Men’s Barbershop Settles With ‘Genderqueer’ Woman Who Sued for Being Denied Haircut

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Calif. — A men’s barbershop in California has agreed to a settlement with a woman who identifies as “gender neutral” who filed a lawsuit last year after being denied a haircut because she is not a man.

Under the terms of the settlement, signed by both parties, Richard Hernandez, owner of The Barbershop, admits to violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and agrees to serve all who request a haircut.

“Kendall’s sex shouldn’t have mattered. No one should experience the gut-punch of being told they won’t be served by a business open to the public,” Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Peter Renn said of the men’s barbershop in a statement on Wednesday.

As previously reported, Kendall Oliver, 25, 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.

Last March, 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 workers 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.

  • Connect with Christian News

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

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.’”

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.”

But under the settlement, Hernandez has agreed to not turn anyone away for a haircut despite being a men’s barbershop.

“The Barbershop admitted that it broke the law, and we are relieved that it will no longer use religion as a basis to discriminate against customers or to impose gender stereotypes about how a person must look,” Renn remarked. “The fact that discrimination in the public sphere may be religiously motivated doesn’t make it any less harmful to the person on its receiving end.”

Hernandez has not released a statement at this time.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. Now, as the cold winds of winter blow in, we are seeking to also meet the physical needs of the people by providing fuel-operated heaters for the refugees and their children to stay warm. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work (James 2:16)? Please click here to send a heater to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Ambulance Chaser

    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.”

    No wonder you had to settle! You basically handed Kendall Oliver a win with that comment. Trans rights are a nebulous, legal gray area at the moment but the right not to be denied service based on gender is completely settled law in California. So by commenting that you don’t serve women, you just gave away any hope you had of winning this case.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    What a Nazi propaganda in USA!! People should have rights to treat everyone according to his or her birth gender refardless of individual claims and feelings. Objective truth over feelings. The West needs Christianity to obtain objective truth. What are Americans going to do to those who claim themselves to be cats and dogs? Christless Americans are doing worse than Christless Germans this century. So sad.

    • james lucas

      Not even more in the situation but a setup to make a buck. She could have just as easily gone to another salon to where there were skilled barbers who knew the business of cutting/styling a woman’s hair. The man, obviously not having the skills, was he ever sued by a woman whose haircut wasn’t satisfactory? And that being a reason to cut men’s hair? Today is a day of specialization. The specialization is supposed to give more professional and better service than just someone who just cuts off a bunch of hair because it’s too long, cuts it too short, and gets sued? Not me. I hang with the barber.
      Good move on the part of the barber. I would not just refused, I would just told her I was not available, walked out , locked up and left. If she was still lingering about the shop after an hour or so, then I would have called the cops and reported her as a “suspicious person.” It would be a clean call. Why would a person be hanging around for one or two hours not knowing when I would return? Suspicious indeed when I knew of other shops within a few blocks that did women’s hair. Yes, a good case the person was up to something devious.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        It’s too obvious that the Western Sodomites target Christians.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Nazi Americans bend the truth and other people’s clear conscience. People should keep purity before marriage and marry and have children naturally and raise them properly, unless they are monks and nuns. Rich secular nations are getting more weird each passing year and harm normal people. What a pathetic civilization the white men’s land has become when they lost the Judeo-Christian values. Truth and morality is more important than freedom. Sin is slavery. This kind of incident is a tyranny by falsehood.

    • antifasciste

      Not very rhetorically convincing of you to use a term (i.e. Nazi) in a pejorative sense when you obviously have no idea what it really means. Nothing about this story, or the people in it, implies anything remotely fascist or Nazi like.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Nazis forced the Europeans to surrender the Jews to death and made them worship Hitler. US Sodom forces people to fund infanticide and worship homosexality. Villains use the same tactics of bending the truth and people’s clear conscience. Nazi Germany and US Sodom are similar.

        • https://jimmy-console.bandcamp.com/ Jimmy Console

          Oh my Gay God! Seriously? Oh you’re one of those Scott Lively types that thing Hitler was secretly gay? Being gay has nothing to do with fascism. Nor does your gender or religion.

  • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

    From wedding cakes to buzz cuts.
    “I demand that you defile a wedding cake.”
    “I demand that you defile my hair.”
    Just when it seemed that the LGBTWKRP movement was stagnating.

    • William of Glynn

      No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. — Matthew 6:24

      • james lucas

        All so true. And next time if the barber does cut a woman’s hair, he has a sign that says that the patron approves (if it is especially a woman) and has them sign a release so that if they are even shaved bald it is legal!

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Apparently you didn’t read the story. There are no lesbians or gays involved. There is a non-gender-conforming person, but the barber took it upon himself to identify them as a woman and deny them service for that reason.

      Which is blatantly illegal under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

      • Amos Moses

        maybe he/she/it ……. i guess “it” is “gender neutral” …. should have found a “gender neutral” shop ……….. mental illness is not a civil right …….. where is that box on the BC …. the “gender neutral” box that is …… do you check both boxes to cover all the bases so that no one is offended …… also …. there is no civil right to NOT be offended as you go through life ……….

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Actually, Kendall prefers “they” or “them” and there is most definitely a civil right not to be denied service because of one’s gender.

          • Amos Moses

            Kendall can go climb a tree ………. “it” is not “gender neutral” …… no science for that to even be considered …….. unless you throw out DNA as science ….. it is mental illness ……. and not a “right” ………..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Well you can have fun dismissing the findings of the entire medical and psychiatric community all you want, but even if you were right, the barber would still be liable because Kendall was discriminated against for being a woman.

          • Amos Moses

            “dismissing the findings of the entire medical and psychiatric community all you want”

            it is always amusing to be accused of exactly what the accuser is doing ……… no science, no DNA to back up this fallacious opinion nor this persons fallacious idea of biology ………..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s not the point of the issue. The person in question was identified by the barber as female and denied service for that reason, which is illegal.

          • Amos Moses

            So What …………. if it is a barber shop for men …… then she had every right to do so ….. your confusion of “gender” to the contrary ………

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If you’re trying to say that a “barbershop for men” is something that’s allowed to exist and operate in California, and if that means that it can deny service to women, then no, it’s not, and no, it can’t.

            See above where I posted the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

          • james lucas

            Just because she was a woman, or because he found a personality problem with the patron and also lacked the skill in cutting women’s hair. Not discrimination. I rest my case.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            He said it was because she was a woman.

          • Lukes_NaNa

            The entire medical and psychiatric communities don’t unanimously agree on everything, just as climate scientists are not in unanimously agree on global warming.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No just 97% of them. And the official position of the AAP, the APA, and the AMA is that transgendered people are neurologically wired to be such. But if you have evidence refuting that, feel free to present it.

          • meamsane

            I want to be generous and call this inaccurate! On the APA website under Transgendered information:

            “Why are some people transgender?

            There is no single explanation for why some people are transgender. The
            diversity of transgender expression and experiences argues against any
            simple or unitary explanation. Many experts believe that biological
            factors such as genetic influences and prenatal hormone levels, early
            experiences, and experiences later in adolescence or adulthood may all
            contribute to the development of transgender identities.”

            There is also a similar explanation of Homosexuality on the same site. Also, on a website dealing with child psychiatry jaacap _dot_com in a 2013 follow-up study to a previous study of transgendered children, the findings show that less than 20% of these children grow up into adulthood as transgendered.

            Search: Factors associated with desistence and persistence of childhood gender dysphoria: a quantitative follow-up study.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Do you have some of your own words you want to use, or are you just going to copy and paste?

          • meamsane

            Good try at dodging! Let me remind you what you actually said:

            “No just 97% of them. And the official position of the AAP, the APA, and
            the AMA is that transgendered people are neurologically wired to be
            such. But if you have evidence refuting that, feel free to present it.” This was addressed to Lukes_NaNa.

            You made an assertion without evidence to back it up, and then made a challenge to LN to refute it with evidence. I gave you the evidence from one of the sites you mention (APA) as supporting your assertion, which is clearly false and contrary to your assertion. Now you attempt to dodge the evidence I gave by changing the subject? These are my own words. BTW, I copied and pasted your own words back at you.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Nothing in that post refutes what I said.

          • meamsane

            It obviously does!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Oh, well, I certainly can’t argue with that impeccable logic.

          • james lucas

            Tough. If they are biologically women then they can’t pose as men, I would not accepted it either. I would have walked out of the shop because I “Had an appointment I was late for.” (Like dinner with my favorite lady!!)

          • meamsane

            I happen to agree.

          • Lukes_NaNa

            And there are pediatric associations that hold the position based on research that gender dysphoria is a psychological disorder.

          • james lucas

            Good logical reasoning.

          • Lukes_NaNa

            Thank you, James. Being addressed by a gentleman is appreciated.

          • james lucas

            Not if the shop advertised as men only and that they didn’t have the skills to do women’s hair.That is NOT discrimination.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, that is not.

          • james lucas

            I would make it my rules, and scr.. the laws when I don’t have the skills to do women’s hair. They get so picky. If he was forced to cutting her hair, then make her sign a release to not come back on the barber for dis satisfaction for the work, since the barber already made it clear that he didn’t have the skills. Would you take you pet, cat or dog, to a people’s hospital? NO. They would say sorry, we treat only people. What if they refused service? Too bad, we don’t have the skills to do so.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            OK, but “animals” are not a protected class under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

        • james lucas

          If he could have stated, something like
          Sorry this is the last haircut of the day. You have to come back later, tomorrow, and make an appointment. At this time I have an appointment that is very important so I am closing as soon as I finish this client. And put the sign on the entrance door closed when they leave. And see if they hang around after you lock up and leave. If they return the same day, uh, sorry, you have to make an appointment. And there are already several ahead of you so your wait will be likely be hours.

          • Chris

            I can’t wait to have exactly that happen to a fundie Christian. Oh the cries of persecution. 🙂

      • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

        Not so. If the hat fits on your supposedly androgenous head, then wear it.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          What do you believe I got wrong?

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            You don’t know the shape of your head.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Well, there goes any hope of having an intelligent conversation about this topic.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            You’re not here for intelligent conversation, duh.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, I am, and I resent you telling me what I’m thinking.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            Ha. You prefer to ask leading questions to plainly stating your views: you want people to tell you what you’re thinking (by attempting your questions), but now you don’t – you’re telling me I nailed it.

          • james lucas

            I know what your are thinking, that it’s ok for just anyone to set something like the woman did just with an angle to make money.

          • james lucas

            There is nothing intelligent about the topic about a woman who is a “gold digger” and the whole thing was a setup from the get go.” Had I been the judge, I would have tossed the case out and recommend the woman go to a barbershop that had the skills to do a women’s hair do. No doubt about it. A setup for a quick buck.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            On what grounds should the suit be thrown out?

          • james lucas

            I think this, that you r a troll.

      • james lucas

        Not if the barber had a sign up that specifically states Men only, due to no skills to cut women’s hair, otherwise, accept service AT YOUR OWN RISK!

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Aside from the “men only” part, that’s probably legal to post.

      • Lukes_NaNa

        Seems to me, having read the article, that the barber correctly determined that She is a biological female, and because of his religious beliefs refused Her service. You do realize that biological fact states that humanity has only two sexes, male and female. Although occasionally an abberation in fetal development may occur, all humans are born a specific sex. How the woman chooses to envision herself doesn’t change her sex, that goes all the way to her DNA.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          If the person in question is definitely female, then the barber’s actions are unquestionably illegal.

    • Jenny Ondioline

      I know you want to kill gay people. You have said so here. Do you also want to kill the transgenders?

      • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

        An interesting question, but it’s moot: after the first 5 or 10 sodomites are executed, the thousands that remain will disappear as mist before the sun, and all the “transgenders” will magically recover their sanity.

        • Jenny Ondioline

          Yeah, nothing like a little hate-based coercion to get people to bow to your will.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            The whole hate approach seems to be working for the LGBTWKRP agenda.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Well Dave, after you have your justice, you will have go to work on those who work on the Sabbath, wear mixed fibers, violate dietary restrictions, and follow gods outside of what the Jewish faith.

            What’s that, you’re Christian? Well then, you too would have to be killed too according to the Old Testament.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            Having a hard time with the ceremonial law? Good news! Jesus is our meat and drink! Jesus is our Sabbath! Even Jews can leave their false gods and be saved by faith!

  • bowie1

    Good thing “they” didn’t expect the barber to have hairdresser skills!

    • james lucas

      What if the barber had cut her hair, and then she asked for a style? Yikes. Another good reason. Hair styling is an art. It goes beyond a straight hair cut. She could have asked for a style after he cut her hair, and after that, sued him because he refused due to lack of skill. A real set up. See it? Very clear in deed. A gold digger with a plan, a setup to make a buck. no doubt in my mind. How long will it be until transgenders sue their way into women’s restrooms? Then how long will a group of women get together and beat the guy bloody and leave him on the floor of the ladies room because he was caught with a camera taking pictures and movies of the women while their pants were down doing their business? Likely, not a news story, YET.

  • http://www.moonbatdan.com/ Dan

    I would not want to touch that kid’s head under any circumstances.

  • Roy Hobs

    “Sovereignty” should be removed from the dictionary and public discourse because the word doesn’t mean anything anymore. “Revolutionary War” — what a waste of dead men.

  • Michael C

    Over fifty years ago, the federal legislature passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits (among other things) public accommodations from refusing service on the basis of a customer’s sex (or race, religion, national origin, etc.).

    This customer entered this public accommodation and requested a service or product that the business regularly offers to other members of the general public. The business refused service on the basis of the customer’s sex. This type of discrimination has been illegal on the federal level for over fifty years.

    If a specific employee of the shop held religious convictions preventing them from being able to perform this service, the business must provide this employee with a reasonable accommodation for their religious beliefs. The business itself, however, would remain required to provide the customer with the advertised product or service.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      This doesn’t violate the Federal Civil Rights Act. Nothing in Title II (the relevant portion) mentions barbershops, and nothing in it can be stretched or weaseled to include them.

      It does, however, blatantly violate California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

      • Michael C

        AH! Thank you! I didn’t realize that only race, color, religion, and national origin were protected characteristics in public accommodations under the Civil Rights Act and the sex protections only pertain to employment.

        I appreciate the correction!

        • Ambulance Chaser

          That too 🙂

          And you’re welcome.

  • Amos Moses

    “gender neutral” …….. intellectualized double speak …………

    • NCOriolesFan

      more like the dumming down of human sexuality.

  • NCOriolesFan

    MEN’S barbershop, no problem here. It sells services to MEN only. There are hundreds of USA business’ that cater to a SPECIFIC clientele.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      If you mean “no problem figuring out what’s illegal here,” then yes. You are correct.

    • Michael C

      MEN’S barbershop, no problem here. It sells services to MEN only.

      Running an open-to-the-public business that only serves men is just as illegal as running a business that only serves white people.

      • NCOriolesFan

        SPECIFIC clientele is as legal as it gets.

        • Michael C

          Yeah, no.

          A business can tailor it’s offerings to attract a specific clientele, but they cannot refuse service on the basis of a customer’s race, religion, sex, national origin, etc.

          • Jason Todd

            Shapes discriminates against men. Period. You are aware of the double standard, and you embrace it.

            A club is a business if it offers memberships to the public, which Shapes does. The fact they do based on gender is illegal.

          • Michael C

            I’ve already responded to the issue of single-sex membership clubs.

            Some state non-discrimination laws permit them. It appears that Califonia law does not.

            Zero states permit barbershops to discriminate against customers on the basis of a customer’s religion, race, sex, national origin, etc.

          • Jason Todd

            How does that reflect your personal opinion?

          • Michael C

            How does that reflect your personal opinion?

            Thank you for asking me a polite question rather than making assumptions and accusing me of things.

            In general, I support laws that prohibit public accommodations from refusing service to customers on the basis of their sex. I also understand that there should be certain reasonable exemptions to these types of laws.

            Personally speaking, I believe that the purpose for operating a single sex membership gym facility is reasonable enough to warrant an exemption.

            I don’t, however, see a rational purpose for exempting hair cutting establishments from civil rights legislation. There’s no sound argument for this, in my eyes. If you’d like to offer a rational purpose for an exemption in support of hair cutting establishments, I’d be happy to entertain the idea.

          • Jason Todd

            I believe people should be able to decide for themselves whom they want to serve. At no point should the government intervene and force me to serve anyone outside my preferred clientele.

            Now, the beauty of this is a little thing called capitalism and personal choice. Back during the civil rights era, being a white man, knowing there were businesses that would serve only me because of my skin color, I do not agree with that. So I would not do business there.

            So if a barber only wants to target men for customers, fine. His survival should be dependent on who decides to patronize his shop (or not).

          • Michael C

            Had I known that you oppose all non-discrimination laws, I wouldn’t have wasted either of our time with this conversation.

            So if a barber only wants to target men for customers, fine. His survival should be dependent on who decides to patronize his shop (or not).

            This particular business owner has stated that they specifically don’t advertise their discriminatory practices because they fear that if the general public knew their policy for discrimination, it would harm their business. …so he tried to keep it a secret.

          • Marilyn Willett

            When it comes to hair there should be different salons for black or white because the hair is very different. our family is white and a black barber gave my son a terrible haircut, I just let it go, hair grows back.

          • https://jimmy-console.bandcamp.com/ Jimmy Console

            one bad apple doesn’t spoil the whole damn tree.

          • james lucas

            Don’t think so. If the barber shop does not have the persons skilled to do the black hairdos, they need to 1. Tell the patrons, sorry, we don’t have the proper skills to do justice for your haircut. 2. Get a barber that does have the skills and the experience.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “…knowing there were businesses that would serve only me because of my skin color, I do not agree with that.”

            Why wouldn’t you agree with that? You said in the very same post that you “believe people should be able to decide for themselves whom they want to serve.” You seem to be contradicting yourself right there, or maybe I’m misunderstanding you.

          • james lucas

            I know of businesses that can give or reject anyone from doing business with their business. If a business is men only then what do women have that gives them the right to barge into a men’s organization? Same for men doing the same to women’s organizations. It is a matter of selection. And those “transgender men, for example, “You have your mother’s features, but don’t forget you still have your father’s fixtures” And just having a sex change operation, don’t think you are a fem automatically. You could have God recreate you to make you a woman which would be the ONLY possible way. The pope recently made a big mistake in pronouncing two men, both born biological males, said ok and blessed the marriage because one had a sex change operation. Gees.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Yeah, no.

      • The Dove

        Hey, bozo, Shapes is a national chain of workout clubs for women only.

        You want to shut them down? Or should they be forced to admit confused effeminate men?

        You gays’ minds are warped because you know you aren’t real men.

        • Michael C

          Hey, bozo, Shapes is a national chain of workout clubs for women only.

          The Dove, That’s actually a separate discussion. Non-discrimination laws apply differently to clubs than to standard, open-to-the-public businesses. Some state laws even specifically exempt such fitness centers from their non-discrimination laws.

          I don’t believe that this barbershop operated as a club.

          Further, it doesn’t appear that these types of fitness clubs are permitted in California, anyway.

          You want to shut them down? Or should they be forced to admit confused effeminate men?

          What I want is irrelevant. We’re talking about what the law says. I wouldn’t want any business to shut down.

          Apparently, in California, fitness clubs must provide their services to confused effeminate and confused masculine men.

          You gays’ minds are warped because you know you aren’t real men.

          This topic has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Why are you bringing sexual orientation into the conversation?

      • Amos Moses

        and if i want a beehive do …. then what ……..

        • Michael C

          If you want a beehive, you patronize a business that offers that service. If you want a fade, you patronize a business that offers that service.

          #rocketscience

      • Lukes_NaNa

        So would that include obstetricians and gynecologists?

        • Michael C

          Hospitals and doctors are a different subject entirely. They’re governed by different laws.

          And no, if a man had the “bits and pieces” associated with those areas of medicine, a doctor would not be permitted to refuse service on the basis of his sex.

          • Lukes_NaNa

            A person who required such services would be a genetic female.

          • Michael C

            You’re missing the point and refusing to stay on topic.

            The medical field is governed by a different set of laws than stores, restaurants, etc.

            If you wish to make a comment or ask me a question about the subject matter of this particular article, I’m all ears.

          • Lukes_NaNa

            I’m not missing anything Michael, I am stating that this was a frivolous lawsuit by a woman who has a political agenda. No harm was done to this woman, she could have moved on and had her hair done by any number of haircutting businesses. But she wanted to make a political point and a few bucks, so she exploited an existing law. And you don’t get to play moderator.

          • Michael C

            No harm was done to this woman

            The same could be said about the four college students at the Woolworth’s lunch counter.

            she could have moved on and had her hair done by any number of haircutting businesses.

            The four college students could have just found a different restaurant that was willing to serve them.

            she wanted to make a political point…

            The same could be said about the four college students at the Woolworth’s lunch counter.

            …and a few bucks

            Do tell. What did Kendall Oliver get out of this?

            so she exploited an existing law.

            You may believe that public accommodations should be able to refuse service to customers on the basis of their sex (and/or other characteristics) but the law disagrees.

            The fair and just enforcement of a law cannot be considered exploitative.

            *edit*

            And you don’t get to play moderator.

            I wasn’t trying to tell you what you can and can’t discuss, I was only explaining that, if you want to engage me in a conversation, I expect you to remain on topic.

          • Lukes_NaNa

            You’re comparing civil rights for African Americans to getting a haircut?

          • Michael C

            I’m comparing eating lunch with getting a haircut.

            Both are mundane, everyday things that we should all be able to do without being refused service.

          • james lucas

            This wasn’t a case of discrimination, but an outlandish attempt to infringe on the rights of others. I don’t have to tolerate it. And let this be a monument to all men who hold their rights to men only. Same for women to hold their rights to women only. The only problem is a violation of a business owners rights, as the same to right to privacy,

          • james lucas

            I have another, just one comment. A business such as a barber shop has the right to refuse business, and this was NOT racially motivated nor sex discrimination. It had to do with what skills the barbershop had. What if all they did was to cut hair and someone either sex came in demanding a manicure? No skills available, just as skills not available to do justice to a black person’s hair cut, and further more, what’s a woman’s mind on here? Is it to disrupt the discrimination laws, or to test them or just being a bully to society and the rights of others? It appears to be an infringement of rights of the barber shop. Men only. Was the woman a transgender? Tough. Still a biological female and I couldn’t care less if she thought she was a man.

          • Lukes_NaNa

            Actually James, the barber stated that his religious beliefs prohibited him from touching a woman’s hair. So he is expected under the law to suspend his religious beliefs and provide the service or be charged with a crime.

          • Michael C

            …the barber stated that his religious beliefs prohibited him from touching a woman’s hair. So he is expected under the law to suspend his religious beliefs and provide the service or be charged with a crime.

            Simply put, no.

            California law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for their employee’s religious beliefs and practices. A California business would be required to allow an employee whose religious beliefs prohibit them from touching a woman’s hair to abstain from doing so as long as it didn’t cause undo hardship to the business.

            California law also prohibits businesses from refusing service to customers on the basis of the customer’s sex.

            This means that if a woman enters a barbershop requesting a hair cut no different than what the business regularly provides to other customers, the business must provide this service to this customer but cannot force an employee to violate their religious beliefs in doing so.

            It is the responsibility of the business to find a solution that accommodates their employee’s religious beliefs while still providing their services to all customers regardless of their sex.

          • Lukes_NaNa

            Look Michael, I was a teen in the late 50’s and 60’s, I watched the civil rights movement unfold on TV and read articles in newspapers and magazines, I was sympathetic. This time period saw the sexual revolution come to the forefront as well. As a Christian I was not sympathetic. The Woolworth’s lunch counter event was a sit-in to draw attention to racial discrimination, particularly in the South. It is not the same as getting a haircut unless the service was denied on racial bias.
            In the American judicial system justice is supposed to be tempered with mercy. The barber refused service because of his personal religious beliefs. The court could have taken that into consideration in his favor.
            As to my wanting women to be protected under the laws of the US and the individual states, of course I do. I want every American citizen to have freedom under the law, including religious freedom. I am a woman. As I stated previously, not all laws are good laws, and as our American Revolutionary ancestors believed, and civil rights activists believed, some times it is appropriate to break them. I realize that response can be misused if not carefully considered.
            You and I disagree, and that is that. Please don’t respond. Thanks.

          • Michael C

            Please don’t respond.

            I am responding because you are claiming that there is a problem but you’re offering no solution.

            You seem to be saying that you believe that women should be protected from discrimination. Is this true?

            If women should be protected from discrimination in public accommodations, why should it be okay for this particular business to discriminate against women?

            Do you believe that some businesses should be exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination against women? If so, which types of businesses and for what reason? This kind of exemption needs to be clearly reasoned and defined.

            If you actually hold an opinion on this matter, you should also be able to offer your ideas for a solution. Please tell me, what would be your idea of an appropriate legal solution for what you perceive to be a legal problem.

          • Darryl Lindsey

            Quit comparing the four college students at Woolworths and being black to this perversion of transgenderism. Idiot, there is no relation!

          • Michael C

            Quit comparing the four college students at Woolworths and being black to this perversion of transgenderism. Idiot, there is no relation!

            Firstly, the victim in this story is not transgender. They were not denied service on the basis of their gender identity. They were denied service on the basis of their biological sex.

            Second, I did not compare this particular incident to the entire black civil rights movement of the sixties that is, of course, still taking place even today. Discrimination on the basis of sex has a different history than discrimination on the basis of race.

            Third, the point I was arguing against was this; “[S]he could have moved on and had her hair done by any number of haircutting businesses.”

            Do you think that this is a valid justification for discrimination?

            Do you think that it should be legal for businesses to refuse service to ___ type of people if “those people” can just find somewhere else to [live, work, eat, shop, etc.]?

            Do you think that businesses should be free to refuse service to customers if those customers have other options? Do you think that Woolworth’s should be permitted to say “No, we won’t serve you but it’s okay because the lunch counter across the street willingly serves your kind”?

          • Marilyn Willett

            of course she just wanted him to go against his beliefs, she’s a man hater. and despises anything that is for traditional men.

          • james lucas

            Great post. Thanks for the enlightenment and sharing that thought.

          • james lucas

            No one is trying to play moderator. AND this is an opinion orientated discussion and I believe anyone is allowed to offer their opinion and even block the person if they disagree with anyone. No rules broken. So I suggest keep it clean and tidy.

        • james lucas

          No. Only certain type business with certain skills and professions. The medical and I can think numerous other talents would not fall into the gender related category nor the racial.

  • Per Pedersen

    It’s the US for crying out loud – everybody sues everybody for everything. Just an observation from Europe.

    This woman would have been laughed all the way out of our courtrooms.

    Is this really your biggest issues – US? Like it was under Obama?

    Get a grip and return to sanity.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Are you alleging that the barber didn’t break any law?

      • Per Pedersen

        No, but if he did, it’s a ridicoluos law, and we don’t have that in my home country.

        The law makes perfect sense i relation to race, since it has been a problem in the US back in time, and you shouldn’t be treated differently because of that.

        But today, it’s used by every person being offended – and that hurts free speech and that is the problem.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Ridiculous or not, laws have to be followed.

          • Robert

            Unjust laws are no laws at all .
            the reformer Martin Luther and Rosa Parks agreed when she kept her bus seat she probably drank out of white water fountains to.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, and she suffered the consequences for it until those laws were repealed or overturned. Has the Unruh Civil Rights Act been repealed or overturned?

          • Robert

            So according to you if some one uses force to in force than its a law. Then if they are not able to in force it at all times than it would only be a law at times they were able to in force it. No unjust laws are N.m. o laws at all be they inforced or not. Rosa Parks broke no laws when she kept her seat or drank from white only fountains.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Other than your last sentence–which is false–I don’t know what any of that means.

            Rosa Parks absolutely broke the law. She violated Chapter 6, Section 11 of the Montgomery City Code, which required black passengers to give up their seats on buses when white passengers wanted to sit down. That law was later ruled unconstitutional in Browder v. Gayle.

          • Robert

            Breaking unjust laws is not breaking laws.if it were than Rosa Parks would have to ” repent for keeping her seat “on the bus or repent if she ever drank out of water fountains for white people only., no people including her have enough teal laws to repent for breaking we don’t need to start repenting for.fake unjust laws to

          • Lukes_NaNa

            Would you acknowledge that Mrs. Park’s refusal to move to the back of the bus assisted in the ruling of unconstitutionality?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Maybe, but very little. Only as a soft influence, to help put a face on the movement. She wasn’t a party to the federal case.

          • Per Pedersen

            Off course you’re right IF all are equal before the law.

            Unfortunately nowadays laws are in many cases used to push a specific agenda. E.g. in my country, if you say something bad about a muslim, you will be prosecuted. If you say exactly the same word for word about a christian, you will not be prosecuted.

            And the example at hand is a clear cut example of pushing an agenda, namely the transgender agenda. She is making a statement and using the law for that.

            Also you have the interpretation of the law. As you know, not all verdicts are unanimously. 3 judges can vote one way and 2 others can vote the other way, so there are room for flexibility per the specific case.

            And finally – I hope your’re saying exactly the same things to all those that are challenging the validity of Donald Trumps presidency? After all, election law must be followed – right?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “And the example at hand is a clear cut example of pushing an agenda, namely the transgender agenda. She is making a statement and using the law for that.”

            Irrelevant, since following the law is mandatory regardless of why the person bringing the suit against you is bringing it. And also irrelevant, because the person in this case was denied service for being a woman. Their gender disphoryia played no role in any of the proceedings.

            “Also you have the interpretation of the law. As you know, not all verdicts are unanimously. 3 judges can vote one way and 2 others can vote the other way, so there are room for flexibility per the specific case.”

            In which case, the opinion of the 3 judges is the official interpretation and must be followed, unless repealed or overturned by a higher court.

            “And finally – I hope your’re saying exactly the same things to all those that are challenging the validity of Donald Trumps presidency? After all, election law must be followed – right?”

            Who is challenging the validity of Trump’s presidency? If there is someone, then they are alleging that the Trump campaign broke some law, in which case, Trump is the one who should be punished.

          • Per Pedersen

            It is not irrelevant in the sense of using the law, it might be irrelevant to the verdict, since the verdict should follow the law.

            And please don’t tell me the law is not used differently, I have just given one example. So if some crimes are prosecuted and others not, the law is used selectively and herein lies the problem and danger for the democracy.

            Re. Trump: Really? You haven’t heard of any questioning the validity of Trumps presidency?? It has been on going since the election. “Clinton won the popular vote, hence Trump is not the legal president”, in casu they do not respect the election law with electorates.

            What do you say to these people?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Re. Trump: Really? You haven’t heard of any questioning the validity of Trumps presidency?? It has been on going since the election. “Clinton won the popular vote, hence Trump is not the legal president”, in casu they do not respect the election law with electorates.
            What do you say to these people?”

            That they need to familiarize themselves better with the Constitution. Until we get rid of the ridiculous, disenfranchising, unrepresentative electoral college, the one who wins the electoral vote is the validly-elected President. Too bad, sad.

            I suppose we could. Get rid of Trump’s election ex post facto, if some court somewhere ruled that the EC was unconstitutional, but no court has, so we’re stuck with him as long as he’d like to continue using the Oval Office as his personal childish retribution dispenser.

          • Per Pedersen

            Ridiculous or not – law is law as you mention, and then you go about how to get rid of Trump by using the law system again. Very nice and just confirms my view of the law is used selectively and politically.

            God bless Trump and his presidency.

            I rest my case. Thanks for the ping pong.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t know what point you think you’re making. What do you mean by “the law is used selectively and politically?”

          • Chet

            Why the hate, Dude?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Anyone who says Trump is not the legal president because he didn’t win the popular vote just doesn’t know what they’re talking about. I’m with Ambulance Chaser on this one, I think we should get rid of the electoral college as well, but I do recognize it is the way the system operates. However unjust I think it is, I recognize that is the law.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Wow, it’s almost as if we had a system in which individuals don’t get to unilaterally decide which laws they’re going to follow! No matter how they personally feel about them!

          • Chet

            “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”…

        • james lucas

          What country are you from? Make a lot of sense.

          • Per Pedersen

            Denmark the home of the Vikings. 😉

      • Robert

        He broke no laws
        If he did he would have to repent for it.
        Unjust laws are not laws at all. Martin Luther

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Well, no, if you want to go ahead and redefine words to suit your own needs, you can make whatever you want to be true.

          Back here on Earth, laws are laws, regardless of how you feel about them. If you break the law, there will be consequences. You can move to dismiss, and appeal, or persuade your representatives to repeal it, or create a referendum where the people vote to repeal it, but you can’t simply declare a law “unjust” and expect to be excused from obeying it.

      • Per Pedersen

        Oh, and just another comment – NO he didn’t break the law. In order to break a law you need to be found or plea guilty. And since he made a settlement, we’ll never know if he broke the law or not. You know, a person is innocent until proven guilty, also in these cases.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          This isn’t a criminal case. The standard is liability, not guilty and you don’t “plead” to anything.

          Anyway, I was asking your opinion, not what the official law of the case was.

      • james lucas

        No just law, and very likely to change under Mr. Trump. If not in four years, then in eight. I think he is on the right track and the biological, as reported on their BIRTH certificate will be the only legal means to determine their sex. Not being biased, just reasonable.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Ignoring evidence-based science is not reasonable, nor is thinking that Trump has an impact on California laws.

        • Bob Johnson

          The sex on the birth certificate would not matter in this case. This is a case about not servicing 50% of the public when they request a service that your business provides.

    • Robert

      You tell counter fit money by studying real money same with laws. You can tell the counterfit fake unjust laws by studying Gods real laws.

    • james lucas

      I think and it is my hope under our new president that this crazy ideas will be forced out the door. And those who don’t like it, just go away. Find a deserted island where these crazies can set up their own government and sue each other. And so, America, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. ( us military vet)
      How did our country get so perverted?

      • usorthem3

        Coward huh?

        • james lucas

          And what did you mean by that funny man?

  • Scott Davenport

    Oh well, partner….God may not be so receptive to your explanation, but hey, the perverts are more important than our eternal souls, right???

  • John

    I smell a real-live publicity ho, as all these people are. There are plenty of barber shops in my area, and the only time you see a woman in one is if she’s accompanying her son. I can’t imagine any woman being dopey enough to walk into one and demand a cut, but the response would be a courteous “Sorry, we only do men’s hair here.” These sickos are drama queens, running around looking for confrontations where they can play the Victim Game, just like the slobs who target Christian bakeries.

    • Lukes_NaNa

      You’re absolutely correct, this woman had an agenda. Otherwise she would have gone to another barber. And now she has a tidy sum to support her for a while, plus a few speaking engagements for a few extra bucks and some groupies.

      • james lucas

        If I were the judge, I would have thrown the case out of court. The man should have counter sued for invasion of privacy and got rid of the b…. and prevented other crazies for the attempt.

        • Bob Johnson

          How can you be a barbershop “open to the public” and then claim “invasion of privacy”?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          On what grounds would you “throw the case out of court?”

  • Croquet_Player

    Open a business to the public, serve the public.

    • Radix

      So simple, it must’ve been posted by a simpleton.

      • Croquet_Player

        Name calling. The refuge of those with no argument.

        • Radix

          You sound like some old maid.
          If you don’t like my posts, click Block and you won’t see them.

  • Gold Eagle

    I wonder if she plans to sue her doctor because he refuses to check her prostate?

    • Michael C

      If she had a prostate and her doctor refused to check it, I’m sure she would sue them… and win.

      In this case, she had hair. The same kind of hair that the barbershop normally cuts.

      • james lucas

        You and others don’t seem to get the idea. What if working on American cars is your specialty. But what if someone brings in a Rolls? I wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. I know nothing about them, and don’t have access to parts, and hey, I don’t even know if I have all the tools I need to do it, not to mention the skills. I rest my case.

        • Michael C

          What if working on American cars is your specialty. But what if someone brings in a Rolls?

          To correct your analogy, Oliver brought a Chevy into a shop that specializes in American cars.

          Oliver’s hair is no different than the hair of other customers served by this business. Oliver requested a hair style no different than what the business offered to other customers. Oliver was refused service on the basis of their sex. Not because the barber didn’t know how to cut Oliver’s hair.

          If Oliver asked the barber for a bouffant, then perhaps your analogy would make sense.

    • james lucas

      If she is posing as a man? Then she/he/it would have to prove she/he/it had a prostate!! Oh, I love it!

  • balloonknot9

    This whole situation is stupid beyond belief. A person comes in for a hair cut, and the person refuses to give one. It’s a head of hair, just give the customer a cut. The reason there are male barber shops is because they are not equipped to offer the full range of women’s hair offerings including coloring, perms, etc. If someone was coming in looking to get what service is provided, then provide the service. It’s rather funny, there really are no female only salons, and if a male came in looking for what ever service he would receive it. No one is asking the Barber to do something that he does not offer, or would not do for any other customer. Common sense people, common decency, and do your jobs for customers.

  • Lukes_NaNa

    No harm was done to this woman, she could have gone on to another barbershop or any of the many, many hair cutting chains that are unisex. Interesting that she insisted on this particular shop doing her hair.

    • Michael C

      Why did they have to eat at Woolworth’s?

      • Croquet Player

        Is that where you get your hair buzzed? Woolworth’s?

        Too stupid to know the difference between a barber and a dime store.

        • Michael C

          Feel free to use your google machine.

          Why would someone force a Woolworth’s lunch counter to serve them when they could have just gone somewhere else.

          • Darryl Lindsey

            Because nowhere in the south where whites were served could blacks be served. They would have most likely got the same rejection everywhere. Woolworth most likely was a well known establishment in that era. I remember that establishment as a child and preteen.

          • Michael C

            Those people should just stick with their own kind and eat at their own restaurants” is not an acceptable way to operate a public accommodation. It hasn’t been for a very long time.

          • Akotee

            Because Blacks were affected by institutional Racism Period! And comparing what blacks went through to a Sexual preference is ignorant. And it’s also sneaky way to try to legitimize Forcing a lifestyle on people. According to your twisted logic, we should have to accept bestiality, pedophilia, and any other deviant behavior because of the very real discrimination and brutality blacks went through. Which has nothing to do sexual deviancy. No one is denying homosexuals the right to use the bathroom, not to eat and drink anywhere they want. Even though they’ve been locked out the Economy to creare their own business. When Blacks did create their own, they were destroyed and burned to the ground “Black Wall Street” wasn’t an isolated horror. I don’t see police dogs being put on homosexuals, or lynchings. There is no merits to homosexuality, it brings nothing to Society. Which is why they the struggles of women, Blacks, Jews and anything you can grab to push your Sick Agenda.

          • Michael C

            And comparing what blacks went through to a Sexual preference is ignorant… Forcing a lifestyle… According to your twisted logic, we should have to accept bestiality, pedophilia, and any other deviant behavior… No one is denying homosexuals… There is no merits to homosexuality…

            What are you talking about?!

            Is Kendall Oliver even gay? I have no idea, and nor do you.

            The customer was denies service at the barbershop because they are female. Not because they’re gay or transgender. This customer isn’t transgender and I don’t know whether or not Kendall is gay.

          • Akotee

            She said she identifies as a Man, she said she’s gender queer, queer was always homosexual since homosexuals have took that term. She pushed the issue because she’s a homosexual. The woman who was denied before her, moved on and went elsewhere. But just like a homosexual Kendall had to Force herself on others. And if homosexuality has nothing to do with this issue, why is she sharing all the titles, male/female/gender queer, identify as a man in this the story at all? Also you’re the one who brought up Race in comparison to this story. Why didn’t you use the Women’s Suffrage Movement? Because homosexuals are so used to using Blacks and Christians to push their polluted lifestyle on Society.

          • Michael C

            Discrimination in public accommodations wasn’t really a component of the U.S. Women’s Suffrage Movement.

            Perhaps that community ed program also offers courses in U.S. history.

          • Akotee

            Discrimination based on Race had Nothing to do with this fake case. Institutionalized Racism was nothing like a person Choosing to be a queer or whatever they want to call themselves. Should could pretty much jusr dress like a woman and no one would know what she’s making beliving she is today…(A They)? But everyone expected to play along with her fantasy. This woman could have gone anywhere to get a haircut, homosexuals are accepted just about everywhere. She was pushing her agenda. I hope Trump just dismantles all these fake “laws” based on people’s incorrect perceptions of themselves, being Forced on everyone, including innocent children.

          • Michael C

            … a queer or whatever they want to call themselves. Should could pretty much just dress like a woman and no one would know what she’s making believing she is today… This woman could have gone anywhere… hope Trump just dismantles all these fake “laws”… Forced on everyone, including innocent children.

            Perhaps you should read the article again because you’re woefully confusing all of the very simple facts.

            1) The barber is using Oliver’s sex as the reason for discrimination. This situation has nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender identity. Open-to-the-public businesses cannot refuse service to women.

            2) Oliver is not transgender. Nowhere is it claimed that the discrimination was based on Oliver’s gender identity. Nowhere does Oliver claim to be a transgender man.

            3) Just because there may be another barbershop around that would be willing to serve Oliver doesn’t mean that this barbershop is permitted to refuse service on the basis of Oliver’s sex. As I was saying above, this type of “I don’t have to serve you because the restaurant across the street serves your kind” argument is not an acceptable excuse for discrimination.

            4) Not everything you dislike is “fake” regardless of what they’re telling you over at wnd, breitbart, and infowars.

            5) You don’t seem to understand the limits of the powers of the office of the President. Perhaps there’s a local community ed. junior high level civics class offered in your area.

            Lastly, non-discrimination laws are not forced on children unless those children are also business owners.

          • Akotee

            This Story has Homosexual Agenda written all over it. First she said she identify’s as a man which is why she wanted “Him” to cut her hair. She also calls herself “Genderqueer”, and “They”. She can identify as anything she wants it doesn’t make her that, but Black people Are Black. You need to learn how to read because She could have gone elsewhere. Black people couldn’t because racism was institutionalized into “law”. Also the Obama Administration had no right to say anything about Homosexual “marriage”. And the Supreme Court can’t make Laws it can only Interpret them. Therefore, the whole Homosexual “marriage” thing being Forced on the People is Un-Constitutional. You’re the one who needs a Class in the Constitution and evidently you need one in Biology and respect for the Rights of others. This woman actually went home and called harassing this man, in spite of the fact, she had thousands of places she could have gone to get a hair cut. All Trump is doing is restoring the Rights of those who are being harmed by the twisted, Homosexual Agenda.

          • Michael C

            It’s apparent that English isn’t your first language so I’ll try to be as clear in my explanation as I can.

            It is illegal for public accommodations to refuse service on the basis of a customer’s sex.

            In this case, the barbershop told the customer “We don’t serve women here.”

            Any talk of sexual orientation or gender identity is irrelevant to this clear cut case of discrimination against a woman.

          • Akotee

            Clearly you’re using Deceptive to prove your non-point. She never identified as a woman. And where is it a law that because you specialize you’re in violation of the law? Muslims can’t be forced to provide Pork just because a Customer request it. These fake laws have become so ridiculous you have men suing gynecologist because they refuse to treat them. If this has nothing to do with homosexuality why is it even in story.
            And speak for yourself this women is clearly a homosexual.

          • Akotee

            Your gender confused take, on the so called law, is the only thing that needs to be questioned here. A business is free to specialize. The interpretation of law for the gender confused is the issue. If I was a Senior Citizen and wanted to play for the NFL, I’m sure I couldn’t, are they discriminating against me? But in the World of the Gender Confused, they jump on what ever side of the Law they choose, like the Choose their Gender and it’s supposed to support them. You’re double speak is hilarious. Just like deceptive, manipulation you use, to cover the fact that you yourself are a homosexual and that’s the only Agenda you’re promoting here.

      • Darryl Lindsey

        Because Woolworths was the Walmart of that era. To eat there brought national attention to a major chain.

  • Marilyn Willett

    ”we are relieved they are not using religion” [Christianity] but if it was a muslim we would have to accept their religious views..

    • Michael C

      Muslim Americans are bound by the same laws as you or I.

  • Nofun

    Someone who can’t get a date with either sex, so she’s mad at the world.

  • Max Tovar

    What is wrong with the writer? The article sounds almost like if it justifies discrimination and persecution against christians. Not helpful.

    • Chris

      Are you suggesting that Christians persecuting others is ok?

  • Chet

    The USA is become absolutely LGMECRZ insane!

  • nineleven

    all businesses should be able to serve who they want to serve. This cuts both ways, pun intended. if its a men’s barbershop and they want to only serve men, so be it. Do you all remember that famous seen in the original Star Wars where go to a Mos Eisley cantina and the owner says “we don’t serve their kind” as in we dont serve “droids”. How insensitive…

    • Michael C

      all businesses should be able to serve who they want to serve.

      Non-discrimination laws pertaining to public accommodations have existed for decades.The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 is over fifty years old.

      If you wish to see these state and federal laws repealed, you can contact your local representatives.

  • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

    Good for Kendall. We need to fight tax-supported bigotry wherever we find it. The barber shop was open to the public (licenced by a government entity supported by taxes), engaging in open commerce for the purpose of cutting hair in a manner that men like and the barbers are trained to cut. She wanted that style of haircut. Nothing at all wrong with that.

  • torir

    I’m really glad Rosa Parks broke the law. I sure wish the barbershop man could have seen fit to continue breaking the law. Some bullies just need to be stopped.