Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute, [3]
A barbershop that is set up specifically to serve men, must now pay $750 dollars [4] after a Pennsylvania state investigation into "discriminatory" practices on the part of the barbershop owners.
The owner, John Interval, was fined $750 after he declined to cut a woman's hair. According to Interval:
"I didn’t really consider it so much a discrimination thing as – it’s a barbershop... for guys. You know, I’m not opposed to doing women’s hair...just not in this shop. I don’t even have [the equipment] to do women’s hair." Interval said.
The potential customer, who was forced to endure the hardship of finding an establishment that cuts women's hair, filed a complaint with the state, and following a taxpayer-funded investigation and interview period with the barbershop owners, the state levied a fine against the shop.
The shop will pay the fine, of course, because to refuse to pay would likely bring armed government agents to the establishment to serve further warrants and additional methods of state coercion including fines, lawsuits, and possible imprisonment and/or impoverishment for the owner.
An alternative to this, of course, would be to allow shop owners to dispose of their own private property as they see fit [5]. In the United States however, a business agreement (i.e., a verbal or written contract) does not require the consent of both parties. Instead, state and federal governments employ armies of government agents to force private individuals to enter into contracts where only one party has consented to participate.
Thus, in this manner, the government carries out its essential role in mandating hair cuts (or cake baking [6], or wedding photography) under threat of fines and other penalties.
