Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Lesbian Walks into a Muslim Barbershop: The Ultimate Liberal Conundrum
Dinesh D’Souza posted something on Facebook about the ultimate liberal conundrum: who would liberals defend if a Muslim barber refused to give a haircut to a lesbian customer on the basis of religious beliefs? Indeed, there was a story in 2012 about a Muslim barber who refused to cut the hair of a woman because his faith forbade him from touching a woman who was not a member of his family. While this story did highlight the rift between two competing rights, adding the LGBT agenda kicks it up a notch, don’t you think?
So, who do you think would garner more support in such a showdown?
When I think about my lib friends—of which there are many—I think, if push came to shove, most would back the lesbian. The liberals that I know believe in freedom of religious expression in the same way that they believe in saying “namaste” at the end of their yoga class; they do it because it’s de rigeur, but they don’t actually hold fast to it as a core belief. If forced, I think many liberals’ dislike of organized religion would outweigh their “it’s not wrong, it’s just different” attitude towards Islam. After all, religion is a choice, but LGBT are born that way, right? If that is the thinking of liberals, perhaps not all is lost, as the threat of jihad far exceeds the threat of a street closure for a pride parade.
Published in General
That’s a tougher one. On the one hand, people usually don’t need an apartment the day they start looking. But if you’re offered a job in a town where your race/religion/whatever is scorned, you might not be able to get an apartment from anyone. I don’t think it’s good for society to divide ourselves up and live in apartment buildings or neighborhoods that are segregated by race, religion, or sexuality. But I really want business owners to have maximum freedom to make their own policies.
I suppose this makes me wishy-washy but I think it comes down to how prevalent the discrimination is within a city or county. If 80% of property owners refuse to rent to whole classes of people, I’d support anti-discrimination laws. If it’s only a small percentage of property owners who are like that, let them be. So bottom line, no federal law, let it be decided at the county level and hope that the people who run the county have sound judgement.
WRT interest group hierarchy in leftist thought, there are some suggestive data points.
Consider the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s various disinvitations. ==> Muslim > black woman
Black pastors who preach against homosexuality are not subject to social stigma for it. ==> black > gay
Imams who preach against homosexuality are not subject to social stigma for it. Also silence on treatment of homosexuals in Muslim countries. ==> Muslim > gay
Acceptance of pervasive misogyny in hip-hop. ==> black > female
LGBT and gender have coopted feminist theorizing. (OK, this is weak evidence, but I’m pretty sure the hierarchy is true regardless.) ==> gay > female
Feminist silence on honor killings and women’s treatment in Muslim countries. ==> Muslim > female
Put it all together, and get: Muslim > black > gay > female
This talk about housing discrimination brings to mind the episode of Arrested Development were Gob tried to pitch some ideas for housing developments. One of his ideas was for a development exclusively for promiscuous people. As I recall, he had a few different ideas for the name of the development and settled on F*** City.
I think you’ve got that one backwards. Black preachers may not be subject to stigma from other blacks, but liberals disdain religious ==> gay > black preachers.
You also forgot illegal immigrants. I think it’s more like: Muslim > gay > illegals > blacks > females.
Or maybe there’s no pattern at all, because being liberal means never having to explain yourself. You’re born morally superior.
“We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” –Al Sharpton
I don’t think he ever paid a price with liberals.
That’s a good observation, illegal immigrant is definitely viewed by liberals as an oppressed group. Also, I agree that {illegal immigrant > black}. However, I stand by my {black > gay} ordering. This would mean:
Muslim > illegal immigrant > black > gay > female
What I like about the Sharpton quote is that he thinks astrology is something to brag about.
I think Miss Cleo would agree.
I’m glad I could bring a giggle to your day. Since most of my Lib friends are opera singers/classical musicians, I have a feeling my sample population would break in favor of the lesbian asking for a buzz cut. Perhaps it would be different if there was a different group of Libs to ask.
I’m going to need you to put this in graph form, sir.
I just posed the above scenario to one of my ultra Lib friends, who emphatically said that she would be equally as upset about a Muslim denying service as she would a Christian denying service to the lesbian. Now, I will say that my friend thinks that all organized religion- save Hinduism and Buddhism of course!- is evil and promotes hate.
I assumed they were two different cases.
No, I was being sarcastic.
(I did not read through the comments, so apologies if I’m repeating others’ comments.)
I’m surprised there’s any conundrum here. The good liberal never sides with the capitalist, therefore the lesbian wins in this case.
There would only be a conundrum if it was a not-for-profit haircutting collective operating out of the back room of a mosque, rather than a barber shop.
Forget conjecture. We should just run the experiment.
Spoken like a traditional conservative, as opposed to many modern libertarians. I agree. The value of individual liberty must be balanced with the value of justice.
This is a deeper discussion that I expected.
At first, I was annoyed by this question. But that’s because I was thinking only in regard to morality and not in regard to law (per Randy Webster’s comment).
Obviously, it would be immoral for a Christian barber to deny someone service on the basis of a disagreement about sin which has no bearing on that limited situation. It’s not as if by cutting the lesbian’s hair they must discuss that disagreement, nor will the barber’s children be somehow corrupted by the presence of a respectful customer. If the lesbian chooses not be respectful in her manner, then that is a separate issue. Otherwise, a barber serves many people with whom he or she might have little in common.
Legally, though, generally agree with Webster and more specifically with Weivoda. Freedom of expression includes expression via business matters. A person’s freedom, including the freedom to be unreasonable and even cruel, is not limited to his actions at home. If freedom means anything, it means we are free in our public interactions. Much, if not most, public interaction involves business.
That is a fine line to walk, with definitions that are hard to define. What’s the cut off point? I may be sounding a little reactionary, but it does bring up images of slopes and things sliding down them. While a black and white approach is easier and less messy, I agree your desire to be fair and just. This is why many Christians disagree with Ayn Rand; she was black and white, and completely eschewed anything that hindered self-determination, self-reliance, and individual rights. This is a very difficult waltz for libertarian Christians to dance.
Agreed. Generally, I expect most liberals would side against the “religious nut” (a term for anyone who denies liberal positions because of religious principles). But liberals rarely speak against Muslims when threats of violence or even accusations of homophobia are involved. That’s why Bill Maher has been in the news so much lately.
And bravo to him for holding up a mirror to the face of such inconsistency.
And now for a non sequitur: thank goodness they just now did away with showing the whole post! Having to scroll endlessly was becoming super obnoxious. That is all. Now back to burqas and tool belts…
Rightfully so. Slippery slopes are historical realities. It is foolish to reject slippery slope arguments on the basis that they are uncertain (though some such arguments are less reasonable than others). But it is also necessary to brave a slippery slope at times.
In any government, new or old, there is always a tension between security and liberty. Too great an emphasis on security can lead to a totalitarian regulatory regime or to a police state. Too great an emphasis on liberty can lead to brutal “no go zones” (a community’s liberty from the state) or to rampant corruption (because the evils in men’s hearts, like greed and want of power, are not inventions of government).
As an American, I prefer to err on the side of freedom. As a Burkean and a Christian, I believe freedom exists to serve other values.
Running the experiment is what liberals do. I predict the next grand experiment by the left will be to force churchs that refuse to conduct homosexual weddings to do so. I realize this is not a difficult prediction to make. Yes, there are churchs already that will preform such services. However, the left desires to make examples out of those churchs that refuse.
My guess is the Catholic Church will be first, but I could be wrong. Don’t hold your breath waiting for a mosque to be targeted by the left . . .
The thing is, the right balance between liberty and order is going to largely depend on the population we’re talking about. If you’ve got a population where practically no one steals, you don’t need a very large police force. An intellectually and morally mature society can enjoy a lot of freedom without turning into a society where people are abusing one another. Remove the heavy hand of government from some places and the population doesn’t just discriminate against people from different tribes/clans/whatever – people will kill each other over centuries-old grievances. I want to live in a largely libertarian society, but it does require that the majority of people act like responsible adults.
I think the whole thing about groups being more important is actually completely irrelevant to the argument. I’ve noticed that the Muslim world holds a special allure for the Left for a long time, and they defend Islamic culture and overlook what certain practices that would send them into fits of pique were they happening in any other culture (especially a Christian one). Why?
Islamic ideology and Leftist ideology are, at their core, one and the same: ideologies of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Islamism and Leftism both believe that imposing mass submission on the population – whether through persuasion or force – will bring about a harmonious global society. There are these minor details about Allah and the workers, Mohammed and Marx, Seven Pillars and capital, but Islamists and Leftists essentially have the same belief system: Impose an inflexible system of dogma on the whole world through a combination of unceasing propaganda and endless brutality until every man, woman, and child has submitted to the will of those who no better – or until those who resist have been obliterated from the face of the Earth. Fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Leftists/Liberals/Progressives/Democrats are essentially one and the same. So…
Win: Muslim barber.
I don’t think American lefties are necessarily “all in” with Islam. Yes, they’re all cultural relativists, but only up to a point. Most are smart enough to know something about what’s going on in the world and to realize that there’s some stuff being done in the name of Islam that’s just not ok. And no, I’m not talking about the barbershop. I’d defend the Muslim barber’s freedom to cut whoever’s hair he wants. But if you’re an average American Democrat, you don’t look at the flogging of that poor blogger in Saudi Arabia and say “hey, that’s ok, it’s their culture.”
Wait a minute, Contessa . . . I think this experiment has already happened, and the Muslims won.
I seem to remember reading a story about Muslim cab drivers at an airport in . . . Minneapolis? . . . refusing to carry departing passengers into town who were either drunk, or were obviously carrying liquor. Am I right? Wrong? Under the influence of adult beverages?
Sheesh . . .
Hilarious. I say we recruit Camille Paglia.
Right. And it’s not just alcohol. If you have a canine companion, they won’t take you either. Dogs are unclean. So, Muslim > disabled, too.
Agreed. That’s why I think occupying a foreign nation and providing infrastructure with insistence only on democracy, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, is foolish. However distasteful conquest is to modern sensibilities, it is the only way to change a nation from the outside.
It might be better to forego occupying nations at all. But if we are going to do it, we should do it right. That means total conquest and forcing our values to be respected in action, if not in belief. That’s how the British improved much of the world. As in Steyn’s popular anecdote about General Napier in India, when British values and local values came into conflict on pivotal issues, there was no question which would be acted upon.
Cultural variations are also why there is no one model of government which best serves all. But there are, at least, core principles which can serve all.