The Toronto Star pulls the ‘can’t we all just get along’ card in their editorial defending the ‘right’ of a Muslim barbershop to refuse to cut a lesbian’s hair.
It’s pathetically hilarious to see the Star’s editors twist themselves in knots saying Human Rights Tribunals should stay out of people’s religious choices (see here).
Does anyone believe that if this was a Christian barbershop, the Star would have taken this view?
Sure would love to hear the Star explain the differences between a bed and breakfast and a barbershop (see here).
BC Blue: One BC Conservative's view on it all... 
November 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM
How about the case of the Knight’s of Columbus not renting a hall for a gay couple’s reception? How about the printer who declined to print those business cards advertising gay issues? Were these HR Tribunal complaints not also based on religious conscience? And they LOST! I hope this gal goes to one of our kangaroo courts to complain. It will be interesting to see if the law is evenly applied (but I won’t hold my breath).
November 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Frivolous says the Star!
November 16, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Excellent point on the lack of distinction of the differences between discrimination at a bed/breakfast and a barbershop, Make no mistake, in the urban world of Lefty politically correctness, there is a hierarchy of rights; and some religions and rights are more equal than others.
November 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM
I think in the case of privately-owned business, the owners should always have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Once I was refused a hotel room in Beaverlodge, Alberta because the proprietor said he won’t rent rooms to women who are unaccompanied. I was there for oilfield work but assume he thought I was a prostitute? Or, more charitably, maybe his policy was there to protect women’s safety? In any event, I was put out by the situation but did not complain. His hotel – his right to call the shots.
November 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM
The issue is when a non white person gets refused entry or service the far left will cry racism yet its fine to do why because the person is white.
November 16, 2012 at 11:19 AM
I wholeheartedly agree there, Jayme. There is a ridiculous double-standard of reverse discrimation in Canada.
November 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM
Would it be okay for the hotelier to say he wouldn’t rent to blacks or Asians? Of course not. Why is it any different if the discrimination is against a woman because, and only because, she is a woman. If the HRC rules in McGregor;s favor they would be sending a strong message that in this country, regardless of your religious or cultural beliefs, men and women are treated equally.
November 20, 2012 at 8:46 AM
That’s not true at all. The government can not force individuals to treat men and women equally. If someone can run a women’s only gym, then you can have a men’s only barbershop.
November 16, 2012 at 11:02 AM
Refused to cut a lesbian’s hair? How did they know the person was lesbian?
November 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Have to ask the Star’s editorial board maybe?
November 16, 2012 at 11:15 AM
I agree with Krysta above. A different case is presented by those Minneapolis Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to take a seeing-eye dog, a pet dog or carry a bottle of wine. The drivers are under contract to provide full service and have been rewarded with near monopoly control of it.
November 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM
If the respective HRC refused to take a complaint in the above situation, it would make excellent case law , but sadly the HRC’s can ad-lib as they go along.
Here are two hypothetical examples :
A white woman tries to pay by cheque at a store and is refused. End of story. A Muslim woman garbed in burka tries to pay by cheque at a store and is refused … HRC complaint follows and like would find for the Muslim.
Whether it is Muslims complaining about crosses or being offended by Christmas trees in Belgium , or being enraged that Israel defends itself against rocket attacks , on and on , the end goal of Muslims is to implement Sharia on a world-wide scale. Anyone who believes otherwise , given the sheer scale of Mulsim violence , obviously only listens to the BBC , CBC or CNN or is severely deficient in the commons sense department.
November 16, 2012 at 1:27 PM
It’s the perfect storm, which right will trump the other. IMO in this case the Muslim barber should win because there were plenty of other shops she could go to. She is just on her own crusade.
November 16, 2012 at 1:34 PM
Umm, duh…
November 16, 2012 at 1:47 PM
What do you think if someone told a non white person to go to another shop etc?
November 16, 2012 at 2:14 PM
It’s looking like this haircut “customer” is an activist so let’s just watch where this one ends up. This is a real test, will one be as equal as the other with the HRC ? They have quite a dilemma on their hands……
November 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM
The pretzel press trying to neuter this politically correct conundrum?
The Star(editorial board) like I’m sure all pc media outlets think its about time we were all above this fray.
WHAT !!?…after all the copy you media folks…(amongst many others),have made hay with, you feel that the first time a reverse discrepancy case rears its ugly little righteous head above the toilet bowl…YOU people think we should all utter “gosh” and move along…there’s nothing important here.
And what about next time and the time after that and so on? Where will the Star editorial board or the HRC stand on future issues ?… They are surely coming.
Many good examples have been presented by others above of non sustainable pandering policy… policy which is akin to opening a pandora’s box …and now those convoluted judgements are painting all past PC bogus decisions into a corner. Good luck with this one for you progressives will surely discover that no descision will be acceptable and pandering will reap nothing more than contempt.
Dare I suggest that the ramifications of this could be much worse than a two-bit mohammed video?
Oh right…I’m sure that if you can’t douse this one before it goes up before the HR board then fault will have to go to the less inclined to do retaliatory social damage.
I’m sure most here know which side that will be.
And so drains off a little more of the lifeblood of our Western Society.
I greave.
November 16, 2012 at 6:15 PM
Ezra said it best. There is a rights heirarchy.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/politically-correct-poker/1974432655001
November 16, 2012 at 6:47 PM
” … saying their Muslim religion forbids them from touching women who are not their relatives. …”
Muslims seem rather selective of which women they touch it seems. Just more Muslim double speak when it is convenient.
http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/sweden-shocking-muslim-rape-wave-epidemic/
“… The infamous Muslim rape wave statistics in Scandinavia show a horrifying statistics with clear evidence that Muslim migrants are guilty of nearly all rapes. Muslims make up an average 2% of the total Scandinavian population, but commit nearly all of the nation’s assaulted rapes. …”
November 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM
Personally… I figure the womyn and sharia crowd deserve each other…
November 17, 2012 at 4:22 AM
I cant go to Curves for Women Hey HRC I want some money!
November 17, 2012 at 10:34 AM
If he just said sorry i can’t that would be fine and he would have very right to do that but if he said i can’t because of my religion forbids it that is where it gets far more complex.
November 17, 2012 at 11:56 AM
No it doesn’t make it complex. Religious freedom. Same if a Christian doesn’t want to print cards for a gay cause. Also, you should be able to run your business anyway you want and people will decide with their spending dollars whether to support your decisions or not. The only complexity is the fact of discrimination against white Christians and not against approved minority groups.
November 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Oh, forgot to add that it goes both ways. If a gay barber refused a Christian or Muslim then so be it. Go somewhere else.
November 17, 2012 at 4:30 PM
Yes, Patrick – well said. Private business should be able to do as they please. The invisible hand of the market will take care of the rest. If a business offends too many people or turns down too many customers due to their personal beliefs, their own bottom line will suffer.
November 18, 2012 at 3:32 AM
Thats the thing the far left will only protect as a rule the religious of certain groups.
November 17, 2012 at 12:40 PM
These barbers are Muslims, they’re open for business from the public which includes all manner of religions and different sexualities. If they’re in the real world of the Western civilizations religion has nothing to do with cutting someone’s hair who goes into their shop for the service they’re advertising and offering. If they don’t want to cut women’s hair they need to have a sign in plain view saying men only. In earlier days in small rural towns a lot of women went to the barber for a haircut, it may not have been stylish but they were capable of giving the ladies a trim, sex and religion didn’t run interference with the service.
If the Kangaroo court Commissars called HRC rule in favour of the barbers we know we’re heading deeper and deeper into appeasement of all comers and we stand for nothing. It’s called multiculturalism gone amok.