Canada: Hurt feeling mean Human Rights Commission

[oldblueeyes]

Edmonton shoe store's 'no-veil' policy unlikely to withstand human rights challenge, lawyer says

This is how easy it is to fuck up your life in Canada. Say the wrong thing to the wrong person and BOOM, you've got to hire a lawyer to defend yourself against the Human Rights Commission and when you're found guilty they'll make you pay the complainant a financial sum. If you want to refuse somebody in your workplace, you've got to do it discreetly and for God's sakes, don't mention religion or race or sex or whatever. He should have just taken her broken shoe and let her wait forever, or been so snotty and rude that she stormed out (I can be pretty good at that one, heh heh).

[TheNarrator]

it used to be that you could refuse to give service to anyone if you owned the store in canada

i guess that snot how it works anymore ;[

[menrppl2]

you now have a situation in Canada where ppl hope to be discriminated against like they hope to win a lottery

ive had supposed prospective tenants email sayin if you have a problem renting to ppl on assistance or disability pls get back to me

ive had female tenants go around other tenants looking to get a false sexual harassment case going....no shame just, I gotta make money somehow.

Canada is no place to be male or do business......talk about a land littered with minefields

the whole, minorities rule, men are priviledged, whites are priviledged, straights are priviledged, working ppl are priviledged, victims must be believed, free lawyers, and cash rewards setup, is a goldmine tho.

if it wasn't for the low taxes, booming economy, and warm climate id be tempted to leave.

[mr_e]

it used to be that you could refuse to give service to anyone if you owned the store in canada

i guess that snot how it works anymore ;[

Only if you're a woman, refusing service to a man.

[Autolite]

it used to be that you could refuse to give service to anyone if you owned the store in canada

I don't understand how this is even making it to court. If the store is private property, how can anyone claim that they have a 'right' to be on YOUR property or be served? Our local WalMart has the same 'no-face-covering' policy for the same reason as this shoe store does. Hoodies or balaclavas are not permitted to be worn while in the store.

At the WalMart, you're on camera as soon as you enter through the door. There's even an overhead monitor showing you that you're face is on camera I'm assuming as a deterrent to shoplifting. You're less likely to steal if you know that the store already has your face.

It's nothing to do with religious discrimination. If this lady wins this court case then we're really double-fucked here in Canada...

[menrppl2]

double fucked....it was triple triple thirty years ago

[Iggy]

Just go to the store down the street... I just can't stand the concept of forced association/trading.. particularly for private companies. No private citizen owes any other private citizen anything other than what they have put in a contract and agreed to (voluntarily).

His store policy was to not serve anyone concealing their face. I don't see how a religious exception would work.. because this lady is NOT being forced to shop there, this is not a public 'must use' service. She voluntarily believes her religion.. the store manager voluntarily allows customers to come in OR not.

Discrimination is what customers do by choosing who they give their money to.

[Autolite]

His store policy was to not serve anyone concealing their face. I don't see how a religious exception would work.. because this lady is NOT being forced to shop there, this is not a public 'must use' service. She voluntarily believes her religion.. the store manager voluntarily allows customers to come in OR not.

So why would any lawyer say different? I'm really not getting this...

[ComradePrescott]

Wait, so do they kick you out if you are wearing a hoodie? Are we talking about the same thing?



Or do they just make you take the hood down?

[Iggy]

If the hoodie is covering your face, like a Burka, where it can actively conceal your face from recognition, then it would be against the store owner's policy for trade.

And here is the rub... how can you tell if a person wearing a burka is actually Muslim? Dow do you 'prove' that some stranger walking in your store is actually a practitioner of that particular religion and isn't simply using the burka as a government approved method of concealing your identity?

If people want to believe that the FSM tells them to wear a hood on their head.. so be it.. but forcing anyone (businesses owner or not) to allow any persons (unidentifiable or not) onto their private property is a violation of their property rights.. assuming the state still thinks property rights exist.

The thing is, I don't care about anyone's religious beliefs.. so long as those belief are not using the violence of the state or direct violence to infringe on my property rights. As soon you allow any religion the ability to use the gun in the room... then the separation of church and state is null and void.

[Autolite]

Wait, so do they kick you out if you are wearing a hoodie? Are we talking about the same thing?
Or do they just make you take the hood down?

Well I've worn hoodies and other types of winter hoods into the WalMart but I've always had then down before entering and there's never been a problem.

Here's an interesting story about what happened at one of the WalMarts in the States...

http://madworldnews.com/walmart-humi...eteran-muslim/

[menrppl2]

charter of rights says freedom from discrimination based on religion

the store serves the public

the store policy discriminates against the public of the face covering religion

hrc has never lost a case

its just a Canada is the most fair and just country promotion.....so be grateful shut up work and pay

[Autolite]

charter of rights says freedom from discrimination based on religion

the store serves the public

the store policy discriminates against the public of the face covering religion

hrc has never lost a case

its just a Canada is the most fair and just country promotion.....so be grateful shut up work and pay

I guess that's saying that MY religious bullshit trumps YOUR property rights. I'm not sure that I'm entirely comfortable where all of this is heading. OTOH maybe 'freedom from discrimination based on religion' means that Catholics must allow Muslims in worship in their churches and visa-versa.

I think that might be interesting to see it enforced....

[TheNarrator]

its time to leave.

[Iggy]

I'm curious.. is any private persons obligated to serve the public? What is the public? Are they not just other people who don't own the property that want to trade things on or in or produced by that property? What makes it public? Non-ownership? So non-owners have rights over owners, that oblige owners to trade with them, under involuntary conditions?

The public is just a concept, created by and enforced by the state, to justify the states existence, which is itself just a concept. So the public is what the state says it is... because its a state created concept.. which can be redefined as necessary to curry political favor. Moving the goalposts... neat trick!