cut men's hair. Ask a lot of barbers, they will tell you that they specialize in men's hair. The Terminal Barbershop, where this person works, has been open since 1925, specializing in cutting men's hair. They somehow existed for 88 years with no one complaining. So it sounds like if you like cutting hair and are good at it, and you have a religious issue with touching women who aren't your family, the perfect job for you would be at a men's barber shop. Unless of course a busybody fake "human rights" person happened to darken your door, and tries to force you to do something totally against your will. Then of course, things start to suck. And for what possible reason?

Welcome to the Terminal Barber Shop, the oldest standing barber shop in Toronto! Since 1925, the "Boys Club on Bay Street" has been a downtown fixture at Bay/Dundas, offering haircuts, massages and hot lather shaves in a classic barber shop setting. Recent visitors to the shop include former Canadian prime minister the Right Honourable Paul Martin and American celebrity Woody Harrelson (pictured below).

http://www.terminalbarbershop.com/?p=1

You are the one always saying if you don't like your wage, choose another job. Well if you don' t like your clients, choose another job.

yes, it's just so easy. I would LOVE it if you would open a barber shop/hair salon, and a Muslim man came in to apply. If you asked him if he had a religious issue with cutting women's hair, and he said "yes", and you said "Ok then I won't hire you", he would totally be entitled to file a human rights complaint against you for discrimination, and he would win, hands down. You would be totally screwed. And that's the intellectual pretzel that every liberal eventually gets themselves tied into - you want everything and you want nothing, you want everything to be black and everything to be white at the same time. But you can't have it both ways. And that's why at some point you have to see that an actual "right" - the right to say "I don't want to do that" trumps a fake "right", which is the right to force someone to cut your hair.

So what's your solution to this situation, other than forcing this person to do something against his will (which is an ACTUAL human right, to NOT do something you absolutely don't want to do). Should this person, who is trained to be a barber, just go and sit on welfare? That does sound like the perfect liberal solution - force someone with an actual skill to just become another suckler at the teat of the state, rather than let that person contribute to society.

[logicalview]

this bill and the other 20 states that have them are homophobic , plain and simple , discuss

I know this is a stretch, but perhaps you could actually read a bit about this bill before making a blanket statement like this. As another poster has already stated, blanket statements are "crap".

[maryjane48]

actually i did , as i saw a article on tv , then read up on it , states already have god based beliefs laws , its in constitution, these laws are for homophobes to force their belief on to other folks , its wrong and shameful in 2015

[The Green Barbarian]

actually i did , as i saw a article on tv ,

LOL

[Ford4x4Truck]

yes, it's just so easy. I would LOVE it if you would open a barber shop/hair salon, and a Muslim man came in to apply. If you asked him if he had a religious issue with cutting women's hair, and he said "yes", and you said "Ok then I won't hire you", he would totally be entitled to file a human rights complaint against you for discrimination, and he would win, hands down. You would be totally screwed.

I'm unclear as to whether this comment is about Indiana or Canada since you're posing some hypothetical situation for Jlives (a Canadian).

However, if you're talking about Canada then your hypothetical situation makes no sense whatsoever. Employers here aren't even supposed to ask about age, let alone religious beliefs. I sincerely doubt Jlives would be stupid enough to break various rules and regulations to ask an applicant about religious beliefs in an interview.

Furthermore, it's pretty standard practice for a business to give employees different tasks if one task cannot be accomplished for whatever reason (injury, beliefs, etc).

For example, if one injures themselves at a Walmart, the business will quite often give the employee a less physically demanding task like being a greeter. I've seen this happen first hand. A person broke his hand at a Walmart and was no longer able to work in the deli section. Instead of being barred from working, he was offered a greeter position.

Therefore - if an applicant is hired and has some issue with cutting the hair of women or whatever - why can't the applicant simply be given other tasks that do not conflict with religious beliefs?

Not everything leads to a human rights complaint. Your hypothetical situation is fear-mongering / massive hyperbole.

[The Green Barbarian]

Furthermore, it's pretty standard practice for a business to give employees different tasks if one task cannot be accomplished for whatever reason (injury, beliefs, etc).
.

you mean, like if you have a belief involving touching women, you would work at Barbershop that states quite clearly that they are a Boy's club, and caters only to men. Kind of like that.

[Ford4x4Truck]

you mean, like if you have a belief involving touching women, you would work at Barbershop that states quite clearly that they are a Boy's club, and caters only to men. Kind of like that.

Your examples are absolutely terrible, GB, LV,*removed*

Barbershops cut both the hair of men and women. I was trying to make a simple point that since both genders go to these places, an employee could simply cut the hair of one gender (or be given other tasks since a business involves more than 1 thing). Other employees could cut the hair of the other gender. Simple solution - no feelings hurt, no drama, no human rights complaints that you keep going on about.

If a business is going to be so insanely idiotic to hire someone, then delve into personal religious issues and make stink about them, then fire the person, the business deserves a human rights complaint.

[The Green Barbarian]

Barbershops cut both the hair of men and women. I was trying to make a simple point that since both genders go to these places, an employee could simply cut the hair of one gender (or be given other tasks since a business involves more than 1 thing). Other employees could cut the hair of the other gender. Simple solution - no feelings hurt, no drama, no human rights complaints that you keep going on about.
.

My word...try and keep up guy...you are correct and I agree with you. However, what happens when someone comes into the shop, demands that their hair be cut, and when the hair cutter refuses, due to religious reasons, they are taken to the Human Rights Commission? That's exactly what happened in Toronto in 2013. The scenario you describe is in a sane world. The world isn't sane, it's all about finding new ways to become offended, and to trample actual rights with fake rights.

Rex Murphy: Freedom’s bad hair day

A barber’s epigraph:
Worthy a Prince of the Tonsorian race
The best that e’re with steel mow’d Human face
— Remarks and collections of Thomas Hearne
.
I knew it was a glaring gap back on the day it all became official. Where, oh where, in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the clause or reference dealing with the cardinal human right of Toronto women to have their hair cut by the Muslim barber of their choice?

It was not there! Not a word. The Charter was nude of any connection, any allusion or annotation: no references to bangs, teases, shampoos or styling, clippers, scissors or shaving brushes. Tonsorially, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was a total hairless bust.

Thus, by great omission, did a terrible injustice creep into the world.

Has not the right to get the haircut you choose at the establishment of your insistence been a cry of the human heart since the age of the hairy — and I must say unkempt — Neanderthals? Haircuts, trims and shampoos have been a grand theme of freedom for all of us over the eons. On the lips of liberty has always been a prayer for just the right haircut from the barber of your choice. Patrick Henry’s great call — Give me a ducktail, or let me cut my own — still sends shivers up every waxed enlightened back.


Was it not the shout of the barons on the fields of Runnymede, in 1215 before the granting of the Magna Carta? “Trim the back, easy on the sides and a little off the top — or give us death!” And are not their names recorded in the ground-breaking Marie Clairol Book of Fabulous Perms and Human Rights?

Even more, has not insisting on the barber of your choice, or hauling him before some psuedo-court — regardless, of course, of his feelings or practice — been a classic theme of womens’ dignity and autonomy over time? Closely allied, too, as has been noted in the scholarly literature on the subject, with that even stronger human right — the right not to have dandruff while wearing black.

And yet here in Canada, years after Edward Scissorhands even, a woman can still stumble into a men’s barber shop and be informed by the petty, wretched little hair-chopper in the corner that, “Sorry, we only do men in this shop.”

OK. I am being just a little sarcastic. What else, with this story, can one be? Comfort and security have made us addle pates. It is becoming a task to follow the daily news and not be gobsmacked by stories of such shallowness, narcissism and pettiness that the first impression on reading them is that they must be fakes, sad jokes or mad fiction.

Which is how I felt on first reading of the woman who insists that she have her hair cut in a barbershop for men, where non-incidentally the barber is a Muslim. Short story, barber says he is a man’s barber, and further, being Muslim, cannot practice his trade on women. Most people at this point would leave and look for another, more inclusive, striped pole. Toronto has, remember, more than one barber.

The lady in question, however, in a spirit of entitlement and melodrama, has taken offence; claimed her “human rights” have been outraged; and, naturally, trotted off to the open pit mine of hypertrophic grievances — the Ontario Human Rights Commission. She duly claims, absent the barber of her choice, she is being treated like a “second class citizen.”

So what happens? Well, if things go as usual, in this wise and mainly benign country, a human rights apparatus will hear this cri d’clipper. It will involve needless misery and expense for the “offender” — in this case the reluctant barber. There will be publicity. Most likely fines. Lawyers will be involved. Rulings written. All for the whim of a trim.

And all so one woman in Toronto can test whether a female has a right to force someone else to cut her hair when said someone: (a) does not want the trade; (b) does not and has not ever cut women’s hair; and (c) is Muslim and claims his religion does not smile on the touching of strange women — whether clipping the bangs or not. Did we invent courts, judges, tribunals and the very concept of human rights to burn time and money on such idleness?

Should the dim day arrive, under some demented ethos, that picking your own barber is declared a human right, then it will be the effective end of true human rights — their having been remorselessly trivialized to the point of absolute nullity.

National Post

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... d-hair-day

[Ford4x4Truck]

It's kind of impossible to keep up when the topic has changed like a million times.

-It was about Indiana
-Change to talking about Canada (including absurd examples about not serving people who look "poor")
-Change to you saying you'd LOVE (exactly the word that was used) to see Jenny open a barbershop (presumably in Canada) and be slapped with a human rights complaint due to not hiring a Muslim who apparently will only cut the hair of one gender

Yes, the article you posted sounds unfair - but it's one instance. The writer even admits that he's being dramatic.

Most human rights complaints are actually valid whether people want to believe it or not.

Rex Murphy isn't some god who is always right about everything. It'd be nice to see opposing views linked here for once instead of a hundred Rex Murphy articles all stating the exact same thing - all his subjective opinion.

[ValB58]

actually i did , as i saw a article on tv What "article WAS THAT? What channel? What night? , then read up on it , states already have god based beliefs laws , Again, who, what, where, when and how, does that supposied article state the phrase that you are referring to? its in constitution, WHO's constitution? Canada, ASA, India.......? Your comment is unclear and needs clarification and citation. these laws are for homophobes to force their belief on to other folks , What LAWS are you you referring to? Please provide a link to the sources of your assumptions. its wrong and shameful in 2015 THAT may be, IF you could substantiate your beliefs with evidence and the rest of us could understand what the hell you are talking about.

[The Green Barbarian]

-Change to you saying you'd LOVE (exactly the word that was used) to see Jenny open a barbershop (presumably in Canada) and be slapped with a human rights complaint due to not hiring a Muslim who apparently will only cut the hair of one gender

.

I said this? Where?

[sobrohusfat]

To be gay and angry in America
By Bob Tyrrell
Published April 9, 2015

Some of my most cherished lines from President Bill Clinton's presidency had nothing to do with women with whom he did or did not have sexual relations. Rather, they were inspired by the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which he signed on the South Lawn of the White House on Nov. 16, 1993. At the time, there was not much controversy about what he then said, but they were admirable lines nonetheless. Today they might be deemed heroic lines.

Back in 1993, President Clinton said that our Founding Fathers "knew that religion helps to give our people a character without which a democracy cannot survive." Then he elaborated on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying: "What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion. This judgment is shared by the people of the United States, as well as by the Congress. We believe strongly that we can never be too vigilant in this work." In the coming years, some 30 states adopted variations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and all was quiet, until whammo.

The governor of Indiana signed the Hoosier State's variant of the law with emphasis that the law not encourage other forms of discrimination. Of a sudden, the top brass at Wal-Mart, Apple and — for some reason — the National Collegiate Athletic Association joined in a grand concordat with the top brass at various gay rights organizations to smite Indiana good and hard. The Indiana Legislature backed down. The state of Arkansas contemplated similar legislation. Those in the victorious alliance set their sights on the 30 other offending states.

They argued that the law would embolden bakers to deny gays wedding cakes. Photographers would deny their services to gays. Other religiously oriented retailers would begin denying services to gays and possibly to others, say, Zoroastrians. A pizza parlor in Walkerton, Indiana, was caught in the controversy and closed down. Indiana became the scene of rancor and abusiveness. What is going on here?

Well, politics has changed course over the past 20 years. Gay champions have taken the lead over those who are anti-homosexuality. They now have the momentum, and Clinton is hoping that everyone will forget his noble utterances from yesteryear. Progressives — once called liberals — have made over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into a dangerous weapon of intolerance. In Indiana a week ago, it became a veritable hate crime.

In truth, it is nothing of the sort. The arguments for supporting religious freedom as a bulwark of liberty are as compelling today as they were when Clinton was extolling them from the South Lawn. Surely, some reasonable solution can be worked out, yet not in the overheated political climate that we have today. The deterioration of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from admired legislation to abominated diktat is but another example of one of my most fondly held insights into politics. To wit: Progressives have but one political value to which they adhere through all the vicissitudes and travail of modern politics. It is not freedom. It is not order. It is disturbing the peace.

Throughout the land of the free, we had for years the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and various of its simulacra. There were few reported disturbances. People were living in peace and relative harmony. Then the progressives fell back on their one enduring political value, disturb the peace. Rouse the easily aroused. March on Indiana! It had the added benefit of arousing the progressives' base.

Yet at this point in the progressives' strategizing, I question their mischievous wisdom. My guess is that the vast majority of people in Indiana and throughout America do not like to be disturbed. Their elected representatives will find a compromise. The land will again return to tranquility, and the progressives will again be thwarted in their drive for power. In America, religious liberty trumps momentary agitation.

[maryjane48]

religious liberty trumps momentary agitation.

call it what it is , believing in a fairytale . must suck for all the bible thumpers having to deal with folk their beloved idol tells them not to like or care about :)

[maryjane48]