Should Muslim women be forced to give beauty treatments to males?

[HecatesCatsInFancyHats]

"Unisex salon stand by their decision to REJECT a gender-fluid singer from a nail appointment - because they thought they were 'a man' so Muslim beautician objected"

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9601197/Nail-salon-refuse-manicure-gender-fluid-singer-beautician-Muslim.html

@PlanDeRaccordement

For some reason this reminds me of the case of the conservative Christian chef that refused to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple as it was against his religious beliefs. I believe the court ruled that he had no right to refuse to bake the cake.

So it seems to me there is already similar precedent that a service provider cannot decline service on the basis of personal religious belief.....

It will be interesting to see where this ends up.

No. There is a right to provide single sex services under the equality act. The beauty services provided in this case were for women only, not self identified non binary male born people with a point to prove.

I think you're misremembering the outcome.
www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/gay-cake-it-was-about-the-message-not-a-man-11522802

@Tibtom

I am surprised to find myself disagreeing with the responses here.

Of course a Muslim woman (or any woman) shouldn't be forced to touch a man but seems quite unprofessional

Would you say the same for a female muslim doctor?

If they were providing a single sex service then I would agree but a unisex salon?

I don’t think you can compare this to doctors. A doctor can’t decline to treat someone based on sex or gender and they go into that profession knowing that. But a beauty therapist person can decline to treat someone.

@PlanDeRaccordement

For some reason this reminds me of the case of the conservative Christian chef that refused to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple as it was against his religious beliefs. I believe the court ruled that he had no right to refuse to bake the cake.

So it seems to me there is already similar precedent that a service provider cannot decline service on the basis of personal religious belief.....

It will be interesting to see where this ends up.

If you mean this case, Plan, the court ruled in the baker's favor.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-baker-who-would-not-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/2018/06/04/50c68cf8-6802-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html

The narcissism. THE NARCISSISM!! 😱😱😱

It’s a unisex salon and he wanted his nails done. I’m sorry but what is a religious Muslimah even doing in a salon like this?

@Ozanj

It’s a unisex salon and he wanted his nails done. I’m sorry but what is a religious Muslimah even doing in a salon like this?

No, the HAIR salon is unisex, the BEAUTY part is female only.

It’s there in the article.

I think the case about the cake is a different U.K. one, I certainly remember a case being found in favour of the gay couple. And rightly so. However I think there’s a massive difference between baking a cake and being forced to touch someone against your will if you believe that’s forbidden.

@CliantheLang and others,

Yes, you are right. I had only read/remembered the earlier rulings that were against the bakers, but it appears that both the US and NI bakers did win once they appealed to US Supreme Court and U.K. Supreme Court. Thank you.

So, in that case I would think then that there’s precedent for an individual baker or beautician or whatever to refuse service based on personal religious beliefs. I think the business though should at least attempt to assign a different staff member so that the customer still isn’t refused service or goods (unless the customer is clearly in the refuse service category due to abusive behaviour, drink/drugs, undress, etc).

@CovidCorvid
Yes agree touching a customer is different from making goods that you sell to them.

I think then it’s pretty clear that the US and U.K. courts at least do support people who cannot perform parts of their job for religious reasons.

I think the business though should at least attempt to assign a different staff member so that the customer still isn’t refused service or goods (unless the customer is clearly in the refuse service category due to abusive behaviour, drink/drugs, undress, etc).

I think you would be absolutely right except that I am reading this (from different versions) as maybe it is a small business that works in with the main salon which seems to be the way so many of these salons work now. I suspect (and I could be wrong) that the owner might be the only employee at the moment, or the only other employee is also a Muslim woman. Therefore, I would think there was no other employee to do the appointment.

I think the business though should at least attempt to assign a different staff member so that the customer still isn’t refused service or goods (unless the customer is clearly in the refuse service category due to abusive behaviour, drink/drugs, undress, etc).

The business has every right to decide what services to offer and to which sex. They are clear that they offer only "ladies" manicures.

Selling a product is totally different to a service that involves touching someone. Nobody should be forced to touch another person for any reason.

@AlfonsoTheTerrible

I think the business though should at least attempt to assign a different staff member so that the customer still isn’t refused service or goods (unless the customer is clearly in the refuse service category due to abusive behaviour, drink/drugs, undress, etc).

The business has every right to decide what services to offer and to which sex. They are clear that they offer only "ladies" manicures.

Yes agree in regards to the beautician business of this thread. I meant to say that part in general terms, wasn’t intending to say the beautician business in this thread should. Sorry for not being clear.

And my apologies for the misunderstanding, @PlanDeRaccordement!

@Berthatydfil

Selling a product is totally different to a service that involves touching someone. Nobody should be forced to touch another person for any reason.

That's an excellent point - it is a matter of product versus service. Nicely put.

Selling a product is totally different to a service that involves touching someone. Nobody should be forced to touch another person for any reason.

With the gay wedding cake stuff, it's not just selling a standard product to someone that comes into the shop; it's being asked to make a custom product where you view the purpose as unethical. So it's more like refusing to make custom parts for a weapons company, because you don't wish to be involved in the weapons business.

As for "nobody should be forced to touch another person for any reason", again, I agree that beauty treatments can be single sex and it isn't a big deal. What if you want to refuse beauty treatments to all black women? Or all fat women? They aren't comfortable with touching fat women, so they shouldn't have to?

@Zinco

Selling a product is totally different to a service that involves touching someone. Nobody should be forced to touch another person for any reason.

With the gay wedding cake stuff, it's not just selling a standard product to someone that comes into the shop; it's being asked to make a custom product where you view the purpose as unethical. So it's more like refusing to make custom parts for a weapons company, because you don't wish to be involved in the weapons business.

As for "nobody should be forced to touch another person for any reason", again, I agree that beauty treatments can be single sex and it isn't a big deal. What if you want to refuse beauty treatments to all black women? Or all fat women? They aren't comfortable with touching fat women, so they shouldn't have to?

Well no. Because single sex provision is a protected thing in law for a reason. But we don't have a law allowing apartheid or segregation from overweight people.

Ah, whatabouttery. It didn't work the first time, @Zinco, and it didn't work again.

Because single sex provision is a protected thing in law for a reason. But we don't have a law allowing apartheid or segregation from overweight people.

Being overweight isn't a protected characteristic, so you could legally refuse to serve someone on the grounds that you didn't want to touch a fat person, hurtful though that might (as well as bad for business). However, race is a protected characteristic, so you couldn't refuse to touch someone on the grounds of them being black.

Ah, whatabouttery. It didn't work the first time, @Zinco, and it didn't work again.

What do you mean it didn't work?

Probably many people would reject the principle that "you shouldn't have to touch anyone" if it's a business context and taken as an absolute statement.

Certainly those are fair examples to be bringing up. Or why not? Can you explain?

Something that might be relevant is that in a lot of salons, the workers aren't quite like employees. They often rent their chairs, r spaces in the cases of aestheticians. The person who owns the salon may insist they do certain things but often they set their own terms - so one stylist might only do women's hair, but if the salon had stylists that also did men's it would still be unisex. You also get people who specialise in other ways, don't cut kids hair, whatever.

It's the same for other functions in the salon. Webpages may not always reflect exactly what services are offered if there are staff changes, or more than one location.

However many times you try to make sex the same as colour or faith or ability, it won't work.

There are times when female only services need to be female only, for good reason, and female people should not be forced to set this aside for male people's better convenience. Male people have other options. They have to accept that not absolutely everything is always for them, and cope with the occasional no.

However many times you try to make sex the same as colour or faith or ability, it won't work.

Strangely, it does seem to work on the drag is misogyny thread though.
(Not directed at you specifically @Artichokeleaves, but at everyone who was arguing drag= blackface.)

As an sidenote, my mother was a nurse from the sixties onwards. Nurses then weren't allowed to refuse to do things like lifting fat people into bed. As a result her knees are fucked. I mean really fucked.

As I understand it, now a nurse can refuse and the correct equipment or another person who's more physically able to does it.

So in my mum's case refusing to do xyz on a fat person should have been reasonable, not discrimination.

Not the same thing, I know, but a shame nurses weren't allowed to object. It's massively impacted my mum's health. But some would surely have cried discrimination without thinking it through.

I have been turned away from barber shops because I am female. Pity, because I prefer a short tight cut and barbers don't second guess my insistence on the number 2-3 clippers.

I just go find another one who will do it. There are manicure joints, sometimes multiple ones in every strip mall in my spot in the US flyover. Don't tell me this narcissistic fool couldn't find another nail place to drape his indignantly quivering frame in all of England.

Yaniv incoming.