MI Salon Owner "Bans" Trans, Etc. She Is Wrong.

[SweetSue92]

This is the kind of discrimination that is wrong and, if I understand the SC ruling correctly, unlawful. She is doing people's hair and is open to the public. This does not involve speech on her part. In fact, there is no reason at all for her to endorse these folks' sexuality in using her speech. She is coloring and cutting their hair. Unless you want to be completely untamed I guess, everyone needs their hair tended.

A hair salon owner in Michigan has vowed to ban certain members of the LGBTQ+ community who specify their pronouns, saying they are 'not welcome' at her salon.

'If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,' Studio 8 Hair Lab owner Christine Geiger wrote on Facebook.

Geiger wrote that she was simply exercising her right to 'free speech' as well as her ability as a business owner to 'refuse services' to certain customers.

Hair salon owner vows to ban customers who specify their pronouns

 

[1srelluc]

'If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,'

 

[elektra]

Cutting hair is Art, Art is an expression of free speech

 

[Blaster]

This is the kind of discrimination that is wrong and, if I understand the SC ruling correctly, unlawful. She is doing people's hair and is open to the public. This does not involve speech on her part. In fact, there is no reason at all for her to endorse these folks' sexuality in using her speech. She is coloring and cutting their hair. Unless you want to be completely untamed I guess, everyone needs their hair tended.

A hair salon owner in Michigan has vowed to ban certain members of the LGBTQ+ community who specify their pronouns, saying they are 'not welcome' at her salon.

'If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,' Studio 8 Hair Lab owner Christine Geiger wrote on Facebook.

Geiger wrote that she was simply exercising her right to 'free speech' as well as her ability as a business owner to 'refuse services' to certain customers.

Hair salon owner vows to ban customers who specify their pronouns

It is her business and she can service whomever she wants.

 

[1srelluc]

Cutting hair is Art, Art is an expression of free speech

Well some folks look like their hair was done by a common carrier.

That said hair-cutting is a art.

Haircutting- An Art - Godiva Salon

Haircutting is an art. Many people cut hair, but few master the art of haircutting. To become a master haircutter is to understand and practice the fundamentals, principles, and concepts that both limit and produce predictable, desirable results. With all due respect, most stylists cut...

godivasalon.com

 

[Blues Man]

This is the kind of discrimination that is wrong and, if I understand the SC ruling correctly, unlawful. She is doing people's hair and is open to the public. This does not involve speech on her part. In fact, there is no reason at all for her to endorse these folks' sexuality in using her speech. She is coloring and cutting their hair. Unless you want to be completely untamed I guess, everyone needs their hair tended.

A hair salon owner in Michigan has vowed to ban certain members of the LGBTQ+ community who specify their pronouns, saying they are 'not welcome' at her salon.

'If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,' Studio 8 Hair Lab owner Christine Geiger wrote on Facebook.

Geiger wrote that she was simply exercising her right to 'free speech' as well as her ability as a business owner to 'refuse services' to certain customers.

Hair salon owner vows to ban customers who specify their pronouns

Either a business owner can deny service for any reason or he can't.

You have to pick one.

If some religious nut says he can't do business with gays because of religion then people should be able to refuse service to religious people if they want to.

If a hairdresser doesn't want to do business with people she thinks are delusional what's the big deal?

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Well some folks look like their hair was done by a common carrier.

That said hair-cutting is a art.

Haircutting- An Art - Godiva Salon

Haircutting is an art. Many people cut hair, but few master the art of haircutting. To become a master haircutter is to understand and practice the fundamentals, principles, and concepts that both limit and produce predictable, desirable results. With all due respect, most stylists cut...

godivasalon.com

i would only cut wimmens hair from 18-40...height and weight proportinate

absolutely no pink or orange, etc hairs....no staple faces

 

[Resnic]

This is the kind of discrimination that is wrong and, if I understand the SC ruling correctly, unlawful. She is doing people's hair and is open to the public. This does not involve speech on her part. In fact, there is no reason at all for her to endorse these folks' sexuality in using her speech. She is coloring and cutting their hair. Unless you want to be completely untamed I guess, everyone needs their hair tended.

A hair salon owner in Michigan has vowed to ban certain members of the LGBTQ+ community who specify their pronouns, saying they are 'not welcome' at her salon.

'If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,' Studio 8 Hair Lab owner Christine Geiger wrote on Facebook.

Geiger wrote that she was simply exercising her right to 'free speech' as well as her ability as a business owner to 'refuse services' to certain customers.

Hair salon owner vows to ban customers who specify their pronouns

It isn't as though that's the only place to get your hair done. The trannies can go somewhere else or even open their own tranny hair salon. There are plenty of other businesses they can go to.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/supreme-court-303-creative-lgbtq-rights-colorado/index.html

“Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” she wrote.

So it isn't one sided. The fags and trannies are free to ban straight christians from their businesses as well. So it's equal and fair for both sides.

Don't like it? Don't go there.

If I owned a business I wouldn't want fags and trannies there either.

 

[SweetSue92]

Cutting hair is Art, Art is an expression of free speech

You are creating art on top of someone's head. That's like the cake baker who said he would provide anyone--gay, straight etc--with birthday, retirement or other cakes and baked goods. He ONLY objected to wedding cakes for gay people because he opposes gay MARRIAGE.

Along those lines:

If the salon owner was asked to lend her talents for hairstyles for a gay wedding she would be in her rights to refuse.

But just to refuse gay people as a class? No.

 

[SweetSue92]

It is her business and she can service whomever she wants.

You say so. The law does not.

 

[SweetSue92]

i would only cut wimmens hair from 18-40...height and weight proportinate

absolutely no pink or orange, etc hairs....no staple faces

How old are you?

How do you know young women would go to your shop?

 

[SweetSue92]

Either a business owner can deny service for any reason or he can't.

You have to pick one.

If some religious nut says he can't do business with gays because of religion then people should be able to refuse service to religious people if they want to.

If a hairdresser doesn't want to do business with people she thinks are delusional what's the big deal?

I don't have to pick one, actually. That's the law. And that's the recent Supreme Court ruling.

 

[SweetSue92]

It isn't as though that's the only place to get your hair done. The trannies can go somewhere else or even open their own tranny hair salon. There are plenty of other businesses they can go to.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/supreme-court-303-creative-lgbtq-rights-colorado/index.html

“Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” she wrote.

So it isn't one sided. The fags and trannies are free to ban straight christians from their businesses as well. So it's equal and fair for both sides.

Don't like it? Don't go there.

If I owned a business I wouldn't want fags and trannies there either.

Except that's not what the ruling said, nor what it was based on.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

How old are you?

How do you know young women would go to your shop?

i was just teasing....lol......................my wife is a professional make up artist and stylist so i know the biz......chuckle

 

[XponentialChaos]

This was inevitable.

The baker doesn't have to bake the cake, the florist doesn't need to serve Republicans, and the salon owner doesn't need to serve trans people.

It's ridiculous and petty. But it's at least consistent and fair.

 

[SweetSue92]

This was inevitable.

The baker doesn't have to bake the cake, the florist doesn't need to serve Republicans, and the salon owner doesn't need to serve trans people.

It's ridiculous and petty. But it's at least consistent and fair.

I don't think it's that difficult to understand.

You can't force people to speechify on that to which they're morally opposed or create things for EVENTS which violate their religious beliefs.

That is fair, all the way around. So the Muslim doesn't have to bake a cake with a picture of Mohammad on it, and a Jew doesn't have to bake a cake for a Nazi rally.

Just banning groups of people because you don't like them or disagree with them is what's wrong.

Either a lot of people are frankly too stupid to understand this OR

They are playing stupid.

 

[Blaster]

You say so. The law does not.

Fuck the law.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Fuck the law.

Sweet Sue is right; you are not.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I don't think it's that difficult to understand.

You can't force people to speechify on that to which they're morally opposed or create things for EVENTS which violate their religious beliefs.

That is fair, all the way around. So the Muslim doesn't have to bake a cake with a picture of Mohammad on it, and a Jew doesn't have to bake a cake for a Nazi rally.

Just banning groups of people because you don't like them or disagree with them is what's wrong.

Either a lot of people are frankly too stupid to understand this OR

They are playing stupid.

Whether it's morally "wrong" is subjective. I agree it's stupid and petty, not to mention terrible for business, but it's not illegal.

Who is to say which moral convictions are valid and which ones aren't? That's the slippery slope that I warned you people about with the cake ruling. A Muslim doesn't have to bake a cake with a picture of Mohammad and neither does a Democrat need to serve a Republican. We can't say that one is justified while the other isn't. It's ultimately up to them so long as they aren't breaking the law, which they aren't.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is the kind of discrimination that is wrong and, if I understand the SC ruling correctly, unlawful. She is doing people's hair and is open to the public. This does not involve speech on her part. In fact, there is no reason at all for her to endorse these folks' sexuality in using her speech. She is coloring and cutting their hair. Unless you want to be completely untamed I guess, everyone needs their hair tended.

A hair salon owner in Michigan has vowed to ban certain members of the LGBTQ+ community who specify their pronouns, saying they are 'not welcome' at her salon.

'If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,' Studio 8 Hair Lab owner Christine Geiger wrote on Facebook.

Geiger wrote that she was simply exercising her right to 'free speech' as well as her ability as a business owner to 'refuse services' to certain customers.

Hair salon owner vows to ban customers who specify their pronouns

Why is it wrong?

Cutting hair is a fine art and an expression of the hair stylist