This Michigan Hair Salon Owner Will Apparently Refuse Trans And Queer Clients

fooferdoggie

fooferdoggie

Site Master
Site Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Posts
5,256
of course she is fine with gay people of course. looks like she may be paying the price for her stupidity.

A Michigan hair salon owner announced on Facebook that she would not be providing services to transgender or queer people, reportedly writing that they should seek a grooming service for animals.
Christine Geiger, the owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab in Traverse City, told local outlet 9&10 News that she is OK with lesbian, gay and bisexual people but refuses to use preferred pronouns and has a right to deny service.
“If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,” Geiger wrote on Studio 8 Hair Lab’s Facebook page, according to screenshots published by 9&10 News.

“You are not welcome at this salon. Period,” she added.
“This is America; free speech. This small business has the right to refuse services. We are not bound to any oaths as realtors are regarding discrimination. My recent airport experience validates this,” Geiger wrote without further explanation.
HuffPost was not able to independently verify the Facebook post since Geiger made her business’ social media accounts private in the wake of reporting on her new discrimination policy. Phone calls to the business went straight to a voicemail box that was not accepting new messages.

In a separate Facebook comment under her own name, Geiger spouted misinformation: “I have no issues with LGB. It’s the TQ+ that I’m not going to support. For those that don’t know what the + is for, it’s for MAP (Minor Attracted Person aka: pedophile).”

www.huffpost.com

This Michigan Hair Salon Owner Will Apparently Refuse Trans And Queer Clients

Transgender people needing a haircut should go to “a local pet groomer,” Christine Geiger wrote, according to a local news outlet.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
 
We’re just years away from the Bigotville brewery, bar and salon chain because the Supreme Court said it’s cool and just because you can you absolutely should.

Across the street will be the local Groomers satanic daycare and pizzeria.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
We’re just years away from the Bigotville brewery, bar and salon chain because the Supreme Court said it’s cool and just because you can you absolutely should.

Across the street will be the local Groomers satanic daycare and pizzeria.
Click to expand...
if someone says the same thing about black people will the SC say the same thing? it seems they are pretty selective about their religious freedom.
 
fooferdoggie said:
if someone says the same thing about black people will the SC say the same thing? it seems they are pretty selective about their religious freedom.
Click to expand...

It would be an interesting argument. A religious sect not believing in gay marriage is (arguably) one thing in the context of wedding cakes, but I’m not sure it says anything about barring hair stylists from cutting trans people’s hair.

Personally, my thought on this is usually the discriminatory business doesn’t fare so well in the long run- ie customers stop coming, vendors cancel, the internet blows up their yelp reviews, etc. And even the customers that may share the same ideology may not want to be seen as associating with said business.

And honestly, who wants to pay money for the services of someone who hates them?

My other thought is that businesses should not get involved with political or culture war matters. Businesses exist to make money. Small businesses especially usually can’t really afford to alienate 1/2 the population. It’s one thing to deny a customer because they are rude to employees, don’t pay on time, etc. But if you can’t take a customers money over such trivial matters then you probably shouldn’t be in business. If you don’t want to deal with the general public and all that entails, don’t start a business that caters to the general public.

Personally, I think the LGBT community should be offered the same civil rights protections that apply to race, sex, religion, etc. While obviously LGBT and religious rights can conflict with each other, I suppose that also applies with sex and religion and yet for the most part that’s reasonably well sorted. Generally speaking I think sexual orientation supersedes religion but perhaps there are some very limited cases where the opposite is true. For example, I don’t think it’s worth trying to go after the Catholic Church to mandate female priests and male Nuns.
 
Back
Top