Transgender Woman Sues After Muslim Refuses Body Waxing Service

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If she’s going to discriminate against which customers she serves, she should lose her job. If she doesn’t want to touch men who aren’t related to her then that’s her choice, but when this is incompatible with the duties of her job, she needs to decide which one is more important to her.

Exactly. You shouldn't take a job that conflicts with your religious requirements.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the fact that she's Muslim may be a red herring. There are going to be quite a lot of people who don't want to wax someone's genitals on the basis of sex. The company says it allows employees that liberty. It also wants to serve its customers. They clearly made an error here such as when they set up appointments they need to ask if someone is trans. OR if customers can do walk-in waxes, then they need someone on staff at all times for each set of genitals. It's their policy about how they want to maximize opportunity of customers and liberty of employees, so they have to do it properly. I agree with the company's policy to maximize both of these, but they seem to have failed.

What the op doesn't mention is that much of the suit is about the company outing the customer. Publicizing the customer's name, etc. Private people often don't want publicity and the next thing you know rabid right-wingers will be sending threats or maybe dick pics or both. So it seems pretty wrong to me.

This was a leg waxing. I don't think any genitals were involved.

When does the inner leg turn into the taint? In any case, here is the company speaking from the linked article:

"All clients regardless of sex, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation are welcome," said Carruthers in a statement to CTV News. "However, we also welcome staff members and respect their religious beliefs and feelings of safety and dignity in regards to the right not to perform waxing services on males or male genitals."

Carruthers' attorney, Ray Colautti, added that the spa "respects its own staff and religious beliefs and feelings of safety and dignity in regards to the right in not performing waxing services that they don't feel comfortable providing."

So like I wrote they are maximizing individual liberty of employees and maximizing customer diversity. They didn't have the right resources to do this though. I agree with their approach.

 

[Toni]

If she’s going to discriminate against which customers she serves, she should lose her job. If she doesn’t want to touch men who aren’t related to her then that’s her choice, but when this is incompatible with the duties of her job, she needs to decide which one is more important to her.

Exactly. You shouldn't take a job that conflicts with your religious requirements.

I agree. But my guess is that she took the job specifically with the understanding that she would provide services exclusively to other women. In fact, I imagine her primary clientele would be women of her culture.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Exactly. It was a leg waxing service. If someone only wants to work on female genitals then that's fine because male genital services are a different thing, but this case is talking about something that's the same thing. Ontario has made it illegal to refuse service to people based on their gender (and rightly so), so an employee cannot legally say that she will discriminate against customers in that manner, no matter what her rational is.

If you don't want to do taxes for black people because of an honest and heartfelt belief that they're all criminals who lie on their taxes, that's fine, but you can't do that and work as an accountant. If you don't want to do leg waxes for certain genders because of an honest and heartfelt belief that your religion forbids you from touching them, that's fine, but you can't do that and work as a waxer.

The lady was wrong for discriminating in this manner and the spa was wrong for allowing their employee to work there with such an obviously illegal precondition for her work.

 

[Trausti]

Exactly. It was a leg waxing service. If someone only wants to work on female genitals then that's fine because male genital services are a different thing, but this case is talking about something that's the same thing. Ontario has made it illegal to refuse service to people based on their gender (and rightly so), so an employee cannot legally say that she will discriminate against customers in that manner, no matter what her rational is.

Wish we had this law in the US. Went to see my gynocologist the other day and they asked why I was there. Wouldn't do the Pap smear.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Exactly. It was a leg waxing service. If someone only wants to work on female genitals then that's fine because male genital services are a different thing, but this case is talking about something that's the same thing. Ontario has made it illegal to refuse service to people based on their gender (and rightly so), so an employee cannot legally say that she will discriminate against customers in that manner, no matter what her rational is.

Wish we had this law in the US. Went to see my gynocologist the other day and they asked why I was there. Wouldn't do the Pap smear.

Not related to the point. Please don't be on my side.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Exactly. It was a leg waxing service. If someone only wants to work on female genitals then that's fine because male genital services are a different thing, but this case is talking about something that's the same thing. Ontario has made it illegal to refuse service to people based on their gender (and rightly so), so an employee cannot legally say that she will discriminate against customers in that manner, no matter what her rational is.

Wish we had this law in the US. Went to see my gynocologist the other day and they asked why I was there. Wouldn't do the Pap smear.

Why was your vagina hurting? You went near Trump again, didn't you?

 

[Trausti]

Exactly. It was a leg waxing service. If someone only wants to work on female genitals then that's fine because male genital services are a different thing, but this case is talking about something that's the same thing. Ontario has made it illegal to refuse service to people based on their gender (and rightly so), so an employee cannot legally say that she will discriminate against customers in that manner, no matter what her rational is.

Wish we had this law in the US. Went to see my gynocologist the other day and they asked why I was there. Wouldn't do the Pap smear.

Why was your vagina hurting? You went near Trump again, didn't you?

There needs to be a corollary to Godwin's law about Hitler. How long in any thread before someone mentions Trump? Doesn't matter the topic, really, the prevalence of Trump derangement syndrome means someone will find some reason to mention him.

 

[Toni]

Exactly. It was a leg waxing service. If someone only wants to work on female genitals then that's fine because male genital services are a different thing, but this case is talking about something that's the same thing. Ontario has made it illegal to refuse service to people based on their gender (and rightly so), so an employee cannot legally say that she will discriminate against customers in that manner, no matter what her rational is.

If you don't want to do taxes for black people because of an honest and heartfelt belief that they're all criminals who lie on their taxes, that's fine, but you can't do that and work as an accountant. If you don't want to do leg waxes for certain genders because of an honest and heartfelt belief that your religion forbids you from touching them, that's fine, but you can't do that and work as a waxer.

The lady was wrong for discriminating in this manner and the spa was wrong for allowing their employee to work there with such an obviously illegal precondition for her work.

It's not just a leg waxing service.

From the link in the OP:

CEO of Mad Wax Windsor Camp Inc., said he welcomes and respects his employee's religious beliefs.

"All clients regardless of sex, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation are welcome," said Carruthers in a statement to CTV News. "However, we also welcome staff members and respect their religious beliefs and feelings of safety and dignity in regards to the right not to perform waxing services on males or male genitals."

I know that the person suing has alleged that she was only asking for her legs to be waxed--and that may be true. OR it may be true that she was asking for a wax on her genitals. Each side seems to be alleging something different.

I wonder if the issue posters on this forum have isn't more to do with the salon worker's religion --and the fact that she has one--or the fact that a woman is refusing a service for a (biological) man?

I feel like maybe there's more to this because if the individual requesting the service is a transgender woman asking only that her legs be waxed, why would the birth/biolgical gender be known to the service provider?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why was your vagina hurting? You went near Trump again, didn't you?

There needs to be a corollary to Godwin's law about Hitler. How long in any thread before someone mentions Trump? Doesn't matter the topic, really, the prevalence of Trump derangement syndrome means someone will find some reason to mention him.

I'm sorry, but with all that talk about your vadge, you were just asking for it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Here we have a Muslim saying "no, you are a man" to a transgender m2f woman. With the premise that Muslim is a race, that puts the top two ranks of the stack in direct opposition to each other. Is the lady refusing service an anti-trans bigot, or is the lady being refused service an anti-Muslim bigot?

No need for the court to get into such a mess. Instead, the company did wrong for failing to provide service, and further wrong for outing the transgender person. They must pay compensation, and that's that. No one is charged with bigotry (except, perhaps, the company, if they want to go there, but why go there?).

When she accepted employment, she and her employer both understood that she would only service women. From her point of view, she was not violating her employment contract. From her point of view.

True, but I'm not sure why you point that out. My point is about the court's actions, and I'm saying they don't need to get into the issue of oppression ranks. If they rule as I suggested, they avoid any trouble with the left, with Muslim activists, with transgender activists, and so on.

 

[EvoUK]

So... Are we meant to treat the trans customer as a woman or not? If we are it's a clear cut case that the Muslim overstepped the mark (she treated her as a man), and if we're not then there's no case.

Playing devils advocate, it's hard to accept the general uproar about Christians refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, when a Muslim can treat a trans female as her birth gender with no repurcussions.

 

[Trausti]

That the employee is a Muslim ought to be a non-issue. Simply a female employee does not want to touch male junk. What's the problem? Common sense is dead.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Exactly. It was a leg waxing service. If someone only wants to work on female genitals then that's fine because male genital services are a different thing, but this case is talking about something that's the same thing. Ontario has made it illegal to refuse service to people based on their gender (and rightly so), so an employee cannot legally say that she will discriminate against customers in that manner, no matter what her rational is.

If you don't want to do taxes for black people because of an honest and heartfelt belief that they're all criminals who lie on their taxes, that's fine, but you can't do that and work as an accountant. If you don't want to do leg waxes for certain genders because of an honest and heartfelt belief that your religion forbids you from touching them, that's fine, but you can't do that and work as a waxer.

The lady was wrong for discriminating in this manner and the spa was wrong for allowing their employee to work there with such an obviously illegal precondition for her work.

Are employers in Ontario not allowed to hire employees who would only wax females, as long as they also hire other employees to provide services for males? (let's leave aside the transgender stuff to simplify. Suppose the customer had been a non-transgender man).
After all, there is no contract between the employee and the customer.

 

[couch_sloth]

Before reading an article about this, I wondered what damages were being claimed in the lawsuit.
The transgender woman claims that this business released her name to some news outlets, causing her emotional distress. But I haven’t found any more details about this claim, e. g. Has it been verified that company personnel did this?
Edit: The woman claims that the spa released her “personal information” to the news outlets.

 

[couch_sloth]

...I feel like maybe there's more to this because if the individual requesting the service is a transgender woman asking only that her legs be waxed, why would the birth/biolgical gender be known to the service provider?

Sometimes it’s just obvious. Unfortunately, there are some transgender females who still look and sound very male.

 

[Underseer]

Should depend on her contract with the employer. If it specifies female only then i don't see a problem and don't find her religion relevant.

Yeah, but which one has more diversity Pokémon points?

How do you decide which one you hate more?

It's not hard for me to figure out who is wrong because one side is being prejudiced and the other isn't, but based on conservative/libertarian ideology, how do you figure out who is right and who is wrong? Under rightist "objective" morality, people are right or wrong based on who they are instead of what they do, and so in this case both sides have to be wrong.

How do you decide?

 

[Toni]

...I feel like maybe there's more to this because if the individual requesting the service is a transgender woman asking only that her legs be waxed, why would the birth/biolgical gender be known to the service provider?

Sometimes it’s just obvious. Unfortunately, there are some transgender females who still look and sound very male.

This is true. I hadn't thought of it that way. I guess I just imagined that the individual was dressed/presenting as female and should be taken as female--unless more intimate waxing is being performed.

 

[J842P]

...I feel like maybe there's more to this because if the individual requesting the service is a transgender woman asking only that her legs be waxed, why would the birth/biolgical gender be known to the service provider?

Sometimes it’s just obvious. Unfortunately, there are some transgender females who still look and sound very male.

This is true. I hadn't thought of it that way. I guess I just imagined that the individual was dressed/presenting as female and should be taken as female--unless more intimate waxing is being performed.

Passing trans-women aren't exactly the majority.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I feel like maybe there's more to this because if the individual requesting the service is a transgender woman asking only that her legs be waxed, why would the birth/biolgical gender be known to the service provider?

My impression is that a leg wax would be performed in underwear so none of the leg was covered. What type of genitals someone had would thus be revealed even if they were not on display.

I don't have a problem with a woman refusing to wax around a penis. I do have a problem with her refusing to wax just because she knows there is one.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why was your vagina hurting? You went near Trump again, didn't you?

There needs to be a corollary to Godwin's law about Hitler. How long in any thread before someone mentions Trump? Doesn't matter the topic, really, the prevalence of Trump derangement syndrome means someone will find some reason to mention him.

I'm sorry, but with all that talk about your vadge, you were just asking for it.

Wah, I made a shit analogy and was called out on it, so wah!!!