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

[Hellbilly]

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

The only time something like this would make sense is if the customer wanted a style you were unfamiliar with, which used to be a common thing.
Business knows no personality. The money from transsexuals are the same as straight people. While it's always admirable to stick to your beliefs, all these people are doing is slitting their own businesses throats. It'll be interesting to see how long they survive and how many other businesses spring up to pick up the slack. I see this as an opportunity.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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 being forced to give gay and trans style haircuts and hairstyles -- which is distinctly different from regular real people hair styles...


In fact, gay hairstyles are very much like animal hair styles...which is why her suggesting they go to a pet groomer was accurate....that is where most gay and trans people should go instead of forcing real Americans to style their hair in ways that is against our biblical teachings

 

[Blaster]

OJ Simpson was kicked out of a restaurant because the owner considered him a murderer.

 

[SweetSue92]

Fuck the law.

Well then hello anarchy

 

[norwegen]

Americans have a right to associate with whom they please. Or at least they used to.

 

[SweetSue92]

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.

Your two examples here are very different.

 

[SweetSue92]

Why is it wrong?

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

Already covered this; read the thread.

 

[Blues Man]

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

And that ruling will be used to justify all kinds of things.

A hairdresser can say that her haircuts are covered under the first amendment because they are her expressions of creativity and she doesn;t want to make a homo more attractive to other homos because that's promoting sins.

A gay person can say his religion calls it a sin to deal with Christians and bigots.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It is a sin to deal with evangelicals, Pentecostals, fundamentalists, and LDS CoJC.

 

[SweetSue92]

The only time something like this would make sense is if the customer wanted a style you were unfamiliar with, which used to be a common thing.
Business knows no personality. The money from transsexuals are the same as straight people. While it's always admirable to stick to your beliefs, all these people are doing is slitting their own businesses throats. It'll be interesting to see how long they survive and how many other businesses spring up to pick up the slack. I see this as an opportunity.

There are other times it would make sense--but they are outliers. I remember that you're a musician. Let's say you put out your services as a songwriter, and someone asked you to write a song degrading to Native beliefs. You should be able to refuse to write that song.

That is not saying "I don't write songs for white people"

but

"I won't write songs that violate my beliefs"

Big difference

 

[SweetSue92]

It is a sin to deal with evangelicals, Pentecostals, fundamentalists, and LDS CoJC.

Thanks for letting us know how much you love discrimination.

But wait.

We knew that.

 

[TNHarley]

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

So she should lose her rights to private property and her natural rights of freedom of association because of your feelings?
So instead of her being discriminatory, you would rather have the govt discriminate.
Fuck that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Already covered this; read the thread.

I did.

You are wrong.

You should be used to it.

 

[SweetSue92]

And that ruling will be used to justify all kinds of things.

A hairdresser can say that her haircuts are covered under the first amendment because they are her expressions of creativity and she doesn;t want to make a homo more attractive to other homos because that's promoting sins.

A gay person can say his religion calls it a sin to deal with Christians and bigots.

Already covered this but here it is again.

Those are CLASSES of people. Entire groups. The cases in question--none of them--were about groups of people. They were about events or specific requests.

How is this so difficult?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Your two examples here are very different.

Why? Why are some moral convictions valid to you while others aren't?

A Muslim can have deep personal and religious convictions about selling a cake with a picture of Muhammad on it. Likewise, A Democrat can have deep and personal convictions about serving a Republican.

Is a business owner allowed to refuse service to people based on their personal convictions or not? It seems that has been settled with the baker and now you're sliding down the slippery slope.

 

[SweetSue92]

So she should lose her rights to private property and her natural rights of freedom of association because of your feelings?
So instead of her being discriminatory, you would rather have the govt discriminate.
Fuck that.

Explain to me where I cited "my feelings".

 

[SweetSue92]

Why? Why are some moral convictions valid to you while others aren't?

A Muslim can have deep personal and religious convictions about selling a cake with a picture of Muhammad on it. Likewise, A Democrat can have deep and personal convictions about serving a Republican.

Is a business owner allowed to refuse service to people based on their personal convictions or not? It seems that has been settled with the baker and now you're sliding down the slippery slope.

Um

Does no one understand this case at all?

Are people this thick-headed or uninformed?

 

[Blues Man]

Already covered this but here it is again.

Those are CLASSES of people. Entire groups. The cases in question--none of them--were about groups of people. They were about events or specific requests.

How is this so difficult?

Making a faggot look good is promoting homosexuality and that is a sin.

 

[SweetSue92]

I did.

You are wrong.

You should be used to it.

That's your opinion. The SC disagrees. They have the say and not you.

 

[Hellbilly]

There are other times it would make sense--but they are outliers. I remember that you're a musician. Let's say you put out your services as a songwriter, and someone asked you to write a song degrading to Native beliefs. You should be able to refuse to write that song.

That is not saying "I don't write songs for white people"

but

"I won't write songs that violate my beliefs"

Big difference

Absolutely. Personally I wouldn't write a song degrading to anyone.