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
I think it’s also that Islam is perceived as exotic in the West. During the hippie uprisings in the ’60s and ’70s, there was a huge influx of interest in Oriental religions and practices. Whether the philosophies came from India or China didn’t matter, so long as the ideas were not traditional Western values. That era also introduced rastafarian culture and other ideas from the south.
Some things never change… like hippies.
Now we’re into the realm of Edward Said’s “other.” Nice of you to weave in the topic of my AP European History term paper into this conversation. Thanks, Aaron.
Vi,
This is all just a bidding war in the new game Oppressed Contract Bridge.
Let’s review the bidding.
1.) North – 1 Black
1.) East – 1 LGBT
1.) South – 2 Muslim
1.) West – 2 Women
2.) North – Double
2.) East – 2 LGBT
2.) South – 3 Muslim
2.) West – 3 Women
3.) North – Double
3.) East – Pass
3.) South – 4 Muslim
3.) West – Double
4.) North – Redouble
4.) East – Pass
North – South at 4 Muslims went down by 2 tricks doubled and redoubled.
Let that be a lesson to you. Don’t push your entitlement when you are up against superior whiners.
Regards,
Jim
Jim-
Oh… I thought the moral of the game was going to be: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
(Please tell me y’all got that reference)
Understood.
There’s nothing like the classics.
Regards,
Jim
Are you kidding? I’ll see your Sicilian and raise you a “vomitous mass.”
This is Ricochet. The Princess rules here.
Call and raise you. “I want my father back you son of a bi–”
Regards,
Jim
Now the thread is getting awesome.
“My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my barber. Prepare to die.”
I guess the Six Fingered Man’s real name was Ahmed the dead terrorist.
“The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft a hairdryer from the bosom of the water — signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry the hairdryer. That is why I’m your barber.”
Needless to say, I voted for The Silly Party.
Oh, Aaron…Silly indeed ;)
It’s a gift, I guess.
Hypothesising about what a disliked “other” would do and why is just hypothesis – and sometimes hypothesis coloured by self interest/self regard to boot. Everybody being human and all.
It’s probably more insightful to ask what one would do oneself in a similar situation that was equally difficult, based on one’s beliefs. Would the choice be easy? Would it be hard? What’s the cost and who bears it?
Just like there’s a heirarchy of needs, should there be a heirarchy of rights and responsibilities as well – for when they’re in conflict?
Yes, Aaron the Silly Party is especially sensitive to the Other. However, the Universe is stranger than you might imagine. The most bizarre transformations are possible.
Regards,
Jim
That is the approach progressives take toward our Enlightenment rights. Those rights must bow before the inevitable wheels of Progress ™.
Going back to the issue at hand, my progressive friend informed me that it’s ok for the Muslim man to refuse to cut the woman’s hair because his religion expressly forbids touching women you’re not married or related to. But…since that is the case, she said there should be a woman or someone else that could cut her hair in that salon. However, she does believe that Christian business owners should not be able to refuse service because their beliefs don’t strictly forbid it.
Vi,
OK OK I’ll be serious. The question is which Right is of greater significance to the maximization of Liberty. The Right of the Lesbian to receive service at any Public establishment whatsoever or the Right of the Christian to enter into a contract for service with whomever he pleases. The addition of the Muslim’s specific Religious injunction against contact with a women brings the Free Exercise Clause into the question. By forcing him to touch the women you are disrupting his ability to freely exercise his Religion.
I am always a little suspicious of progressives and their opinions about theology. Usually there is a hidden agenda.
Regards,
Jim
I agree that freedom of religion is fairly low on the modern liberal totem pole, since few of them take religion very seriously these days anyway. They also tend to restrict religious freedom to the freedom to choose which church (or mosque) to attend, something that you should leave behind when you enter the public square.
However, liberals often tend to view Muslims through the prism of race rather than religion. They will for instance refer to Muslim immigrants in Europe as “Asians” and suggest that any concerns conservatives might express about their growing numbers are really just dog-whistles for racism, jingoism, and white supremacy.
There’s also the problem of enforcement.
Presumably most landlords are smart enough not to put up a “whites only” sign at the rental office, they will just find some excuse for selecting the white applicant over the minority. So how do you prove racial discrimination in a court of law?
The answer every government bureaucracy arrives at sooner or later is some form of quotas. If the landlord rents 100 units, and 10% of the city population is black, but he only rents 5 units to black renters, then blacks are “underrepresented” and he is, ipso facto, a racist.
Very thoughtful comments as always, Joseph.
Do you think a muslim barber would make someone end up looking like a fat version of PeeWee Herman? On purpose?
Maybe that’s the look that Tonya is going for.
NB: I’m naming this theoretical lesbian Tanya, in honor of the lighting director at the opera house I used to sing at.
I think the root of all this is the “public accommodations” reference in Title II of the civil rights act. Which of course was designed to end white’s only treatment at businesses serving the public in the south. But this has spread to any protected group including homosexuals quite famously in the wedding case.
I would like to see this part of the law narrowed substantially in terms of protected groups or even eliminated. I would not welcome a return to segregated businesses but it would get the government out of our lives in a way that would be substantially simpler and I doubt that would occur except on the fringes. The offended party could still sue for damages by the way, but it would not be treated differently than any other torte case.