May 21, 2018

Spa drawn into Islam vs LGBTQ human rights smackdown

David MenziesMission Specialist

 

If the Peel “mini-mosque” school vs. LGBTQ rainbow flag made for a raucous Round One, get ready for Round Two in the ongoing battle for top spot on the human rights totem pole.

This time, the Islam vs. LGBTQ brouhaha is being contested at a Windsor, Ontario beauty spa called "Mad Wax", where a transgender woman tried to book a hair removal treatment.

She couldn’t be accommodated because the only person available to do the waxing that day was a practicing Muslim woman who refrains from physical contact with males outside her own family.

Now, the transgender woman is filing a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, claiming she was denied services based on her gender identity and gender expression.

The complainant, who wishes to remain anonymous, is seeking $50K in compensation for “immense harm to her dignity.”

Which identity group will prevail this time?

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-05-25 12:47:57 -0400
WOW Andrew is speechless …. Troll
commented 2018-05-24 10:05:46 -0400
No Andrew what is your solution remember diversity is our strength .
Answer don’t apply for a job if you cannot fulfill the requirements of the job period .
No difference if there is a lift requirement of say 50lbs . Can’t do it don’t apply . Come on Andrew put your Liberal spin on it .
commented 2018-05-24 09:36:37 -0400
“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 1 day ago
We can’t expect Andrew Stephenson to suddenly unravel herself from the ideology which promotes cognitive dissonance…this is asking too much! She isn’t ready to look at this situation with honesty.”

The “cognitive dissonance” doesn’t arise on my end. This is one of those very real cases of competing rights. It isn’t really “ideology” that says this – it’s something that will inevitably arise in a free society. Person A has a right to religious beliefs, Person B has a right to not be discriminated against. What happens when Person A and Person B are on opposing sides of an ideological line?

What is YOUR solution, Tammie, that is actually realistic within Canada’s legal framework? I believe I’ve already asked you this, and you rather skillfully deflected.
commented 2018-05-23 09:16:28 -0400
As for my last comment had the company not hired her because of this , there most likely would have been a human rights claim filed with no middle ground right Andrew ?
commented 2018-05-23 08:55:01 -0400
Too bad they refused to do it. They had the opportunity to give the son-of-a-bitch a waxin’ he/she would never forget.
commented 2018-05-22 20:00:14 -0400
We can’t expect Andrew Stephenson to suddenly unravel herself from the ideology which promotes cognitive dissonance…this is asking too much! She isn’t ready to look at this situation with honesty.
commented 2018-05-22 17:25:14 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, where is your proof of your claim to hold a PhD?
commented 2018-05-22 17:03:30 -0400
Andrew it’s amazing how you Liberals want to meet in the middle when the table is turned on your friends . If the job requires something to be done by the employee and they can not meet the requirements of the job , then they should not be hired in the first place .
commented 2018-05-22 15:09:46 -0400
“Ted Tadright commented 16 hours ago
Andrew,

So you want to have it both ways, “somewhere in the middle”. And “not against employee in question, who shouldn’t be forced to do things they’re uncomfortable with.” Of course. Not talking ‘Xian" here, are we? You well know you wouldn’t be coughing up this line if it had been a Christian who declined to provide the service.

’Andrew’s hypocrisy is only the beginning."

This purported “hypocrisy” is invented on your part. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said I would treat the cases the same regardless of religion. That’s pretty cut-and-dried and addresses your comment before yo made it. Try again. Yes, “somewhere in the middle” is both reasonable and achievable in this case.

“liza rosie commented 5 hours ago
Why isn’t the lgbtq bunch screaming blue murder over the rainbow flag veto in Peel? Did they submit to Islam? :

Trying to get it into public schools first. Far more of those. Yes, there is activism in this regard.
commented 2018-05-22 10:46:31 -0400
I would side with the Muslim – she has the right to deny serving because of her religious beliefs. Then the owner can decide whether he wants to keep her, or whether it might be better to fire her in line with some sort of hiring rule that calls all employees to serve any customer approved by the owner.
Problem solved. Then LGBT+s can boycott the business if they wish.
If a Muslim cab driver decided not to take on a person with a dog, then let him. But the cab company should include a hiring rule that all of its employees must take on all customers approved by the owner, whose rules would line up with the Charter.
It is quite simple actually – set up the conditions of employment to suit the owner and clientele. If the owner is Muslim and sets out rules that people feel are discriminatory, then they should not use that service or business. Loss of business, business goes belly up, tough luck bud. Let the whole neighbourhood know.
Anyone who wants to run a sharia business or live according to sharia law can take a hike and move back to where they came from!
commented 2018-05-22 09:49:40 -0400
Why isn’t the lgbtq bunch screaming blue murder over the rainbow flag veto in Peel? Did they submit to Islam?
commented 2018-05-22 09:45:03 -0400
We used to tut, tut at the Americans for suing at the drop of a hat for a gripe with their neighbour or local merchant. When did the awards get so big? Regular judges in regular courts of law, don’t as a rule award such large amounts for such petty complaints. Where does this tranny get off asking for 50K? It’s outrageous.
I don’t know why small claims court shouldn’t be utilized for these suits. There should be a cap on the damage the offended demands. HRC’s are a racket for power hungry SJW’s. A job creation program, an industry created to employ those with otherwise useless degrees. Having said that, if you can’t perform the job you should be fired, and if you look like a man in a dress maybe you should get a home hair removal kit until you can pull off the gender switch ( I agree Tammie)

I hope the HRC implodes over this power struggle between the entitled lgbtq and the demanding centuries spoiled Muslim.
Does the HRC ever throw cases out? They should start with this one.
commented 2018-05-22 09:21:59 -0400
So, it is quite apparent the liar Andrew Stephenson has never owned a business, that much is clear. So, I went to a function where the catering was provided by a company whose owner is Muslim. The food was excellent. If someone wants to hire the caterer for an event, but wants pork on the menu, then the owner is obligated, according to Andrew to provide an employee to prepare and serve the pork, regardless of his/her feelings or beliefs about it. If that person phones in sick that day, then they still must provide the pork dishes, according the liar Andrew, or I should just change the event date, cancel and refund all ticket purchases.
commented 2018-05-22 08:39:20 -0400
Andrew, said "If you read real media, you’ll find out that they have one. He was just sick that day. So, this is not a barrier to this case. "

So, the tranny in this case couldn’t wait another day and is just being vindictive? Vindictive and greedy by the looks of it. I mean, if this was a “real waxing emergency” why didn’t the customer head over Shopper’s Drug Mart and get a waxing kit?
commented 2018-05-22 08:33:02 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, you claimed to hold a PhD. Where is the proof of your claim? Until then, your claims are worthless. That would make you an outright liar and leave you where you started, with absolutely ZERO credibility. Provide the proof you liar.
commented 2018-05-22 07:54:47 -0400
Space Moose is slowly coming out of the closet. Another CINO.
commented 2018-05-22 07:50:08 -0400
Space Moose says " but knowing you people here".
First of all you really don’t know anything about any of us here.Secondly, your comment is a typical stereotyping that is the basis of most bigotry and bias which is rooted in unfounded assumptions and ascertions.
commented 2018-05-22 07:41:41 -0400
It’s a riddle wrapped in an inigma.
Hilarious if you ask me.
HRC’s are parodies of themselves.
commented 2018-05-22 06:47:52 -0400
lol Good for the transgender woman. At least she isn’t hating on everyone simply because they aren’t the same as she is unlike islam which hates everyone who isn’t islamic and even then they hate those as well. Nothing but a death cult!
commented 2018-05-22 04:05:02 -0400
Space Moose,

It would be against my religious beliefs to compel any employee to violate their conscience. So yes, I would side with any employee who felt they were being compelled to do so and therefore declined to do so.

Ron,

Thanks for that; looks like they still have some work to do in the US on curbing frivolous lawsuits. Here in Canada, we have something even worse, called Human Rights Commissions and Human Right Tribunals to screw us.
commented 2018-05-22 02:13:34 -0400
This spa story is no different than a Christian bakery not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple. But knowing you people here, you would all side with the Christian baker. But would you side with the Muslim employee at a spa for the same reasons?
commented 2018-05-21 23:15:00 -0400
Andrew,

So you want to have it both ways, “somewhere in the middle”. And “not against employee in question, who shouldn’t be forced to do things they’re uncomfortable with.” Of course. Not talking ‘Xian" here, are we? You well know you wouldn’t be coughing up this line if it had been a Christian who declined to provide the service.

’Andrew’s hypocrisy is only the beginning. Watch as the left pressures the complainant to focus solely on the owner of the company, and not on the employee who declined to provide the service. Convenient indeed, that the employee, who is a Muslim, is not the owner of the company, eh ‘Andrew’? What if she had been? Or what if the employee had been a Christian? Then you wouldn’t be so ‘non-binary’, would you? You’re not fooling anyone. Why can’t you just admit you have one standard for Christians and another for non-Christians?

Let’s make it simple for you: hypothetical situation: Muslim owner declines service to transgender person. Transgender person complains to kangaroo court. Who do you side with? Owner? Complainant? Or ‘non-binary’?

Answer, please, and also please give the rationale for your answer (I can’t wait…).
commented 2018-05-21 23:13:03 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON
There’s a pretty simple solution to this, which is to have staff on hand comfortable with trans individuals so someone uncomfortable with it doesn’t have to, which is a simple compromise that allows client, employee, and business to all get what they need.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I’m assuming that this simple compromise would entail the government forcing the shop owner to hire the required “comfort girls”? And how many extra employees should a business owner anticipate hiring since one never knows what perversion de jour will walk through the door.
commented 2018-05-21 22:15:27 -0400
“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2 hours ago
Ted said in part, “Or maybe it’s just that he has caught a case of fear of, well, you know. Being labeled an Islamophobe. Looks like the leftards’ CHICKENS are coming home to roost, eh ‘Andrew’?”

I think that’s a good assessment of how the resident troll is grappling with this conundrum. "

I’m chicken because my answer was insufficiently binary for you? LOL. Guess what, sometimes things are somewhere in the middle (snicker).

Ted Tadright commented 3 hours ago
Nice non-answer, ‘Andrew’,

But again, which side in this case do you come down on? For, or against, the complainant? Don’t weasel. You know you would side with the complainant if it was a Christian who declined to provide the service for religious reasons. Can we assume that you would also side with this complainant for the same reason? "

As I said, somewhere in the middle. For complainant in that they should not be declined service, but not against employee in question, who shouldn’t be forced to do things they’re uncomfortable with. The spa in question has someone that does the procedure in question, but who was off sick that day. That is to say, there is a solution here where everyone’s happy. The customer gets their waxing, the salon gets their business, everyone’s happy.

Note I do not specify religion. There is a reason for that.

“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 3 hours ago
Wow, is Andrew saying all spa/salon owners need a tranny-comfortable staff member at the ready?!!!
Sounds unrealistic to me. "

If you read real media, you’ll find out that they have one. He was just sick that day. So, this is not a barrier to this case.

“Drew Wakariuk commented 38 mins ago
Andrew Stephenson what constitutional rights are you talking about? Religion is the only one in play here. And a business does not have to serve anyone if they choose not to. "

The one about not being discriminated against? They can’t decline service for discrimination.
commented 2018-05-21 21:33:03 -0400
Andrew Stephenson sorry but there is no middle ground in this issue.
commented 2018-05-21 21:32:16 -0400
Andrew Stephenson what constitutional rights are you talking about? Religion is the only one in play here. And a business does not have to serve anyone if they choose not to.
commented 2018-05-21 20:00:28 -0400
Ted said in part, “Or maybe it’s just that he has caught a case of fear of, well, you know. Being labeled an Islamophobe. Looks like the leftards’ CHICKENS are coming home to roost, eh ‘Andrew’?”

I think that’s a good assessment of how the resident troll is grappling with this conundrum.
commented 2018-05-21 19:27:37 -0400
Ron,

Just so you understand: I am not criticizing the US justice system; just the opposite. Many States have a reasonably high bar that must be crossed in order to proceed with a lawsuit. Frivolous complaints are dismissed. This protects individuals and businesses, large and small, from being ripped off, unlike our Canadian system.
commented 2018-05-21 19:21:28 -0400
Ron,

In most US States there would be no proceeding after the first judge to see the complaint dismissed it.
From The Ground Up