OMG! When it comes to the Islamic faith and the First Amendment, am I prescient or what?

Earlier today, I put together a post saying that the Bill of Rights trumps the Civil Rights Act.  It is so because the Rights are inherent in individuals, meaning that Congress has no power to pass a law abrogating those rights (at least not without a very good reason).  I even prepared a nice little chart to walk people through my thinking in this regard.  As part of the chart, I noted that, in theory, Muslims can use the Bill of Rights to justify subordinating women.  Just a few hours later, a friend sent me a link to this news story out of Canada (which does not have a First Amendment):

Barbers in Toronto who refused to cut a woman’s hair have become the target of a human rights complaint, in a case that pits religious freedom against gender equality.

When Faith McGregor went into the Terminal Barber Shop requesting a short haircut, she was told the shop only grooms men.

The reason, co-owner Omar Mahrouk said, was that as a Muslim he could not cut the hair of a woman who was not related to him.

But for McGregor, the rejection of her patronage amounted to sexism.

“Fundamentally, my hair is the same as their male clients, so why would they have a problem with that,” she told CTV News.

“I felt like a second class citizen, like it was hard to hear that they refused and there was no discussion.”

So the 35-year-old filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Read the rest here.

One can make a very good argument that the reason the First Amendment had such a good run for a couple of hundred years was because, while Americans might have had doctrinal differences, they shared the same values about core issues:  marriage, sexual orientation, self-reliance, etc.  Now, though, with Leftism ascendent and an increasingly large Muslim population, the tensions being placed upon the Bill of Rights have become unsustainable.  Something’s got to give — and the Left is well-situated to make sure that it’s the Judeo-Christian tradition that cries “Uncle” first.

Bill of Rights versus Civil Rights Act 1

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The Left’s deception is that they are for human rights. When in fact, their campaign revolves around denying and destroying human rights. American patriots call those “constitutional rights”, but they actually aren’t. It’s all the things you were born with and have a potential for, if somebody didn’t come and steal it.
     
     

  • Robert Arvanitis

    Interesting contrast here:
    A US baker or photographer may NOT withhold services based on religious beliefs.
    A Canadian barber MAY withhold services based on cultural practices.
    Remember the Star Trek original, where Spock and Kirk overloaded the central computer controlling robots, with illogic?  With the left ever say “Norman, coordinate?!”

  • shirleyelizabeth

    We can choose whose services we solicit, but the servers may not choose who they serve. That’s called slavery.
     
    I know lots of women that like to go to only female OBGYNs. Does that make the male doctors second class citizens?

  • shirleyelizabeth

    When someone tells you, “sorry, I don’t cut women’s hair,” how would your reaction be to get offended, instead of leave and find someone that knows what he’s doing? Someone was fishing.

  • Charles Martel

    “Sorry, I don’t cut women’s hair. However, I can sever their necks.”

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      They sell hardened and flexibly forged steel now a days.
       
      http://www.chenessinc.com/9260.htm
       
      This is highly recommended, for a number of reasons. Although people that like the covert route, should pick up the dagger version.

  • DL Sly

    I saw an interesting question regarding the left and their *pets* earlier today…I wish I could remember where….anyway it went:
    Sooooo, it would be alright for me to send a group from the KKK to a list of black businesses for services at their next function…and have government force the black businesses to provide their service?
    I’m pretty sure that the first words out of the Left’s collective mouth would be “Slavery!”  And they still wouldn’t see the irony.
    0>;~]

  • Charles Martel

    Irony? Didn’t that used to be women’s work?
     
    Sexist!

    • DL Sly

      *snort!*
      0>;~]

  • USMaleSF

    A plague on both their houses and on every anti-discrimination law.
    A barber should get to say whose hair he cuts.
    And Muslim immigrants should, well, there shouldn’t be any Muslim immigrants.

    I used to live in Toronto and followed this story from its inception. The woman is a lesbian. If it were a Christian barber who refused to cut her hair, there would have been a cosmic melt-down, but the dhimmi “LGBT” press was very muted about it all. Islam (as a ThirdWorld crypto-race) trumps feminism. 
    Every anti-discrimination law, I have come to believe, is tyrannical. Including the hallowed and sanctified Civil Rights Act of the 60’s. It’s just Jim Crow in reverse.
    The whole regime (here and in Canuckistan) is FUBAR.
     
     

    • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

      USMaleSF:  Exactly!!! 

      We can disagree with both sides’ lifestyle choices; agree with both sides’ lifestyle choices; or or support one side’s choices against the other.  What a free society does not do is force association upon people who like don’t want to deal with each other.

      I’ve realized that, once again, we’re seeing the wrong lessons learned from Jim Crow.  That was an anomalous situation, in which the entire power structure in society systematically discriminated against a single, clearly identifiable group of people.  That’s not what’s happening here, and it does terrible damage to society to pretend that it is.

      • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

        The lesson from Jim Crow is that Democrats won’t give up their slaves. The lesson from feminism, homosexual pleasure cult, and other Leftist and Democrat operations is that they won’t give up their slaves until something forces them to.
         
        The Civil Rights of 1960s is a least favored resolution because the entire Southern Democrat fiefdom refused to compromise or enforce their own order. So it was enforced from outside. Those that don’t like that, should think about convincing the locals that their lords and masters are evil first. The locals won’t obey or enforce the good, until told to. And at the time, their Democrat slave plantation masters weren’t telling the KKK “be nice to blacks and Republicans”.

      • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

        Democrats refused to fix slavery or reform it. The chaos that resulted was used to blame scapegoats like Northerners, in order to implement Jim Crow. Jim Crow is then used as the reason why the Leftist alliance should be allowed to do what they want to patriots.
         
        See the pattern, Book? One engineered disaster after another. But it’s beneficial to some people for it to be that way. It’s intentional.

  • http://www.amazon.com/Occupy-Innsmouth-ebook/dp/B009WWJ44A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361504109&amp raymondjelli

    The left will cry Uncle!!! Not the religious. Activists are skilled at manipulating law corporations which have heterogeneous stockholders and are often happy to be manipulated. If the founder was religious there may be plenty of those on the board who would be happy to be “forced” into abandoning the ways of the nice old man that are now modern.
    We are not getting to a battle between the LGBT and the truly religious. The LGBT will be abandoned by gays and lesbians who care about their own families and family members who are religious. THEY won’t throw their parents and siblings into jail over a cake.The religious will refuse to submit. The Left always loses to religion. Always. Look at the religious Jewish refuseniks in the Soviet Union. The Catholic Church in Poland. It will happen here to. 

    • http://www.amazon.com/Occupy-Innsmouth-ebook/dp/B009WWJ44A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361504109&amp raymondjelli

      meant large corporations….not law corporations……