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

[toobfreak]

This is the kind of discrimination that is wrong and, if I understand the SC ruling correctly, unlawful.

Why? Ever see a store that had a sign in the window that said "No shirt, No shoes, No business?" Are you livid about that discrimination as well? It is their business and they have the right to serve or not serve whoever they chose and it doesn't sound to me like the business has any problem serving trannies because they are gay, they just don't like having this pronoun BS shoved down their throats.

Funny how six years ago Trump supporters were getting banned from stores and refused service, even assaulted just for wearing the red ball cap and nobody raised a fuss.

 

[Hellbilly]

A band plays what the people want to hear or else they don't get gigs

That's true for some bands. One of the bands I play with gets complimented quite often because we don't play the usual stuff. We play tunes that people know but weren't expecting to hear.

 

[SweetSue92]

He makes wedding cakes.

If he makes a cake for one wedding then he has to make cakes for all weddings.

Says who? Not the Supreme Court.

 

[SweetSue92]

Why? Ever see a store that had a sign in the window that said "No shirt, No shoes, No business?" Are you livid about that discrimination as well? It is their business and they have the right to serve or not serve whoever they chose and it doesn't sound to me like the business has any problem serving trannies because they are gay, they just don't like having this pronoun BS shoved down their throats.

Funny how six years ago Trump supporters were getting banned from stores and refused service, even assaulted just for wearing the red ball cap and nobody raised a fuss.

Because shoes and shirt is a hygiene issue. Anyone can put on a shirt and shoes. It's not fundamentally discriminatory.

And your last point--exactly right, which is why I'm baffled my fellow conservatives and especially conservative Christians are so quick to jump on the "Hey yeah, anyone can discriminate against the outgroup at any time for any reason!". Everyone: it would be us. We might refuse to bake wedding cakes for them. THEY will refuse to feed us or supply us with power. Hello?

 

[Blues Man]

Says who? Not the Supreme Court.

Funny how you agree with SCOTUS when it suits you.

 

[Blues Man]

Because shoes and shirt is a hygiene issue. Anyone can put on a shirt and shoes. It's not fundamentally discriminatory.

And your last point--exactly right, which is why I'm baffled my fellow conservatives and especially conservative Christians are so quick to jump on the "Hey yeah, anyone can discriminate against the outgroup at any time for any reason!". Everyone: it would be us. We might refuse to bake wedding cakes for them. THEY will refuse to feed us or supply us with power. Hello?

You should be supporting people who deny religious nuts service.

 

[SweetSue92]

Funny how you agree with SCOTUS when it suits you.

Unintentionally hilarious.

Because yeah, that's what reasonable, thinking people do. Last time I checked, no human being--elected, SCOTUS, whatever--was infallible. So yeah, I agree with them sometimes, and disagree other times. WHOA. Imagine that. lol

 

[SweetSue92]

You should be supporting people who deny religious nuts service.

You've lost your mind, haven't you?

My stance is consistent: no service should be denied to anyone because of their characteristics. Not gay. Not Christian. Not "tranny". Not white, black, or brown.

But on the basis of speech or even events, yes. So again for the 500th time: no one should refuse to feed a gay person a meal at their restaurant. But if that gay person requests the restaurant to cater their gay wedding--they should be able to refuse that event if morally opposed.

How is this difficult?

 

[SweetSue92]

Funny how you agree with SCOTUS when it suits you.

I just can't get over this comment.

Definitely an all-time, USMB favorite.

 

[toobfreak]

Because shoes and shirt is a hygiene issue.

Not buying it Sue. The bottoms of someone's foot is probably less dirty than the rubber sole of a shoe, and I've always seen such restrictions more of a cosmetic thing, a consideration for the clientele, like some restaurants requiring a tie.

Anyone can put on a shirt and shoes. It's not fundamentally discriminatory.

Anyone can go by a normal he/her pronoun more easily, too, if they want to get service in the salon. Much harder to put on shoes and shirts that you did not come with wearing on you.

And your last point--exactly right, which is why I'm baffled my fellow conservatives and especially conservative Christians are so quick to jump on the "Hey yeah, anyone can discriminate against the outgroup at any time for any reason!".

I'm not saying that at all. Chasing someone, assaulting and spitting at them just because they wear a red MAGA cap is a lot more discriminatory and hateful than simply saying that you just don't want to be forced to accept using a pronoun that your whole life and every fiber in your body tells you doesn't make sense and offends you in forcing you to accept a crazy lifestyle.

 

[Moonglow]

I grow my hair long and do not need a bitch to cut my hair.

 

[SweetSue92]

Not buying it Sue. The bottoms of someone's foot is probably less dirty than the rubber sole of a shoe, and I've always seen such restrictions more of a cosmetic thing, a consideration for the clientele, like some restaurants requiring a tie.


Anyone can go by a normal he/her pronoun more easily, too, if they want to get service in the salon. Much harder to put on shoes and shirts that you did not come with wearing on you.


I'm not saying that at all. Chasing someone, assaulting and spitting at them just because they wear a red MAGA cap is a lot more discriminatory and hateful than simply saying that you just don't want to be forced to accept using a pronoun that your whole life and every fiber in your body tells you doesn't make sense and offends you in forcing you to accept a crazy lifestyle.

So your last point also addresses free speech and I agree with you. In your place of business you should be able to refer to people however you want. I don't agree with laws that would make "wrong pronoun use" illegal or whatever. If the customers don't like the pronoun usage, go elsewhere.

 

[toobfreak]

I don't agree with laws that would make "wrong pronoun use" illegal or whatever.

Then you definitely don't want to go to Canada where they arrest you for not using whatever pronoun the offendee wants.

 

[SweetSue92]

Then you definitely don't want to go to Canada where they arrest you for not using whatever pronoun the offendee wants.

Uh, no I don't. But then, they don't have Free Speech written as a first amendment.

 

[Soupnazi630]

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

She is not wrong.

It is the law which is wrong if it makes her work for people she does not wish to work for.

No business is open to the public they are strictly open to select individuals.

 

[HeyNorm]

If the salon only caters to women, which many do, I’m not seeing the problem here.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

They need the services of a psychiatrist. But I love her response.

In a perfect country she should have this right.

 

[Couchpotato]

He makes wedding cakes.

So if a Jewish baker makes birthday cakes does he have to make one in the shape of a swastika when the neo Nazi asks for it?

If he makes a cake for one wedding then he has to make cakes for all weddings.

Nope.

Did he have a sign that says he makes only hetero wedding cakes or only bakes wedding cakes for people getting married in a religious ceremony?

Does a black baker have to have a sign that says sorry we don’t make KKK cakes?

Does the Muslim have to have s a sign that says he doesn’t make cakes with Muhammads image on it?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

This from 2020, but I BELIEVE Michigan law has recently changed:

Michigan court says companies don’t have to serve customers who are gay

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel says the issue has already been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court: employers can't discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation

www.google.com

 

[Couchpotato]

All wedding cakes look the same.

If he makes wedding cakes for one wedding then he must make wedding cakes for all weddings.

What about the word design is confusing you?