johnny_7713 wrote: Its all very well to say that the people being discriminated against are a new market, and thus the invisible hand will solve everything, but that's not really true:
Consider a small town (say 300-500 people) with say 10 black people living there and only 1 baker. If the baker refuses to sell bread to black people, then sure there is an opportunity for someone else to sell bread to them. Its not exactly a profitable opportunity though, so the end result will be that the black people are unable to buy bread.
I'm having trouble imagining a population that isn't approximately half female. So that particular example isn't very good.
I realize in the past women in the U.S. have somehow been discriminated against to a large degree (no voting rights, etc), and their is still some on a smaller scale (wages, etc). But it's not like it will be much harder for
them to get haircuts. Apparently they do have to pay more, though, so there is a real problem here.
(And they get refused service at some places, apparently, even when wanting buzz cuts... which is unfortunate, but men suffer the same style of discrimination here.)
If the man in question just means "men's style haircuts", then obviously there is no problem. Pretty much most Muslims I knew well would be okay with touching hair of the opposite sex.
However, I'm arguing that even if he would refuse to service women based on cultural/religious beliefs about appropriate sexual behavior, a man who is sensitive to sexism issues refusing to go there would contribute to isolation and segregation of the cultures, which is a bad thing.
Especially since we allow "men only" and "women only" restrooms, showers, sports, etc. He should be allowed to draw the line in a different place. It's a form of "separate but equal", yes. But I don't think it is bad enough to be worth a boycott.