Those details make a difference, and should really be represented in this article.

See... that detail matters, and should be in the main body of this article

All good points. Can’t argue with you. Sometimes I just spitball my thoughts on a subject without thinking through all of the angles. I appreciate the comment.

That’s actually sort of sweet, in a weird way.

Hmmmm.... Ugh... Yea, I got nothin. Is there a religion that bans 3 hour long meetings? Because I’ll sign up today!! lol

I don’t know either.

hmmm. I agree that the issues are very different, and I like your points.

I hadn’t considered that. Who knows. Perhaps. That would change how I feel.

Roger that. Yeah, the law is the law. I mean more from an ethical perspective. I’m not inclined to buy into “slippery slope” arguments. In the salon case, it makes sense to me that some people (male, female, trans, cis, etc) may feel more comfortable beautifying in the safety of their own gender. Kind of like how…

Listen, I like Hilary, and I would vote for her in a heartbeat over Donald “Shitstain” Trump, but this is serious business.

In a world full of barber shops, salons and hair cutteries, I don’t think there is any huge problem with some places only serving men, and some places only serving women.

That about perfectly sums up my views on this subject

Listen, as a person who finds religion problematic, I am inclined to agree with you... But the airline specifically agreed to accomodate her superstitious beliefs and then reneged. That makes this their fault.

The fault lies with the airline. If her religious restrictions were unworkable, they shouldn’t have hired her to begin with. By promising to make concessions for her and then reneging, they were setting her up for failure.