Mens Barbershop fined for not cutting a womans hair

[LegendKiller]

Laws that limit rape are laws that limit the negative freedom of the proposed rapist, as they apply an external restraint. Laws preventing rape do not limit the ability of the rapist to fulfill his potential, unless the argument then becomes that a rapist's highest aspiration is to be a rapist, at which point the distinction between positive liberty and negative liberty becomes meaningless IMO.



This is why we should probably use the political concept of positive liberty, which I think directly applies to the situation at hand here. The wiki article is sufficient for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty



Public accommodation laws are basically an explicit move towards positive liberty, which is what I was getting at originally.



Hey, nobody's perfect, haha.



I also appreciate your contributions and your ability to disagree rationally, no joke. I don't play word games with people on here that I respect, and I respect you. So even if you disagree with me or think I'm making a stupid point, it is my actual opinion and not an attempt to bullshit you.

Legendkiller, on the other hand, is someone who's hard to respect as he's a bloviating ignoramus. Maybe I should be a better person and not shit talk him, but I guess I have a weakness in that respect!

What's funny is that in a lot of things we aren't all that far apart. In others, it is massive.

Why did I say that the DV r^2 is one for a single IV, because inwas pointing out that you just blame cops, no matter what. You're simpleton viewpoint, by linking to an article that just compares cop shootings from one area to another without controlling for any other variable is only showing that you do believe that there is a perfect correlation. You don't consider what exactly places the officer in that situation, like the demographics, economics, literacy/education, criminality, drugs, gangs....etc. And yes, I pointed out that it is nonsensical to have the IV of cop violence not be dependent on the others since that is the entire problem. You yourself dismiss that as immaterial even though we know criminality is dramatically effected by those variables.

On the other hand, I do agree with you that police *seem* to be more prone to violence. Look at the elder Indian case. How the fuck could any juror not say the officer went too far? I have older indians walk around my neighborhood all of the time, few speak conversational English but all are very nice. If a cop roughed one up by me I'd be pissed.

But why is that? They seem to be balkanizing despite a drop in cop shootings and violence. Is it training? Is it the atmosphere? Is it attitude towards officers? Is it perception rather than hard data? What is the nature of the violence they commit, vs what is committed against them.

I simply do not know. I suspect, but I need more data. Anecdotes exist on both sides with a huge disparity in data availability and truthful analysis. Look the cop violence statistics (violence against cops), it is very compelling.

You, on the other hand, seem to have made your mind up. Am I wrong?

As far as public accomodation, I support it, but am worried that it will go far enough that it will remove individual freedom. How far is too far? The woman knew what the place was, she purposefully sought it out. She is even in the industry, in the same area, and knew. So why try to "wreck it"? Just because you can? Because you have a bone to pick? Because you want to hold some moral and legal gun to their head? I have my suspicions.

 

[fskimospy]

You are grasping at straws.

You do not understand the discussion.

 

[brycejones]

2. Woman and her cuckmale

How do you know and why do you care? Even if true it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Or do you want to tell yourself that no "real" man would date such an evil woman?

 

[HumblePie]

This is a bit strange, because in many places there are laws that do allow for protection of other clientele that allow for legal discrimination.

For example, I know in more than a few states women are not allowed to be customers of gentlemen's clubs by themselves. Women can be escorted in by a man into the club, but they are not allowed in by themselves. This is perfectly legal discrimination for various reasons.

I also know that theme's can be setup like Hooters in terms of discrimination for work place hirings. Then again it all depends on the laws as they apply at the location of that barber shop of which I don't know which do and don't apply. But the broad statement of that discrimination of the woman is not legal anywhere is not a proper statement either as some in this thread have alluded to.

 

[sm625]

I cant wait for the next headline: McDonald's fined for not serving lamb burger. Where does it end? It seems civilization itself cannot end fast enough. Each one of these stories is but another flint stone tossed into the hay barn.

 

[bshole]

Can you explain where in the law it is OK to refuse service by having them go to a different establishment on your dime?

You appear to be arguing that the white lunch counters could have remained segregated if they offered to pay black people to go somewhere else. I'm having trouble locating any part of the law that would say that, so I'm hoping you can point it out to me.

I mean if it's nowhere close to the same that should be easy for you, right?

ROFLMFAO! Eski's all up in arms about a woman's right to have her hair cut in a men's barbershop while at the same time adament that men should be allowed in girl's locker rooms against their will. Good christ, how that makes sense I will never know. A little consistency would be helpful.

 

[fskimospy]

ROFLMFAO! Eski's all up in arms about a woman's right to have her hair cut in a men's barbershop while at the same time adament that men should be allowed in girl's locker rooms against their will. Good christ, how that makes sense I will never know. A little consistency would be helpful.

Can you explain how that's not consistent?

 

[werepossum]

Here, Ill give my gray answer.

I like the intent of accommodation, but I worry about how it shapes society. We get mixed up in this idea that all discrimination is bad, and its not. Further, society seems to have a very fluid sense of morality, so because its deciding who should or should not be discriminated against, we get immoral outcomes.

Nobody would say that telling a rude customer you will not service them is a bad thing. In the literal sense, that would be discrimination against rude people. We accept that type of discrimination, because we understand that not all discrimination is bad, that is of course, until we forget that.

So by putting accommodation laws into place, you are forcing people to do things they would otherwise not do. That can be good when racists are forced to service black people. We all benefit from the increase in utility there with a slight loss of freedom. There are lots of low hanging fruit when it comes to accommodation laws. Right to be serviced for race, sex, religion and other groups would seem easy, that is until its not like in this case.

So, to sum up my answer...

Accommodation laws can do objective good when look at individually, but the net effect has we worried. I don't know that its become a net problem yet, but I feel we are heading in that direction.

See, I answered it and gave context. Yay for me.

Excellent answer, sir.

It's worth pointing out though that everything is destructive if carried too far, such as freedom of speech being used to justify bomb threats. This chick was an ass hat and it's a bullshit move to punish the barbershop, but at the end of the day, if the worst thing that happens to you is having to cut a woman's hair exactly like a man's for the same price, that's been a pretty good day. To allow a barbershop to refuse her service is to make some animals more equal than others, which to me is worse than the continuing constraint of freedom and sexual differentiation.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
As far as public accomodation, I support it, but am worried that it will go far enough that it will remove individual freedom. How far is too far? The woman knew what the place was, she purposefully sought it out. She is even in the industry, in the same area, and knew. So why try to "wreck it"? Just because you can? Because you have a bone to pick? Because you want to hold some moral and legal gun to their head? I have my suspicions.

I suspect she is a SJW, but she could also be a grievance farmer, like those disabled who make their living by finding non-compliant establishments and filing lawsuits. She could even have a bone to pick with the owners/managers.

Assuming she is a SJW, my knee jerk opinion is the same as yours, but it can go both ways. "I only know how to cut men's hair" makes even less sense than "I only know how to cut white people's hair", there being more difference in the hair itself between whites and blacks than between men and women. Seems to me that if we legitimize one, we risk legitimizing the other, for trannies at the least and possibly racial discrimination. I can see telling the potential customer of your specialty and warning that she might not be happy because you aren't used to cutting those styles, but refusing to cut her hair is simply asking to be kicked, especially if she is asking for an essentially male style. (I don't even know what is a "fade".)

 

[fskimospy]

I suspect she is a SJW, but she could also be a grievance farmer, like those disabled who make their living by finding non-compliant establishments and filing lawsuits. She could even have a bone to pick with the owners/managers.

Assuming she is a SJW, my knee jerk opinion is the same as yours, but it can go both ways. "I only know how to cut men's hair" makes even less sense than "I only know how to cut white people's hair", there being more difference in the hair itself between whites and blacks than between men and women. Seems to me that if we legitimize one, we risk legitimizing the other, for trannies at the least and possibly racial discrimination. I can see telling the potential customer of your specialty and warning that she might not be happy because you aren't used to cutting those styles, but refusing to cut her hair is simply asking to be kicked, especially if she is asking for an essentially male style. (I don't even know what is a "fade".)

A fade is basically very short on the sides, longer on top. If you look at the average guy in the military today that's more likely than not the haircut they have.

I agree that this woman seems to be needlessly provoking people, but it's a bad idea to stop enforcing the law just because the person involved could be a jerk.

 

[realibrad]

A fade is basically very short on the sides, longer on top. If you look at the average guy in the military today that's more likely than not the haircut they have.

I agree that this woman seems to be needlessly provoking people, but it's a bad idea to stop enforcing the law just because the person involved could be a jerk.

I think its a problem when enforcing the law means giving the women a hair cut. Maybe there is a fundamental problem with the law when this type of thing happens.

 

[fskimospy]

I think its a problem when enforcing the law means giving the women a hair cut. Maybe there is a fundamental problem with the law when this type of thing happens.

Honestly, if the outcome of laws that have prevented the systematic discrimination against millions of people is that a few women have to be given haircuts in male barbershops I'm pretty okay with that. It seems like a very modest price to pay.

I mean look at the gay wedding cake threads, people argued with a straight face that refusing to bake cakes for same sex weddings wasn't discriminating based on sexual orientation because if two straight people decided to get same sex married they would be similarly denied.

Racist and sexist discrimination is something where the people who do it are generally very invested in their position. As soon as you start making exceptions you provide a loophole that the very people you're trying to curtail will almost certainly use.

 

[realibrad]

Honestly, if the outcome of laws that have prevented the systematic discrimination against millions of people is that a few women have to be given haircuts in male barbershops I'm pretty okay with that. It seems like a very modest price to pay.

I mean look at the gay wedding cake threads, people argued with a straight face that refusing to bake cakes for same sex weddings wasn't discriminating based on sexual orientation because if two straight people decided to get same sex married they would be similarly denied.

Racist and sexist discrimination is something where the people who do it are generally very invested in their position. As soon as you start making exceptions you provide a loophole that the very people you're trying to curtail will almost certainly use.

Is there no other way to accomplish the outcome you want though? If this is the best we can do, then so be it, but I don't believe it is, and I would bet you could come up with some better ideas.

 

[werepossum]

A fade is basically very short on the sides, longer on top. If you look at the average guy in the military today that's more likely than not the haircut they have.

I agree that this woman seems to be needlessly provoking people, but it's a bad idea to stop enforcing the law just because the person involved could be a jerk.

Oh. Used to be called a high-and-tight. I suppose people are too lazy to say all that these days.

I think its a problem when enforcing the law means giving the women a hair cut. Maybe there is a fundamental problem with the law when this type of thing happens.

But isn't that really the point of having such laws, to be fair even when one would rather not? Having had that cut explained to me, seems to me that a barbershop would be the ideal place to get such a cut. (Unless it's somehow cut different for a woman.) I don't particularly support her actions, but I don't see how she is in the wrong, just being a dick about it. The barbershop was kind of being dicks about it too, as it's not very likely that cutting her hair would take long or hurt their business.

Full disclosure, I've seen some women who look smoking hot with that kind of boy-cut so maybe I'm prejudiced.

 

[Exophase]

I agree that this woman seems to be needlessly provoking people, but it's a bad idea to stop enforcing the law just because the person involved could be a jerk.

Pretty much.

These guys were assholes too, in a similar situation:

http://www.themarysue.com/ugh-jerks-shutting-down-groups/

But also within their legal rights (note that the article's claims that they were rejected due to overcapacity have been disproven, and they certainly didn't actually settle for over $500k)

You can see that the article writer and a lot of people in the comments section are furious and want the law changed.

 

[who?]

A fade gets narrower as it goes down the head because the hair is fading away.

 

[who?]

A high and tight sounds like a fauxhawk.

 

[smackababy]

A high and tight sounds like a fauxhawk.

It isn't. A high and tight is the traditional military hair cut. A faux hawk will get you sent back to the barber for a close buzz.