8 minutes ago, Odin Norway said:

I would also think I had to kick out the males as well.In my smal mind I thought thats why they wear that hiyab after all.So they dont expose themselfs to males.

Or maybe it is to protect themselfs from all the cctv cameras all over the place now.I guess they can choose.If a white person wear a hiyab it is to rob a bank or at least she is up to no good.

Do they take it of to ID themselfs.I have noe idea.

 

You do know in your own self professed "small mind" that a hijab does not cover the face, right?

TH

6 hours ago, otherstuff1957 said:

I read that the initial reason she turned the woman down is that the Hijabi wanted all male customers and employees to leave before taking off her headscarf.  If this is true (I only saw it mentioned in one article about this) then she was fully justified in turning her away.

 

Edited to add - OK, I double checked it and it's half true/half false:

http://www.snopes.com/muslim-woman-demanded-men-leave-salon-so-she-could-get-her-hair-styled/

 

in a real example, my sister runs a salon, and this was a year ago:

 Grandma had gone in for a style - yeah a sort of BlueRinse, but that's another story...

 

anyhow, this covered lady, for want of a better term came in.

She sat down, but really snooty-like, sneered and said to Sister, and pointing rudely,

that she can't have her hair started, until SHE leaves (grandma)

 

Sister ejected the covered hah 'lady'

 

but grandma was spewing and seething for days after that...

 

so, it is not just about the men, and religion, but racism, the other way 'round

 

7 minutes ago, halloween said:

I have to ask, would there be the same fuss if she refused someone in a Nazi uniform?

 

...probably more so if it was a tattoo parlour

7 minutes ago, thaihome said:

 

You do know in your own self professed "small mind" that a hijab does not cover the face, right?

TH

And you also know to ID youreself you also remove a cap right.

6 hours ago, otherstuff1957 said:

I read that the initial reason she turned the woman down is that the Hijabi wanted all male customers and employees to leave before taking off her headscarf.  If this is true (I only saw it mentioned in one article about this) then she was fully justified in turning her away.

 

Edited to add - OK, I double checked it and it's half true/half false:

http://www.snopes.com/muslim-woman-demanded-men-leave-salon-so-she-could-get-her-hair-styled/

From the link:

According to Norwegian news reports, the original incident happened in October 2015, when Bayan was in the town of Bryne, Norway, comparing salon prices. Neither Bayan nor Hodne were quoted in news accounts as claiming that Bayan had demanded Hodne's male customers vacate the premises so she could have her hair done. Rather, Bayan asserted that Hodne had discriminated against her by preemptively refusing service to her, while Hodne said that she didn't want Bayan in her shop and asked her to leave because she believes Islam is evil

2 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

From the link:

According to Norwegian news reports, the original incident happened in October 2015, when Bayan was in the town of Bryne, Norway, comparing salon prices. Neither Bayan nor Hodne were quoted in news accounts as claiming that Bayan had demanded Hodne's male customers vacate the premises so she could have her hair done. Rather, Bayan asserted that Hodne had discriminated against her by preemptively refusing service to her, while Hodne said that she didn't want Bayan in her shop and asked her to leave because she believes Islam is evil

 

...well, at least she was being honest to her own real feelings...

 

If it's true that the customer demanded the salon kick out men, I think that is very proper grounds for not serving her. 

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

If it's true that the customer demanded the salon kick out men, I think that is very proper grounds for not serving her. 

See all the posts about that: not true.

Just now, stevenl said:

See all the posts about that: not true.

Thanks for the clarification. 

The justification for this is simply outrageous: she does NOT have the right to refuse service. No one has that right. She owns and operates a business open to the public. That  she accepts  all comers, without fear or favour and without malice and discrimination, is implicit in her permission to operate. She DOES NOT get the right to pick and choose, unlawfully as in this case. Where would it end, Jews, homosapiens, punks, tattoos, people with gray hair?

Off to jail, lady. 

Sooo, I guess the next time I go into the Scarlett Wine Bar at the Pullman, I'll just drop on by in some torn jean shorts, dirty T-shirt and my bare feet.  Because denying service to anyone based on their clothing is simply unlawful, right?

5 minutes ago, Usernames said:

Sooo, I guess the next time I go into the Scarlett Wine Bar at the Pullman, I'll just drop on by in some torn jean shorts, dirty T-shirt and my bare feet.  Because denying service to anyone based on their clothing is simply unlawful, right?

 

5 minutes ago, Usernames said:

Sooo, I guess the next time I go into the Scarlett Wine Bar at the Pullman, I'll just drop on by in some torn jean shorts, dirty T-shirt and my bare feet.  Because denying service to anyone based on their clothing is simply unlawful, right?

 

No, because there is a published dress code and you enter on that basis. This hairdresser did not have a sign saying No Muslims ( for obvious reasons).

of course this works both ways: there was a piece inThe Telegraph yesterday by a woman who has lived inThe same area of Londonfor 50 years : in it she details the changes and the islamisation  of the area ( I forget which suburb: maybe ActonVale ...which she calls ActonVeil). She tells the story about going into a place called The Curtain Shop, staffed by Moslems , only to be told that they don't make curtains. The author cited this as an example of denial of service based on race/religion. 

I'm saying it's the thin edge of the wedge no matter who is doing the denying.

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The hijab wearing lady was going to keep it on during the cut? Hard to cut hair that way.

Seriously though, a hijab is not a political symbol. It is both a cultural and religious garment. Cultural because the specifics of the coverings (or any covering at all) will be different in different Islamic cultures. 

In liberal secular western democracies yes all comers to a hair salon should be served. Some salons make it clear they are serving only one gender so not sure how laws deal with that. One time I asked a black hairdresser to cut my hair and he honestly told me he only has experience with African American hair (which does tend to have different properties) and wasn't confident about doing me. I don't even remember if I tried him anyway.

I kind of feel sorry for this lady. Maybe she really is afraid. She's probably poorly educated. It's hardly the crime of the century.

 

According to the Snopes report above the hairdresser is a member of two anti Muslim political groups. The hairdresser is making a political statement by not paying the fine for discrimination based upon religion, thereby elevating the matter. For those rabbiting on about refusing service to anyone based upon their religion, they are either ignorant of the law in Western countries or the usual members of the TVF bigots clique.

1 hour ago, thaihome said:

 

Most of them were indeed refugees escaping both political and economic oppression and in many cases attempts at what is now known as "ethnic cleansing " in Ireland and Eastern Europe and Russia. The cultural differences were huge,  maybe greater then what is seen today, especially since the majority were catholic or Jews arriving in an almost purely white Anglo Saxon US culture at the time.  They endured  prejudices for a very long time, right up to the election of JFK as the first catholic president.  

 

Your explanation of the issues today is flawed by your lack of a historical perspective on immigration and how long it takes an immigrant wave to assimilate.  

 

TH 

 

 

 

 

I have a very good historical perspective about immigration.   Economic migrants are not considered refugees and such large influxes of people saw to it that limits were put on the number of people allowed, where they could come from and other restrictions.  But that's not really the topic.  And it's not on-topic to discuss which groups assimilated best/quickest or where.  

 

The situation in much of Europe is having too many people coming in to properly assimilate. 

7 hours ago, Thaidream said:

The law in most Western countries states that a business open to the public must serve everyone equally.  I do not know the details in this case . It could be the shop owner was afraid of the customer and declined or the customer asked for something the shop owner could not provide.  The problem is that Muslims today go into countries worldwide and expect the people of that country to adjust to their lifestyle when it is the immigrant who must adjust and become assimilated. The Muslim population is making their situation worse by refusing to assimilate; insisting on wearing clothing like burkas which are out of place in the Western World and a security threat because the face is covered; and not being tolerant of the fact that the West has its own history and religions that do not include Islam. I have no problem with people having and practicing their religion but it appears that many of the Muslim World have problems with me believing or not believing in a religion other than theirs.

 

"it is the immigrant who must adjust and become assimilated."

 

Replace "must" with "should" and you will have a more realistic picture!

The  current situation cannot be compared to the mss migration of Europeans into Ameerica during the late 1800's when both my Danish and Italian grandparents came due to economic hardships. America was a wide open country at that time and if you could get there- passed the physical at Ellis Ilsand in New York- you were in. The Irish came and many others and in 1956 after the invsion of Hungary by the then Soviet Union- Hungarians came in large numbers. All eventually assimilated - there was some discrimination- but none of these economic refugess attempted to impose their religion on Americans.

 

The situation with the Muslims are much different  although when one owns a business and is open to the public it is against the law to discriminate.  While I do not agree with what the lady did, I understand her trepidation. The simple fact is that many of the Muslims coming from the Middle East are not true refugees but economic refugees.  Why do they not resettle in the Middle East- Jordan, Saudi Arabia; Emirates; or Lebanon. It is because they want to go to Europe for economic gain. They do not assimilate well and are attempting to mandate changes in the customs and cultures of the countries they emigrate too.  All prior refugees/immigrants did the opposite and made no demand but assimilated.  In addition, the Muslim religion has been taken over by the radical fringe who want to establish a Muslim caliphate worldwide and will kill and maim to establish it. The European countries are smaller than America and Canada and simply cannot allow unfettered Immigration in the numbers they have allowed. This is a disaster for the EU population and will haunt them for years. Ankela Merkel needs to start looking for a new job.

 

4 hours ago, Odin Norway said:

 

 

 

I dont need to leave there to see things.

and you talk about now. Now it is good over there but 50 - 60 years ago those migrants were working and flourished your economies.

4 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

I blame both sides. I blame the politicians for reckless economic exploitation, and I blame the immigrants for brazen economic parasitism.

 

Actually, I don't think they just clean toilets. A lot of them seem to be in the business of buying up and renting out property.

 

What I still don't understand is why any group of people would choose to live somewhere - especially such an alien environment - where they know their mere presence antagonises the indigenous population.

 

same question can apply to you.

why did you come and why do you live in Thailand?

 

 

Edited September 9, 20169 yr by Galactus

11 minutes ago, Galactus said:

 

same question can apply to you.

why did you come and why do you live in Thailand?

 

 

 

I'm not here for economic advantage. I'm here because the Thais like me. They think I am like David Beckham.

And I won't be here forever, and I am not spawning any offspring to populate the place forever either.

 

Now back to the issue of why immigrants have the brazen crust to settle permanently in countries where they are not welcome.

Its not equal rights at all and that is why people are getting upset and angry about Muslims.. because the Muslims (some of them) want MORE rights than the other religions or none religious people of the country they move to.

 

For example, if that white hairdresser wanted to go into a Mosque and sit with the men, while she was eating a bacon sandwich and wearing a short skirt and let her long blond hair flow down naturally...  I think they would kick her out and refuse to let her stay.  So her refusing to serve this religious woman, who is wearing inappropriate clothes for that shop, should be no big deal. 

 

 

59 minutes ago, Galactus said:

 

 

 

 

I dont need to leave there to see things.

and you talk about now. Now it is good over there but 50 - 60 years ago those migrants were working and flourished your economies.

 

Can you put that in English?

36 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Its not equal rights at all and that is why people are getting upset and angry about Muslims.. because the Muslims (some of them) want MORE rights than the other religions or none religious people of the country they move to.

 

For example, if that white hairdresser wanted to go into a Mosque and sit with the men, while she was eating a bacon sandwich and wearing a short skirt and let her long blond hair flow down naturally...  I think they would kick her out and refuse to let her stay.  So her refusing to serve this religious woman, who is wearing inappropriate clothes for that shop, should be no big deal. 

 

 

 

I think more than kick her out, her life would literally be in danger.

 

She could make the case that Muslims are so prickly over certain issues that it's too easy to offend them, even without intention. For example, she might believe passionately in freedom of speech and want to make a joke about those Danish cartoons - which is perfectly acceptable in her own culture and within the law - but if there happened to be a Muslim within earshot, then she could expect quite nasty reprisals.

 

  ... or, suffer an attack

 

- when she least expects it...

 

 

but then, she at least has her scissors, to protect herself

Edited September 9, 20169 yr by tifino

Most people in the West door discriminate against people based upon their creed; color; ethnic background etc.  The Muslim invasion and that is what it is essentially creates a much different scenario. As I mentioned, they refuse to assimilate. They want the cities they reside in to allow the call to prayers 5 times a day and want tobe judged under sharia law. They want the countries they emigrate to to change their customs and culture to accommodate the Muslim culture. Again, why don't they emigrate to other Muslim countries- there are plenty of them. Their interest in the West is economic- not survival- and their sheer numbers are overwhelming the basic services of some countries.  Unfettered Immigration cannot be continued in the modern World. There has to be controls.

There are currently 11 Million undocumented  illegal immigrants in America. America can absorb them at present but must stop the flow. No, I do not want to deport them but America needs control of its borders.

The situation in Europe is similar- they have allowed way too many immigrants in that have been unvetted and cannot be assimilated because of sheer numbers and their refusal to accept the culture and customs of their host countries.

Germany had its Gastarbeiter policy in the 70s thru 90s in which tens of thousands of Turks were allowed in to work and while they have mostly assimilated- they were also vetted.

Europe is now in danger of a severe backlash in which rightist parties and leaders could very well be elected because the current leadership has been incompetent and not listened to its constituents. Brexit was fuelled by anti immigrant sentiment. It is  a real possibility that other countries will exit the EU over this issue.

 

Edited September 9, 20169 yr by Thaidream

 

One way for them to outgun the hairdressers, is to outbreed them, and provide their own...

 

that'll keep some of them pre-occupied, for a while

53 minutes ago, Usernames said:

 

Can you put that in English?

 

do you understand english? get some lessons or just pass if you dont understand, why answer?

you know that quote of yours are mostly from brainless nothing to add and nothing to say sorry to say.

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

I'm not here for economic advantage. I'm here because the Thais like me. They think I am like David Beckham.

And I won't be here forever, and I am not spawning any offspring to populate the place forever either.

 

Now back to the issue of why immigrants have the brazen crust to settle permanently in countries where they are not welcome.

 

oh really. basically you are not that different from those immigrants you discriminate.

you are an immigrant in thailand. and if you work here it means you are here for economic advantage as well.

thais love you? it is same amount of love you give to those migrating to europe.

if you dont like those immigrants, you can be a volunteer border guard back home anytime. just do the walk.

 

yeah lets come to the point. 

this hairdresser needs to jailed hard so we dont get bombed.

what a country this norway is, an uneducated ignorant and racist person can be the order of the day.

Edited September 9, 20169 yr by Galactus

8 minutes ago, Galactus said:

 

do you understand english? get some lessons or just pass if you dont understand, why answer?

you know that quote of yours are mostly from brainless nothing to add and nothing to say sorry to say.

 

gibberish

1 hour ago, Galactus said:

 

oh really. basically you are not that different from those immigrants you discriminate.

you are an immigrant in thailand. and if you work here it means you are here for economic advantage as well.

thais love you? it is same amount of love you give to those migrating to europe.

if you dont like those immigrants, you can be a volunteer border guard back home anytime. just do the walk.

 

yeah lets come to the point. 

this hairdresser needs to jailed hard so we dont get bombed.

what a country this norway is, an uneducated ignorant and racist person can be the order of the day.

Thats exactly what I thought to.This shit case have gotten more attension that I would ever imagion.

Nothing new in the papers today,but I will keep you all posted on how the case turns out in court.haha

Uneducated is wrong.It takes 4 years to become a hairdresser in Noway.

Freedom of Speech! Freedom of Religion! Freedom of Choice! Like a Pigs Pattuneny it is! 

 

What bugs me the most about this is that if this happened to almost anyone of us we would just go to a different hairdressing shop and get our hair done there, and forget about it. But not these people. They go running to the first free lawyer they can find screaming "discrimination". 

 

Is it any wonder why people are getting full up with all this Immigration to their country? They should be trying to fit in and not trying to change all the rules.