{"id":35191,"date":"2016-05-31T00:30:50","date_gmt":"2016-05-31T03:30:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/?p=35191"},"modified":"2016-11-24T21:36:09","modified_gmt":"2016-11-25T00:36:09","slug":"transgender-army-reservist-sues-barbershop-for-discrimination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2016\/05\/31\/transgender-army-reservist-sues-barbershop-for-discrimination\/","title":{"rendered":"Transgender Army Reservist Sues Barbershop for Discrimination"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kendall Oliver, also known as Brittney, is a US Army Reservist who identifies “more as male than female.” (For the record, she’s a woman, and she refers to herself as “they.”) As noted in March<\/a>, when she attempted to patronize The Barbershop in Rancho Cucamonga, California, she discovered The Barbershop is just that — a barbershop, not a salon. The Barbershop doesn’t cut women’s hair, and declined to cut her’s.<\/p>\n

As noted at The Religion Clause<\/a>, Oliver has now sued The Barbershop (PDF<\/a>), claiming the Government requires barbers to cut both men and women’s hair. Part of her justification is that The Barbershop has no “legitimate business justification” for the discrimination, which appears to ignore the fact publicly presenting one’s business as cutting men’s hair is substantially different than presenting one’s business as cutting women’s hair. (Barbers across the country are now gripping their scissors tightly, wondering if they, too, will be required to cut hair they’re either not trained to cut or particularly skilled at cutting.)<\/p>\n

Her justification, of course, is that the men who own the shop publicly stated they have a religious objection to cutting women’s hair.<\/p>\n

Oliver believes her right to not-decide if she is sort-of a man, sort-of a woman overrides the right of the owners of The Barbershop to conduct themselves according to their religious beliefs.<\/p>\n

\"oliver\"Interestingly, some have suggested Oliver’s desired haircut technically violates Army regulations — which, despite attempts at gender revisionism, still have different standards for men and women.<\/p>\n

Current military policies also prohibit service by men or women who “identify as more” the opposite gender than their own. Her case seems a fairly textbook example of why the rules on mental identity confusion, however personally\u00a0tragic, were written.<\/p>\n

Why would someone sue a doctor for refusing to give a man a gynecological exam?<\/p>\n

Like members of the Democrat Party recently said, it is a “shame<\/a>“:\u00a0 It is shameful that people believe heretofore-unknown “sexual liberty” overrides other<\/em> people’s human rights — as well as common sense and decency.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n