‘Genderqueer’ Woman Considers Lawsuit After Men’s Barbershop Declines to Cut Hair

Oliver-compressedRANCHO CUCAMONGA, Calif. —  A woman who identifies as gender neutral but leans more toward male qualities is considering filing a lawsuit against a men’s barbershop that recently declined to cut her hair.

Kendall Oliver, 24, began identifying as “genderqueer” after serving in the Army. The term is defined as “a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.”

Oliver also began preferring the pronoun “they” for herself as opposed to “her” or “him” in order to be gender neutral.

However, Oliver identifies more as male in her appearance, wearing men’s clothing and sporting a short hairstyle.

Earlier this month, she visited “The Barbershop” in Rancho Cucamonga to obtain a haircut and observed a woman asking for a trim. The woman was turned away as The Barbershop said that they only cut men’s hair.

But Oliver thought that it might not be an issue for her since she doesn’t identify as a woman and has short hair like a man. The Barbershop declined her as well.

“He said, ‘We only do men’s haircuts,’” Oliver recalled to the Washington Post.

  • Connect with Christian News

She left, but then called the shop to try again a second time.

“I called back to try to talk to him and explain that I identify more male than female,” Oliver explained. “He said, ‘It doesn’t matter, ma’am. We don’t cut any type of women’s hair.’”

Owner Richard Hernandez told television station KNBC that he has “religious convictions that prevent [him] from cutting women’s hair” and that the issue has nothing to do with discriminating against transgenders as he doesn’t believe in haircuts for women at all.

“[1 Corinthians 11 says] it’s a shame for a man to have long hair, but if a woman has long hair, it’s her glory,” he said. “I don’t want to be one who is taking away from [a woman’s] glory.”

“We’re definitely not targeting the LGBT movement,” Hernandez also told The Guardian. “We simply don’t cut women’s hair. It’s a traditional men’s barbershop.”

Oliver posted about the incident online, causing a variety of reactions.

“Rip his [private parts] off in court, the transphobic piece of trash,” one follower wrote.

“While I do believe it’s right to refuse service to anyone, I do think his reasoning wasn’t very sound,” another said. “Anyway, there are plenty of barbershops out there willing to give you a haircut.”

Now, Lambda Legal is considering taking action in court against Hernandez for turning down Oliver.

“Religion can’t and shouldn’t be used as a shield for discriminatory business practices,” attorney Peter Renn told reporters.

So is Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“Whether I don’t want to cut the hair of women or of people who identify as men, but I deem to be too feminine, however you spin it, this is a clear refusal to cut hair based on sex or gender or perhaps both,” attorney Gregory Lipper told the Guardian.

The American Civil Liberties Union has made similar comments, remarking that California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination for public accommodations on the basis of gender or gender identity.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • storie

    Spoiled brats. Sue someone because they don’t want to cut your hair??? Go somewhere else!!

    • Blaylock

      so you would be ok if you were black or latino and they denied service? jewish? bigot.

  • Mark0H

    More targeting. None of these episodes are coincidental.

    • Blaylock

      any proof? any proof at all??

  • ISpartaChrisI

    Well ain’t she a peach! You can’t change chromosomes.

  • Michael C

    Here’s the deal. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender identity. This was sex discrimination and it has been illegal on the federal level for over fifty years.

    “He said, ‘We only do men’s haircuts,’” Oliver recalled to the Washington Post.

    Well, good. That’s exactly the service Oliver came to you for.

    A public accommodation cannot refuse service on the basis of the sex of the customer. A barber shop can limit the hair styles they offer but they can’t refuse to provide those styles to their customers on the basis of race, sex, national origin, religion, etc.

    Now, nowhere does the law say that Richard Hernandez has to cut a woman’s hair. It is only the business that is not permitted to discriminate. It is the responsibility of the business to provide their goods and services in accordance with the law and the business can accommodate Hernandez’s religious beliefs while still serving all customers equally.

    • ISpartaChrisI

      Nothing you say? A woman would never go there for a haircut. Next.

    • Oboehner

      ‘“He said, ‘We only do men’s haircuts,’” Oliver recalled to the Washington Post.
      Well, good. That’s exactly the service Oliver came to you for.”
      Except no matter how hard she wishes, she is NOT a man.

      • Michael C

        Kendall Oliver wanted a men’s haircut. This is the style of cut offered at this barber shop.

        Oliver’s sex is irrelevant.

        • Oboehner

          Men’s haircut meaning “haircut of men”.

          • Michael C

            Let’s say I open a men’s toothbrush store and I only sold men’s toothbrushes (blue toothbrushes).

            Now let’s say a woman enters my store to purchase one of my toothbrushes.

            I say to her, “No ma’am, we don’t sell women’s (pink) toothbrushes here. We only sell men’s (blue) toothbrushes.”

            She responds by saying “I don’t want a pink toothbrush. I’m not asking you to sell me a pink toothbrush. I want a blue toothbrush. I’m simply trying to purchase the thing that you sell.”

            I correct her by saying “We only sell men’s toothbrushes meaning ‘toothbrushes for men.’ You can’t purchase a blue toothbrush because you’re a woman.”

            She asks me if I’ve ever heard of the Civil Rights act and I spend the next half hour babbling nonsense.

          • Oboehner

            You could open a store that compares apples to oranges.
            Someone’s belief they are something they are not does not override someone’s religious freedom. Not only that, this was nothing but an attack on someone with different views – like I said, this obviously wasn’t the first haircut she got in her life…

          • Michael C

            You could open a store that compares apples to oranges.

            This is a snortle worthy line. Have a great weekend.

          • Oboehner

            Out of gas huh?

          • Michael C

            Nah, I was just paying you a compliment. I didn’t specifically address anything you said because I didn’t feel a need.

          • Oboehner

            Out of gas, ok.

          • Quantz

            Someone’s religious freedom doesn’t mean they are allowed to deny people service. The rules inside your fundamentalist Christian church do not extend to the real world.

          • Oboehner

            Someone’s mental problems doesn’t mean they are allowed to target and deny people their religious beliefs. The rules inside your mentally twisted fantasy do not extend to the real world. I hear Fantastic Sam’s is just down the road.

          • Quantz

            Scientist 1: “I’ve finished mapping the genome!”
            Scientist 2: “My paper on molecular vestigial characters got published!”
            Oboehner: “But I have this book!”

            Tell me more about the expertise your book has on psychological phenomena, and what gives you the right to call them mental problems. Has the Bible come up with new information in the past, oh, 100 years?

          • Oboehner

            The Bible isn’t based on popular opinion or feel-good agendas, it doesn’t need updating.

            She has female DNA, she has female parts, that’s physical.
            She’s not sure, but she thinks she might be a man, that’s mental. If you have all of the physical parts of a female and are unsure as to what you are that’s a problem – hence mental problem. No amount of politically correct psychobabble will ever change that.

            Also why is it you can’t have your sexual perversions and mental problems without using them to beat other people up and sue their livelihood out of existence?

          • Quantz

            “The Bible isn’t based on popular opinion or feel-good agendas, it doesn’t need updating.”

            I see, so you still stand by the talking snake? The impossible flood which has been proven to have never have taken place? God creating light before creating the sun?

            “She has female DNA, she has female parts, that’s physical.”

            And are you defined only by your physical parts too, then? Shall we discount your psyche and your personhood?

            “She’s not sure, but she thinks she might be a man, that’s mental. If you have all of the physical parts of a female and are unsure as to what you are that’s a problem – hence mental problem. No amount of politically correct psychobabble will ever change that.”

            No one’s using politically correct psychobabble to legitimize it. We are using the studies of doctors.

            “Also why is it you can’t have your sexual perversions and mental problems without using them to beat other people up and sue their livelihood out of existence?”

            I don’t have any perversions or mental problems, but the second a gay or transgendered person tries to tell you that you are no longer allowed to worship your deity, be sure to let me know, won’t you?

          • Oboehner

            “but the second a gay or transgendered person tries to tell you that you are no longer allowed to worship your deity, be sure to let me know, won’t you?” What do you think this article is about? The mentally unstable WOMAN is suing because someone else wants to follow their beliefs – like I said, zero reading comprehension.

          • Quantz

            Simple cause and effect. Don’t want to get sued (the effect)? Don’t be the cause (using your hate and bigoted faith to attack others). Simple.

          • Oboehner

            Simple cause and effect. Don’t want to ignore the Constitution (the effect)? Don’t be the cause (using your hate and bigoted mental defect to attack others). Simple

          • Quantz

            Um, no.

            The poisonous and hateful rules of your oppressive fundamentalist religion extend only as far as the grotesque doors of your church. Out in the real world, they mean nothing, and you are required to treat people like human beings and don’t get to deny service based on superstition.

        • Mark Kahle

          Michael C….got kids??? I hope some are female… How about I state that I “feel I am a woman” and have a shower with them… perfectly legal..or show at your wifes gym.. or or or… Perfectly legal in California to let ones feminine side out now and then and act accordingly.

          How far do you or are you willing to let this BS go ?

          • Michael C

            This is not an issue of trans rights.

            This business refused service to a customer on the sole basis of their sex.

            This has been illegal for over fifty years.

  • bowie1

    Is she confident that the barber even has the ability to cut her hair?

    • Michael C

      I sure hope a barber has the ability to cut hair.

      • Oboehner

        bowie1 brings up a good point, was this the first time in her life she got a haircut or is she targeting a person of faith to bully her nutty point of view in some gimme lawsuit?

      • bowie1

        My barber doesn’t know how to cut women’s hair which is usually done by a hairdresser who is skilled in women’s hair styles.

        • Michael C

          Oliver did not ask for a women’s hair style.

  • Ockham

    Practitioners of Islam can discriminate. The ACLU should be honest and say Christians can’t discriminate because of their interpretation of the Bible. It isn’t religion they hate, it’s Christ.

    • Michael C

      “Practitioners of Islam” cannot discriminate on the basis of a customers sex.

      • Oboehner

        Yet whack-job “transgenders” can discriminate against anyone.

        • Quantz

          “Whack-job transgenders”

          Ahhhh….can’t you just feel the “Christian” love?

          • Blaylock

            I know I can…LOL!

          • Ockham

            Why do you speak of Christian love? Are you a Christian? Could you describe this love for me? You apparently know all about it. I’d love to learn more.

          • Quantz

            Maybe you could educate me, I’d love to know where Jesus said anything about calling people whack-job transgenders. But if you can provide chapter and verse, I’m all ears.

          • Ockham

            What are you talking about? I have never used the term whack-job. Is it a pun recalling surgery for people who self identify as another sex from their birth sex?

          • Quantz

            Why don’t you read the comment I was responding to above, which is the very uncharitable, un-Christian name-calling of the person in the story a “whack-job transgender”? It wasn’t you, it was Oboehner.

          • Ockham

            You referenced me, “Quantz” why don’t you read who made what comment?

            I believe you are in some sort of argument with a person named anonymous.
            Your inattention to who wrote what is about the level of your woefully ignorant comments about the Bible. It assume you are gay, reading the vitriol in your writing.

          • Quantz

            No, you engaged me in asking sarcastic questions about whether I’m a Christian. You can read it above. I know I can.

            I’m not ignorant about the Bible, I’m just not cherry picking Angry Jesus passages to support feelings of hatred and vengeance the way Anonymous is. And how on EARTH would that lead you to believe I was gay? Although if I were, it would be nothing to be ashamed of. Some of you people, I swear, I don’t know what planet you’re on.

          • Ockham

            It is a story about a transgender or something woman. Your anger and narrow mindedness on the subject might indicate you are homosexual. And I have never asked if you were a Christian. You live inside your own mind, my friend.

          • Quantz

            All right, for future reference, a homosexual is a person who is sexually attracted to people of the same gender. It’s not characterized by anger, so you’re about as far off base as it’s possible to be.

          • Anonymous

            You know not the Bible. It’s not surprising for those that cherry pick from it to justify sin. Jesus did not hold back. He called immoral people snakes, vipers, dogs, whoremongers, and more because He spoke truth. Feel free to research on your own (it’s not my job to do it for you), but you will need the Holy Spirit to guide you since just randomly choosing a verse to interpret with secular knowledge leads to misinterpretation.

          • Quantz

            In fact, you do the very same thing you accuse me of. You cherry pick the moments when Jesus was angry to align him to your state of mind. You are not Jesus, and you do not speak for Jesus. And unless you are the Westboro Baptist Church, you know that Jesus taught love and tolerance.

          • Anonymous

            LOL So typical. READ YOUR BIBLE. All of it. “Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other!” Jesus also said do not cast your pearls before swine because they choose to reject His teachings. Therefore, bye.

          • Quantz

            I see, so all those situations in the Bible where Jesus was kind and compassionate to the poor and infirm, and eating with lepers and prostitutes – those never happened, right? But you’re telling ME to read ALL of my Bible? What raging hypocrisy is this?

          • Anonymous

            Poor, sick, lepers – none of those were people asking for Jesus to “tolerate” their sin. The prostitutes were forgiven of their sins (yes, they were sinners due to sexual sin) and told to sin no more. You are wanting to try and use Jesus to excuse and promote the idea that Jesus tolerated sin. That is a very dangerous form of deception. No, He said if we sin to repent and stop doing it. Not make excuses for it because it doesn’t fit into what we feel is moral. It doesn’t work that way. If you want to continue to paint a false narrative of Jesus and God, that is fine. It’s between you and the Lord. Repent daily and work on becoming worthy of meeting your Father because He will not accept those who purposely sin especially after the sin has been called to their attention. That is stated in the Bible multiple times. I wish you well and God bless.

          • Quantz

            Yeah, what a shame the concept of transgenderism was a little bit beyond the scope of the Bronze Age goat herders who wrote the Bible, therefore tou have absolutely no justification in getting self-righteous about Jesus and sin and hell and punishment and all those subjects that get you evangelicals all hot and bothered when it comes to transgenders. Sorry about that. I know how it must suck to get your faith-based hate-on spoiled with logic and facts.

          • Cady555

            Those terms were used against religious leaders who flaunted their holiness, prayed to be seen by men, but failed to show mercy and compassion.

          • Oboehner

            Captures the essence of the topic at hand, or would you prefer “mentally challenged”?

          • Quantz

            How about something closer to the actual topic at hand, that being transgendered (see, you can just use the recognized and accepted word, no name calling or mocking necessary) and also something a little closer to actual Christianity? Did you know that Christ used to eat with lepers and prostitutes?

          • Oboehner

            Synonymous with “mentally challenged”.
            Christ used to eat with a lot of people, he also told a lot of people to repent and sin no more.

          • Quantz

            You should probably keep your opinions to yourself and your mouth shut until you can prove that Jesus said anything specifically about the transgendered.

          • Oboehner

            It is stated many times throughout the Bible that God created male and female, if she has the parts she is female (it’s not rocket science). It is also explicitly stated that men should not act as women, I am quite certain that pertains to women as well. So you should probably keep your opinions to yourself and your mouth shut until you can prove that Jesus would support anything contrary to God’s own creation and natural law, specifically about the transgendered.

          • Quantz

            What crap is this? The purely biological things you post have nothing to do with where transgenderism comes from. The poor dumb goat herders who wrote the Bible knew precisely nothing about psychology, so no, I think it’s you who should keep his mouth shut, science denier.

          • Oboehner

            Transgenderism is a mental defect no different from the woman who thinks she’s a cat.
            Your total lack of knowledge regarding the Bible is showing, perhaps to avoid looking more the ignorant fool you should refrain from discussing it.
            “Science denier”, ROFL your religious beliefs aren’t science.

          • Quantz

            So now transgenderism is a religious belief?
            If this covered in the Bible, please let me know chapter and verse, and we should really be alerting all the psychology and mental health experts pronto. They will be relieved to know. Or they might just laugh.

          • Oboehner

            “Transgenderism is a mental defect ” – Oboehner
            “So now transgenderism is a religious belief?” – Quantz

            https://www.hookedonphonics. com/

          • Quantz

            No chapter and verse, I see. Therefore not mentioned in the Bible. Got it.

          • Oboehner

            “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,” Matthew 19:4
            So now you can demonstrate how if this woman can magically grow male parts and chromosomes by just thinking she’s a man. Or perhaps you can admit that so-called “transgenderism” is a mental state not a physical one. One of the two apply.

          • Quantz

            That verse is about transgenderism? No, sorry.

            The issue isn’t what this person has for “parts” on the outside, but who he/she believes herself to be inside, which is an area you dismiss by calling her names. Which, apart from being about the most un-Christian attitude you could take, is sadly typical of your running away from reality.

          • Oboehner

            “but who he/she believes herself to be inside” Again, mental.
            God created her female, it is irrelevant what she thinks or believes.

            You haven’t the faintest clue as too what an “un-Christian” attitude even is, your references to it just make you the fool.

          • Quantz

            So you make no effort or attempt to understand people who believe themselves to be trapped in the wrong bodies, you just dismiss them as whack-jobs. And all without taking the slightest bit of interest in what the fields of mental health and psychology have to say. Like, what would THEY know about it, eh? Them with all their fancy medical degrees?

            No, it makes far more sense to hate of them because Jesus.

          • Oboehner

            What about the woman who thinks she’s a cat?
            It makes no sense to target and sue people because you can’t figure out what sex you are.

          • Quantz

            How many people worldwide are transgendered?
            Now, how many people think they are cats?
            See? Not so hard to spot the actual wackos, is it?

          • Oboehner

            What’s the difference if some woman thinks she’s a man or thinks she’s a cat? She is neither one and just as confused.

          • Quantz

            And that is your carefully considered medical opinion? Or just the hate that comes from one immersed in fundamentalist religion?

          • Oboehner

            Answer the question once instead of spewing more of YOUR hate that comes from your mythological “evolving” religious cult.

          • Quantz

            Maybe if you gave me a question worthy of an educated person, rather than your usual sanctimony-soaked platitudes of faith-based hatred.

          • Oboehner

            If I did it would be way over your head… wait, apparently it is. As Mr. Rogers used to say, “you can do it if you try”.

          • Quantz

            All right, I’ll play your game.

            “What’s the difference if some woman thinks she’s a man or thinks she’s a cat?”

            We are human beings. We are not felines. She has no basis to think she’s a cat because she doesn’t possess the body of one. She possesses the body of a human being. It is not an issue of species but of sexuality, and if you don’t see the difference there you’re in worse shape than I thought.

          • Oboehner

            “She has no basis to think she’s a cat because she doesn’t possess the body of one.”
            “Body parts are irrelevant, this is a psychological issue and not a biological one.”
            Can’t have it both ways there chief.

          • Quantz

            Actually, yes…yes I can have it both ways, because the statements above are unrelated and both perfectly true. She doesn’t inhabit the body of a cat and therefore has no idea what it is to feel like a cat, and her human body parts are irrelevant to what she believes her human identity to be.

          • Oboehner

            Well she doesn’t inhabit the body of a male either. The statements are identical, two mentally disturbed females think they are something they are not – identical.

          • Quantz

            “The statements are identical”

            Maybe to someone who doesn’t realize there is a difference between species and gender, but then, you DO believe the world’s 6000 years old.

          • Oboehner

            Identical, they both believe they are something they are not. No wonder you believe you descended from magic ooze.

          • Quantz

            “Identical”

            Really?

            GENDER
            the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

            SPECIES
            a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

            I think those are about as different as you can get, but it’s quite amazing what mental calisthenics you can do when you’ve been taught to believe in talking snakes.

          • Oboehner

            Identical, thinking they are something they are not. Astounding how simple logical truth escapes you when you’ve been taught to believe in exploding dots.

          • Quantz

            “Identical, thinking they are something they are not.”

            Spoken like a true fundamentalist, looking only at the outside and considering nothing whatsoever about the inside. Astounding what a little faith-based hatred can do to an otherwise functional brain.

          • Oboehner

            This from the one showing hate to the poor woman-cat.
            It is painfully obvious that you have zero critical thinking skills and/or care more about your little fantasies than any truth, it is a waste of time to continue this or any other line of debate. My time would be better spent arguing with the dog (or someone who just thinks they are a dog).

          • Quantz

            LOL – now it’s the voice of compassion, a little strange coming from someone who initially referred to this person as a whack-job (a comment now deleted by the moderators). Class act.

          • Cady555

            Approximately one out of every 1500 to 2000 live births is an intersex person with ambiguous genitalia.

            Did your god not create them?

          • Oboehner

            No, they are most likely a product of what humanity has done to itself through the garbage that passes for food and “healthcare” in this country. Soy has been found to contain estrogen-mimicking compounds, yet what is the vast majority of baby formula that is regularly given to baby boys (who are still developing) made out of?

          • pud

            Flagged. Show some courtesy or get out of here.

          • Quantz

            Courtesy? You mean like calling the transgendered “Whack-jobs” and “mentally challenged”?

            Interesting ethics you have there, but if it makes you feel good to censor, go ahead. Let’s flag the “whack job” comment now and see if anything happens.

      • Ockham

        Hahahahahahaha! Where have you been? Hahahahahahaha!

        • Michael C

          Hahahahahahaha! Where have you been? Hahahahahahaha!

          The United States.

          • Ockham

            Not these days. Maybe after the present administration’s favoritism to all things Muslim.

          • Michael C

            Okay, please cite an example of a Muslim business owner who was permitted to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any other nondiscrimination law.

          • Ockham

            Many people have not heard of Sharia law. It is blatantly a violation of the Civil Rights Act. ‘Nuff said.

          • Michael C

            Okay, please cite an example of a business that has been permitted to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any other nondiscrimination law because they were following Sharia law.

            One example.

          • Ockham

            Yes, the Socratic argument can be troubling, but I have no reason to accede to it. Keep asking questions, put the fellow in the right to constantly have to prove a point, while you get to skate through, seeming intelligent.
            Not gonna work, fella. I’m not gonna do your research for you. Read a book, for heaven’s sake.
            You could look it up.

          • gogo0

            when you say that something is happening and then refuse to back it up with any kind of evidence, you are tacitly conceding your argument

          • Ockham

            Nice try. Was this technique in the Alinsky handbook or from one of your college professors? Other people went to college, fella.

          • gogo0

            are you implying that backing up your claims with facts is something you learned in college? is that also where you learned to dance around topics instead of addressing them?
            are you going to continue to distance yourself from your original claims, or pony up some evidence in support of them?

          • Ockham

            You have really drunk the Kool-Aid haven’t you? You posit all these conditions upon others, who, if they do not bend to your will, are suddenly devoid of argument. I maintain that you and others of your ilk are opposed to truth and will use any sort of bullying to try to force people to dance to your tune. This ain’t the Oxford debate society, fella. There are no rules. It is s free form vent for societal frustration. You win. You’re smart. Now go away.

          • gogo0

            you managed to not post any evidence and talk about something completely different again. amazing that you continue to believe something you obviously cant find any proof of.

          • Ockham

            I never submit to controlling trolls. You pose smug questions which demand that I do some sort of research for you. I recognize your manipulation.
            Hurts, I guess, to be exposed. Sorry. That’s life.

          • gogo0

            okay, i looked and couldnt find anything supporting your claim. so, now we have established that you were entirely wrong.

            you should talk to your god about the mental gymnastics youre performing with your posts. i think you understand you were wrong and are just posturing to avoid admitting it. deception is a sin, right? you may want to conserve your sins for something more meaningful than looking like a fool a web forum.

          • Ockham

            “Your god”.
            As I said originally, it’s not me you hate. It’s Jesus Christ. Nothing I can say can change that fact.

          • willie

            Show me a Muslim that has been fined or arrested for refusing to perform a homosexual marriage. They will tell you strait up they will not perform it. Muslim bakeries have refused to bake wedding cakes for homosexual weddings, yet no lawsuits. Christians have had their businesses shut down for refusing to partake in a homosexual wedding. Our government honors Sharia law while destroying God’s law.

          • Michael C

            Show me a Muslim that has been fined or arrested for refusing to perform a homosexual marriage.

            Show me a Christian minister or church that has been fined or arrested for refusing to perform a marriage for a gay couple. I can actually show you a church that refused to host a wedding for a couple because the couple was black. It’s totally legal. It’s called religious freedom and it’s protected by the U.S. Constitution.

            Muslim bakeries have refused to bake wedding cakes for homosexual weddings, yet no lawsuits.

            I’m assuming you’re talking about the Steven Crowder video. Well, first off, in an interview with Christopher Agee of Western Journalism, Crowder admitted that “no one said ‘No, we won’t do it.’”

            He wasn’t actually denied service.

            …and even if he was, the State of Michigan (like most of the U.S.) allows businesses to refuse service to gay people.

            Even if a Dearborn bakery refused to sell a cake to a gay couple, the couple would have nothing to sue over because the bakery broke no laws.

            In the majority of the United States, it’s perfectly legal to refuse housing, employment, and public accommodations to people simply because they’re gay.

            Our government honors Sharia law while destroying God’s law.

            I have the same expectations for you that I have for Ockham. If you’re going to make an outlandish assertion like you have here, you’re going to have to back it up with evidence.

          • willie

            Apparently you are in denial. A Illinois couple fined $80,000 for refusing to host a homosexual couple. A pastor in Vermont was sentenced to one year in prison for refusing to perform a homosexual wedding. Idaho pastors told to perform the weddings or face prison. Washington state couple fined $110,000 for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. Texas minister in jail for refusing to perform homosexual wedding. The list goes on. The freedom of Sodomy overrides the freedom of religion.

          • Michael C

            wow. responding to a comment six months later. okay.

            A Illinois couple fined $80,000 for refusing to host a homosexual couple.

            The business was fined for refusing services regularly offered to the general public on the basis of a customer’s sexual orientation. This type of discrimination is prohibited in Illinois. They would have faced the same outcome had they refused service on the basis of the customer’s race or religion.

            A pastor in Vermont was sentenced to one year in prison for refusing to perform a homosexual wedding.

            You’re very gullible. Don’t be embarrassed. It’s a sweet, naive quality. That story was fake.

            Idaho pastors told to perform the weddings or face prison.

            Nope. That didn’t happen either. The Hitching Post was an open-to-the-public wedding parlor that offered secular wedding services. When the marriages of gay couples became legally recognized, the Hitching Post changed the nature of their business to become a religious corporation that only offered religious services. They’re free to discriminate against anyone they please.

            Washington Oregon state couple fined $110,000 $135,000 for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.

            The business was fined for refusing services regularly offered to the general public on the basis of a customer’s sexual orientation. This type of discrimination is prohibited in Oregon. They would have faced the same outcome had they refused service on the basis of the customer’s race or religion.

            Texas minister in jail for refusing to perform homosexual wedding.

            Where are you hearing these ridiculous stories and why are you believing them?

            …and none of this has anything to do with your absurd claims about Muslims.

            If you don’t understand how civil rights laws work, I’d recommend taking some time to do some research. I would also recommend avoiding whatever sources you have previously been getting your news and information. It appears that your head has been filled with untruths.

  • Scooter Valentine

    This is very frustrating for a multitude of reasons. We must take to prayer and remember that ultimately, this is a heart issue. Only God can fully examine and know the hearts of those involved. Our internet judgements help nothing eternally. We can pray for God’s will to be done if we want to help.

  • The Last Trump

    So…”they” identify as “gender neutral” (!?) but are subsequently offended for not meeting the key requirement for entry in a MENS barbershop. So the barbershop must be sued!
    You just can’t make this stuff up, folks.

    • Blaylock

      there is no “entry” requirement. are women not allowed? ridiculous

  • Emmanuel

    She served in the army, was her hair long, per Army rule for women, or did she get a short haircut like the men? has this rule changed?

    • Michael C

      The shortest hair a female Soldier can have is 1/4 inch from the scalp, which can be tapered to the scalp along the hairline.

      • Emmanuel

        thanks, I learned something new today

  • Josey

    There are men’s clubs that do not allow women in, big deal, there are women’s clubs that don’t allow men in, big deal, that is their prerogative. This barber shop has not discriminated for it always claimed to give only men hair cuts for its a men barber shop. Go somewhere else it or they, whatever you call yourself, your own words being used here. Another frivolous law suit to jam up the already court cases.

    • Michael C

      Private clubs and churches are exempt from nondiscrimination laws outlined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Boy Scouts of America, for example, is permitted to discriminate against women because it is a private club. A pizza joint or book store, however, would not be permitted to discriminate against women. They are considered public accommodations. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to public accommodations.

      • Josey

        Well, this isn’t a pizza shop or book store but a men’s barber shop, for MEN. What do they need to do place a huge neon sign out front stating for men only…no common sense…this is what our world has come to but not a surprise as Christ and His apostles and prophets said these things would happen in the end times and we are here just as God’s word has said, many prophecies have been fulfilled and still yet more to come for God cannot lie like a man, He is GOD! Jesus is God! The Holy Spirit is God! And the three of them are in agreement. Glory to the Name of Jesus, God forever!

  • SSGT_Randolph

    If you get to pick and choose the Bible verses I must live by, then I get to choose the ones you must live by.

    • Brad F

      Give an order and see how many people obey it.

      The word “must” is fascistic.

    • Dave Widener

      Only an idiot would think that he is making someone live by this verse.

  • GibbyD

    Should a man be refused at a beauty shop because he wanted the female beautician to give him a bikini wax ?

    • Michael C

      The customer cannot demand which employee provides the service offered by the business.

      It is the responsibility of the business to provide appropriate religious and personal accommodations for their employees.

      • GibbyD

        What I am saying is that you cannot force a beautician, who is a woman, to give a man a bikini wax if that is against her religious convictions and or personal sense of propriety .

        In the same way it is wrong to force a barbershop set up exclusively to cut men’s hair, partly because of the owners beliefs , to force them to accommodate against those beliefs and or why that particular business was established. The reasons being obvious that some wives possibly would not feel comfortable with their husbands cutting some other woman’s hair. Also you should not be able to force a business to do that for which it was not created for. You cannot force KFC or McDonalds to serve liver or sushi if that is not on their menu or what they were established for.

        • Michael C

          What I am saying is that you cannot force a beautician, who is a woman, to give a man a bikini wax if that is against her religious convictions and or personal sense of propriety .

          That is correct. A business must make reasonable accommodations for their employees. That is the law.

          It is also the law that businesses cannot refuse service on the basis of sex. If a barber shop advertises certain haircuts, it must provide those haircuts without respect to race, religion, sex, national origin, etc.

          The reasons being obvious that some wives possibly would not feel comfortable with their husbands cutting some other woman’s hair.

          Again, the law doesn’t state that a specific employee must perform specific tasks, only that the business itself not discriminate. A business must respect their employee, their customers, and the law. It is the obligation of a business to find a way to obey the law.

          You cannot force KFC or McDonalds to serve liver or sushi if that is not on their menu or what they were established for.

          Again, that is correct. If Kendall Oliver walked into McDonald’s and requested sushi, they would not be required to serve Oliver sushi. If Oliver waked into McDonald’s and asked for a Big Mac™, they would not be permitted to say “No, we don’t sell Big Macs™ to women.”

          Oliver went into a business that offered a certain style of haircut. Oliver requested the style of haircut offered by the business. Oliver was refused service on the basis of Oliver’s sex.

          • GibbyD

            Michael , the female beauticians that I know are all self employed without any other workers. They are single proprietors. If she advertises waxing for hair removal for women and a man comes in and demands a bikini wax , no way in the world is any court in the land going to force her to oblige him against her will.

            The men’s barbershop in question advertises as a “men’s” barbershop. Their degree of privacy and decency exceeds that of you or me. If a men in that shop do not want to touch a woman , then they should not be forced to do so. This is not like selling hamburgers because of the degree of intimacy and involvement. There are many examples where this would be very clearly seen and understood that religious liberty and freedom trumps someone wanting to force another to do something against their moral convictions that involves greater participation by the religious person or person of conscience. Even Gov. John Kasick backed off of his stand and compromised to want to have a line drawn between selling an item and selling something that involved more participation from the religious person that objected .

          • Michael C

            Okay. If you believe that a public accommodation is permitted to refuse service on the basis of the customer’s sex, so be it.

            Please understand that we’re approaching this conversation from different angles. You’re arguing what you think the law should be. It is unclear as to how you would define sex discrimination exemptions to the Civil Rights Act. I’m simply explaining what the law is.

          • GibbyD

            There is no law that forces anyone to violate their constitutional rights. The right to privacy , the 1st amendment , the free exercise clause. In cases where it may be challenged , those also have the right of due process. The Supreme court nor any court , make laws. It will be decided and upheld that you cannot force a man to touch a woman against their will. That is involvement and participation that goes beyond the idea of selling a hamburger. Here is an example maybe you can understand. There is an evil perverted business in Nevada that is allowed by commit prostitution. If a woman sees one of the products for sale at that business , another woman,and wants that woman to have sex with , do you think that that prostitute should be able to refuse sex with that woman ( prospective buyer) because of her convictions not to want to be involved in homosexuaity or homosexual acts?

            Every young man is required to register for the draft when he turns 18 if he ever wants a government job or benefits. Women are not required but and are allowed Government jobs. This shows that even our USA Government understands that there is a difference between men and women. A Barber or Beautician can refuse legally to do things that violate their convictions concerning their belief that men and women are different and that physical involvement between those different genders can be refused because of the right of privacy, religious conviction and statement of the expressed purpose of that business. Even these recent court decisions that are fining photographers and wedding cake makers will soon be overturned and corrected as they find their way to the Supreme Court as more constitutional adhering literalists are appointed by a more conservative and wise President .

          • Guest

            And the part is everyone has constitutional rights and the issue with a business it is the initiator of all interactions by their advertising to the public. So they invited the general public to come and buy their wares and services, they used their ‘right to privacy and first amendment’ by that invitation, and the rights of the customer are now in the mix.

            As to your Nevada prostitute hypothetical, an employee can always ask for accommodation, no customer can demand a particular person under civil rights laws, only that they not be rejected by the business overall. (and of course most sex workers wouldn’t turn down a request regardless of the customer’s sex.)

            This is just grandstanding by the barber shop owner – a head is a head, and if the hair is there to cut they can cut it that way regardless of how the customer looks – or looked in the past – from the shoulders down.

            This is just transgender discrimination wrapped in a not very convincing faux religious wrapper.

          • GibbyD

            As you have said, “an employee can always ask for accommodation, no customer can demand a particular person under civil rights laws” An employer is also an employee of his own business and can seek an accommodation and suggest that the customer go somewhere else where that service they seek is being offered. A MEN’s barber shop and one that is advertised as a MEN’s Barber shop , does not have to serve those for which the business was designed and created to serve. It is perverse to force a God fearing person to violate their religious convictions when a reasonable religious exemption is obvious in this case. You are of the same mind that is trying to force males to use female bathrooms and locker rooms . So far the American people, by a large measure, understand the need and right to privacy between the sexes. You probably see nothing wrong or dangerous about homosexual men sleeping in tents with boy scouts as Troop leaders either . How about allowing your daughter sleep in tents with adult men on camping trips in the girl scouts . If gender and sex difference does not matter then what could possibly go wrong ?

            The Barber wants to protect himself from putting his hands on a woman that is not his wife. If you cannot see the wisdom of that then you are naive .

            “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. ” ( 1st Corinthians 7:1,2)KJB.

          • Guest

            and the barber can ask accommodation but there are two other barbers there. the problem is he, as the owner, made the business run illegally.

            Case like this in Pennsylvania, business was fined.

            And your humorous Girl Scout analogy. you do realize that no adults sleep in the same space as children, regardless of their sexes, right?

            And any business owners right to religious freedom and exercise stops at the tip of the customer’s nose where their’s begins. can’t sell to the public with their absolute right to not share anyone’s at the business beliefs don’t offer to the public I. the first place, there are other business models for those compelled to religiously discriminate.

          • GibbyD

            No, you can create a business that caters to one gender as opposed to another and not be in any violation of the law. What case in Pennsylvania do you speak of? I have never heard of it . You cannot discriminate against race because there is no privacy issue related to sexuality .
            You must have never been a boy scout. The proximity of Scout leaders and scouts is close , not the same sleeping bags , but close. Also the compromised boy scout organization allows homosexual boy scouts not just Scout leaders.

            Selling a product and or service is one thing but when it involves the fuller participation of the business owner in actions that violate his conscience or beliefs , then that is where the line is drawn and will be seen as such as eventually more of these cases make their way into the courts.

          • Guest

            please don’t play the fool. Just ‘google’ barber Pennsylvania Trans fine’. and if you had creepy perv scouting please don’t tell me. even in the 1960’s scout leaders were prohibited from ever being in a sleep area with scouts. And in civilized nations scouts has been for both sexes for decades. follow the rules and no scout – male or female – has been at higher risk than then sex segregated groups.

            And as the UK Scouts will tell you there is no better protection of the scouts than having an out Scout leader watching out for them, things straight leaders won’t notice putting a scout at risk.the gay one will.

            there is no privacy issue in a barber shop.

            either the barber shop offers haircuts or they don’t, pick one.

          • GibbyD

            The privacy issue is present because of the need of refusal of a barber not to be forced to touch in an involved way such as handling and cutting hair someone of the opposite gender when it is against his conscience and belief to do so.

            Even before The Boy Scouts started allowing professing homosexual boy scouts and scout leaders, there had been sexual abuse cases reported and prosecuted. Now you can depend on those abuses to increase. This is what many have left The Boy Scouts and joined ‘Trial Life’ . That organization will not allow homosexual trail leaders nor trail life cadets. This newer organization is similar in almost every way to the Boy Scouts but has a more specific Christian theme and mission.
            Concerning The Girl Scouts , which years earlier allowed homosexuals into their organization and which also supports abortion, What would your position be if a 55 years old man thought he was a 12 year old girl and demanded that he be allowed into the Girl Scouts ? Based on current trends , I suppose their would really be nothing anyone could do to stop him.

            The Men’s Barbershop will be allowed to restrict it’s business to men once and after this is played out in the courts. We need a constitution adhering President that will appoint strict constitutional interpreting federal and Supreme Court justices.

          • Guest

            Ridiculous, can’t make invite the public to come do business and then claim a right to privacy, don’t make the invitation in the first place if you didn’t want to associate with the public. And if the person can’t offer services as the law requires to the public then they shouldn’t be offering those services to the public, the public doesn’t have to accommodate them. As Justice Scalia said, “there is a right to freedom of conscience, not a right to any particular job.”. Your reasoning is like someone who’s Amish wanting to be an air traffic controller but wants to do so without using any technology. Sorry, either they are offering haircuts to the public while respecting their civil rights or they just shouldn’t be offering haircuts to the public.

            You haven’t a clue as to the issue in the Boy Scouts, or even sexual abuse. That’s why the clusters of cases of same sex sexual abuse are decades old, from when being gay was illegal, the more open people are about their sexuality the less stuff like that happens. Don’t believe me ask the Canadians, the Brits, and other nations where they have had both sex and sexual orientation equality for decades. Shoot just ask the Campfire Kids that have had mixed sex and sexual orientation for both clients and staff for many years. Cloistered youth organizations are to be avoided, they create most of their own problems.

            And no, The Barbershop will either comply with the law and respect customer’s civil rights or they will be fined.

            51. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh
            Civil Rights Act.

            (b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

            Either they sell haircuts or they don’t, pick one. If they do then they have to sell one to the customer while respecting their civil rights.

          • GibbyD

            With regards to the Boy Scouts , it was and is not just a matter of homosexuality but also of pedophila and rape. Is that what you want people to be more open to? I guess you must be a Catholic Priest or an alter boy.

            Concerning this business , the barbershop sells haircuts to men. That is what they advertize and that is what they were designed for. Just as you cannot require a massage therapist to give a message to someone of a different sex because of their sense of privacy and propriety , you can also not require someone to touch and cut the hair of someone of a different gender if that also violates their conscience of what is right according to their beliefs.

            If the right to privacy , according to some very wicked Supreme Court justices of the past, can grant a right to kill innocent unborn girls and boys , then that right along with the “free exercise clause”of the Constitution , can recognize rights granted from God that protect people of faith and conscience from being forced to violate their beliefs nor should they be forced to give up being able to work and make a living.

          • Guest

            Snarky comments are all I’d expect from you GibbyD. No better person to detect a pedophile for you than an out person as the youth groups will tell you if you bothered to ask them.

            And you can’t advertise for just one member of a civil rights class, there can no more be a ‘men’s only’ barber shop than there could be a white’s only barbershop (another case which resulted in a fine for the violating business). And you are again deliberately confusing what an individual must do and a business must do, a common deceit by those on your side of the aisle.

            Again, no one is forcing any one to do anything – the business owner, of their own free will, invited the public to come do business with them and from that moment on that business transaction was regulated, as all are in a number of ways.

            And where ever did you get the idea that a massage studio is above the law? Sure a massage therapist could refuse to do a massage, but their boss could fire them for it too.

          • GibbyD

            I doubt very much that you are in communication with several youth groups that are telling you or anyone that homosexuals are good to have around because they have some kind of special powers that can spot a pedophile. Tell me how none of them warned the administration at Penn State about Sandusky and with all the homosexual priests in the Catholic Religious organization, how come none of them were able to warn of those among them that were rapping little boys in those groups?

            Religious exemptions are legal and will be the rule when it comes to a question of which amendment trumps another and the deciding factor will be the extent of physical involvement and genuine sincerely held beliefs. Give it time , this will make it’s way through the courts and it will be ultimately be decided this way.

          • Guest

            You haven’t bothered to actually read about either case have you?

            There is no ‘trumping’ involved, the business invited the public to come do business knowing full well what the rules regarding such business operations were concerning the customer’s civil rights.

            There is no religious based ‘get out of jail free’ card for civil rights violations.

            What did Justice Scalia quote?

            “Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society doesn’t relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities… To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

            Either The Barbershop sells haircuts to customer;s respecting their civil rights or it will be fined. Simple as that.

          • GibbyD

            The courts recognises the rights of people of faith including Christian businesses and organizations to be able to do business without compromising their sincerely held beliefs. The difference will be seen as to what degree of involvement the business owner is suppose to go in reference to his or her participation. The courts will be reasonable and recognise the God given right to refuse physical contact with someone of a different sex if that participation offends the conscience and rights of a business owner. Selling some products and services are related to gender specific norms and for years have been respected because of common decency and the right to privacy.

          • Guest

            Absolutely the courts have – they don’t have to make public invitations of sale if their faith won’t let them obey the law regulating such invitations.

            BUT the moment the business invite the public they have to respect the customer’s absolute right to not share those beliefs and still accept the freely made offer.

            The courts will obey the constitutional rights of everyone, and tell the business they can’t invite the public and then rescind the customer’s invitation illegally, ignoring their civil rights.

          • GibbyD

            There are no constitutional rights for a woman to have a haircut at a men’s barbershop no more than there for a man to be able to have a bikini wax at as single proprietor owned beauty shop.

          • Guest

            ah strawman. This business has multiple employees, if one barber doesn’t want to do it, let another. If none want to do it, that’s a different issue but not this case.

          • GibbyD

            None do . If they did then they could leave and start their own barbershop .

          • Guest

            And since no stories of this have said that, and that isn’tthe way they would even proceed we are at the final stage of a discussion were they just making things up so they can rationalize the answer they want to reach.

            See ya.

          • GibbyD

            If you are a man , go to 10 beauty shops and ask each one that you want a bikini wax. The one, two or three that refuse , take to court and see how fast the suit is thrown out by a judge.

          • Guest

            Again, a straw man in response. Considering all the articles on the web about women waxers explaining how to do a men’s wax it just shows you have no grasp of the basics, let alone this situation.

          • GibbyD

            it just takes one that refuses and the reasons why it would be justified is similar for the reasons certain men of faith would refuse. Where there is physical contact, privacy issues and involvement, is where a line will be drawn. If there are not many precedent cases that verify and secure this now , there will be as this comes up again and again in the future and as the courts decide.

          • Guest

            Woulda, coulda, shouda. If a business owner’s ‘religious conscience’ won’t let them run their business as the law requires then they should go into another business.

            Sorry, the door you want opened would make anyone running a business using a religious excuse a law unto themselves. Can’t serve people and respect their civil rights then a public offer of sale is the wrong way to go – that’s what private clubs and non-profits are for.

          • GibbyD

            The Government does distinguish between the sexes and so can a business that is exclusively created to serve one and not the other because of the unique character of that establishment. BFOQ [bona fide occupational qualification] under essence of the business,” David Sherwyn, a law professor at Cornell University’s School of Hotel Administration, told Business Insider.

            Title VII of the Civil Rights Act lets companies discriminate on the basis of “religion, sex, or national origin in those instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business or enterprise.”

  • Chip01

    Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19

  • AndrewDowling

    Why was she in a barbershop in the first place? Next thing you know, people will be trying to use the wrong restroom. Oh, wait,….

  • Darla

    Everyone deserves equal rights whether we agree with their lifestyle or not. This woman was treated equally as all women were turned away. But for these sexually based rights…it’s become outrageous. They are not just treated equally, they are given boundless power to destroy the lives and businesses of others. I remember when a sign that stated “management reserves the right to refuse service” meant something. What’s next? Are we going to be sitting in a fine dining restaurant with people sitting beside us shirtless and shoeless because they identify themselves as nudists?

  • archaeologist

    she was told that they didn’t cut women’s hair and she asked a second time? it doesn’t matter how you identify your hair is female if you were born female. hair does not know anything about gender identity.

    another classic example of bullying by those who reject normality and do not follow the rules.

  • lorac odraned

    No such thing as “transgendered.” We are what God made us. Oh yea, we can change our looks and body parts but we can’t change our genetic make up. To even think we are a different gender than God made us is to call Him a liar. Good luck with that!

    • gizmo23

      So God and you condone violence against people you don’t like.

      • https:[email protected]/ Alexandra F

        Where did you read that??

        • gizmo23

          “Maybe the shop should have pulled out the clippers and given her a military cut- shave it all off. Then they should have grabbed some pliers and yanked that thing out of her nose”

          Sounds pretty violent to me

  • lorac odraned

    Maybe the shop should have pulled out the clippers and given her a military cut- shave it all off. Then they should have grabbed some pliers and yanked that thing out of her nose What a strange individual! Sick and twisted as well.

  • Herb Planter

    just another godless dyke gold digger, nothing to see here move along. it’s his store he can do what he wants.

  • veteran68

    So in other words Per ACLU & LBGT, Only They have Constitutional rights, Everyone else must Bow and kiss @$$$, of these weird-o’s

  • Sean

    It’s pretty obvious that the whole point of passing anti-discrimination laws is to drum up business for tort lawyers, who see a lot of money to be made off the resentment of people who have no life at all. If you’re a respectable member of the community, you build a career for yourself and don’t poke around looking for opportunities to sue someone.

  • JeffreyRo55

    She is soaking up all this attention like a sponge.
    Play victim, get attention, that means you are important.

  • Cady555

    In all the articles about bakers, there is claim after claim “it’s just weddings.” Now it’s “just” weddings and haircuts.

    The holier than though “I can discriminate better than you” contest won’t end here.

    I wonder if blue jeans will very next. Women in men’s clothing.

    • pud

      Get a life.

      • Cady555

        I have one. It’s quite nice. Filled with good people, science, decisions based on evidence. And I don’t feel compelled to make other people’s life harder just so I can have someone to hate.

  • http://www.personaltouchmaids.org/ TammyHenson

    I understand a barber shop only wanting to do man’s hair. That’s what they go to school for. However, if someone wants a man’s cut, why not? He just needed to stand on that one principle instead of throwing God & the Christian community under the bus.

    The Scripture that was used was a ridiculous one as far as the argument goes. He used it out of context in how he uses it, like so many other Scriptures are. Had he felt the woman was ‘sinning’ by cutting her hair, does he refuse to cut men’s hair who are committing adultery, having sex outside of marriage, a drug abuser, a liar? If you’re going to stand on one, you need to stand on them all. You stand too long, you go out of business.