Transgender Woman Sues After Muslim Refuses Body Waxing Service

[Playball40]

I believe that's where her religion comes into play. She is not allowed to TOUCH a male of which she is not related. Gender is about presentation. Basically her 'employment contract' should have stated she cannot perform services on a person with male genitalia.

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.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The salon had two waxers, one to work on men and one to work on women. The waxer in this article was the one hired to work on women.

When this client walked up, she said "that is a man".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The salon had two waxers, one to work on men and one to work on women. The waxer in this article was the one hired to work on women.

When this client walked up, she said "that is a man".

Do you have a link to get the details?
For example, did the client had a previous appointment? If so, was that as a man, or as a woman, or as a transgender woman?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The salon had two waxers, one to work on men and one to work on women. The waxer in this article was the one hired to work on women.

The one who worked on men was out for the week due to illness. Why did you leave out that detail?

 

[dismal]

The salon had two waxers, one to work on men and one to work on women. The waxer in this article was the one hired to work on women.

The one who worked on men was out for the week due to illness. Why did you leave out that detail?

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on "because it totally doesn't matter".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The salon had two waxers, one to work on men and one to work on women. The waxer in this article was the one hired to work on women.

The one who worked on men was out for the week due to illness. Why did you leave out that detail?

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on "because it totally doesn't matter".

If you were a betting man you would have won that bet.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There you guys go again agreeing but of course you're completely different.

 

[James Madison]

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.

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.

Does Canada have a nation wide law, or does Ontario have a law, prohibiting public accommodations from discriminating in hiring and employment on the basis of religious beliefs?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There's more information, some of it, the CEO's side of the story here:
https://www.google.com/amp/windsors...uman-rights-complaint-against-windsor-spa/amp

 

[Toni]

There's more information, some of it, the CEO's side of the story here:
https://www.google.com/amp/windsors...uman-rights-complaint-against-windsor-spa/amp

And there you go.

From this article, acknowledging that it tells only the side of the CEO and business, one could infer that the potential client seeking services was in fact, seeking an opportunity to 'prove' discrimination and apparently, to score a pile of money.

 

[James Madison]

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?).

This isn’t a typical refusal. This is not an instance in which the business refused to ever provide the service. Rather, this scenario is more akin to the business willing to provide the service but unable at the precise moment to provide the service, but is willing to provide the service at a another time and/or date and time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?).

This isn’t a typical refusal. This is not an instance in which the business refused to ever provide the service. Rather, this scenario is more akin to the business willing to provide the service but unable at the precise moment to provide the service, but is willing to provide the service at a another time and/or date and time.

I'm sorry, but the person who provides services for black people is out at the moment.

I don't think that distinction will provide much. If they have a worker that will only do half the work, they need a large enough staff to provide full services.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This isn’t a typical refusal. This is not an instance in which the business refused to ever provide the service. Rather, this scenario is more akin to the business willing to provide the service but unable at the precise moment to provide the service, but is willing to provide the service at a another time and/or date and time.

I'm sorry, but the person who provides services for black people is out at the moment.

I don't think that distinction will provide much. If they have a worker that will only do half the work, they need a large enough staff to provide full services.

Normally they do. Sometimes people get sick and miss work. Which do you think this is a case of, islamophobia or transphobia?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This isn’t a typical refusal. This is not an instance in which the business refused to ever provide the service. Rather, this scenario is more akin to the business willing to provide the service but unable at the precise moment to provide the service, but is willing to provide the service at a another time and/or date and time.

I'm sorry, but the person who provides services for black people is out at the moment.

I don't think that distinction will provide much. If they have a worker that will only do half the work, they need a large enough staff to provide full services.

Exactly. There's no difference between that statement and this situation. This doesn't have anything to do with genitals, it's a case of someone who's job entails making physical contact with customers who does not want to make physical contact with certain segments of their customers for reasons which are strictly prohibited by anti-discrimination laws. That's illegal. If her sincerely held religious belief is that she cannot make physical contact with men, then she needs to work in a job where she doesn't make physical contact with customers because customers cannot be denied service for discriminatory reasons. It may not be an issue 99 times out of 100 because there's another person willing to take those jobs for her, but the one time it happens, she needs to make a choice between her religion and her job and if she chooses her religion that should mean does so by quitting her job.

If it's your sincerely held religious belief that same sex couples should not be married and you issue marriage licenses, you either ignore your religious beliefs while you're on the job and issue marriage licenses to same sex couples or you find another job. That may not be an issue 99 times out of 100 because another coworker can step in and do it for you, but the one time you end up having a license for a same sex couple handed to you, you need to make a choice between your religion and your job and if you choose your religion that should mean you do so by quitting your job.

If it's your sincerely held political belief that black people are degenerate criminals who steal every chance they get and you work as a security guard in a store, you either ignore your political beliefs while you're on the job and let black people shop there without following them around or you find another job. You make a choice between your political beliefs and your job and if you choose your politics that means you should do so by quitting your job.

 

[James Madison]

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.

If she were the only business employee, then your position is near ineluctable. This is a scenario, however, in which her belief can be accommodated by the business while the business can still offer services.

If I’m not mistaken, Canada does have a law prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of religion and religious beliefs. Canadian law is not my sandbox. However, it would be interesting to know whether Canadian law has a balancing approach between the law prohibiting not hiring her to perform waxes on the basis of her religious, and reasonably accommodating her religious belief as a hired waxer, and justifiably not hiring her as a waxer because her religious belief would be an undue burden to the business, the latter justifying discrimination in employment on the basis of religion/religious belief.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn’t a typical refusal. This is not an instance in which the business refused to ever provide the service. Rather, this scenario is more akin to the business willing to provide the service but unable at the precise moment to provide the service, but is willing to provide the service at a another time and/or date and time.

I'm sorry, but the person who provides services for black people is out at the moment.

I don't think that distinction will provide much. If they have a worker that will only do half the work, they need a large enough staff to provide full services.

Normally they do. Sometimes people get sick and miss work. Which do you think this is a case of, islamophobia or transphobia?

Unlike yourself, I'm not into the identity stuff. All I know is that a consumer was refused service due to some portion of their identity and might not be legal.

 

[ronburgundy]

This isn’t a typical refusal. This is not an instance in which the business refused to ever provide the service. Rather, this scenario is more akin to the business willing to provide the service but unable at the precise moment to provide the service, but is willing to provide the service at a another time and/or date and time.

I'm sorry, but the person who provides services for black people is out at the moment.

I don't think that distinction will provide much. If they have a worker that will only do half the work, they need a large enough staff to provide full services.

So, you are saying they should have discriminated against the Muslim and refused to hire her.

The only alternative would be to require them to hire twice as many employees as they actually need, just in case 1 is out sick one day.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There's more information, some of it, the CEO's side of the story here:
https://www.google.com/amp/windsors...uman-rights-complaint-against-windsor-spa/amp

And there you go.

From this article, acknowledging that it tells only the side of the CEO and business, one could infer that the potential client seeking services was in fact, seeking an opportunity to 'prove' discrimination and apparently, to score a pile of money.

This article definitely tells more of what the CEO claims. The complainant isn't interviewed, but the complainant does have a documented complaint sort of referred to in previous articles. I don't know who to believe but I thought it should be pointed out that the stories are different in some ways. So, for example, the CEO says that the complainant asked for a Brazilian wax, not merely a leg wax. The CEO also says that the complainant first made some videos online about the business being discriminatory or whatever which was before they put their name out publicly. Again, I don't know who to believe about some specifics, but I think that gathering information is something that ought to be done prior to coming to an informed opinion. So, I do recommend that people read multiple articles on the subject in full. Not just an op asking about an irrelevant "progressive stack," which is potentially trying to bait people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn’t a typical refusal. This is not an instance in which the business refused to ever provide the service. Rather, this scenario is more akin to the business willing to provide the service but unable at the precise moment to provide the service, but is willing to provide the service at a another time and/or date and time.

I'm sorry, but the person who provides services for black people is out at the moment.

I don't think that distinction will provide much. If they have a worker that will only do half the work, they need a large enough staff to provide full services.

So, you are saying they should have discriminated against the Muslim and refused to hire her.

Are you claiming that you like to pork farm animals? I mean, you didn't actually type anything that suggested you did, but apparently, we are allowed to just ask random questions that don't address what people have asked.

The only alternative would be to require them to hire twice as many employees as they actually need, just in case 1 is out sick one day.

Actually, just one other person would have done.

 

[ronburgundy]

This isn’t a typical refusal. This is not an instance in which the business refused to ever provide the service. Rather, this scenario is more akin to the business willing to provide the service but unable at the precise moment to provide the service, but is willing to provide the service at a another time and/or date and time.

I'm sorry, but the person who provides services for black people is out at the moment.

I don't think that distinction will provide much. If they have a worker that will only do half the work, they need a large enough staff to provide full services.

Exactly. There's no difference between that statement and this situation. This doesn't have anything to do with genitals, it's a case of someone who's job entails making physical contact with customers who does not want to make physical contact with certain segments of their customers for reasons which are strictly prohibited by anti-discrimination laws. That's illegal. If her sincerely held religious belief is that she cannot make physical contact with men, then she needs to work in a job where she doesn't make physical contact with customers because customers cannot be denied service for discriminatory reasons. It may not be an issue 99 times out of 100 because there's another person willing to take those jobs for her, but the one time it happens, she needs to make a choice between her religion and her job and if she chooses her religion that should mean does so by quitting her job.

If it's your sincerely held religious belief that same sex couples should not be married and you issue marriage licenses, you either ignore your religious beliefs while you're on the job and issue marriage licenses to same sex couples or you find another job. That may not be an issue 99 times out of 100 because another coworker can step in and do it for you, but the one time you end up having a license for a same sex couple handed to you, you need to make a choice between your religion and your job and if you choose your religion that should mean you do so by quitting your job.

If it's your sincerely held political belief that black people are degenerate criminals who steal every chance they get and you work as a security guard in a store, you either ignore your political beliefs while you're on the job and let black people shop there without following them around or you find another job. You make a choice between your political beliefs and your job and if you choose your politics that means you should do so by quitting your job.

Tom, do you support legalized prostitution? Do you believe that every prostitute should be forced to have sex with both males and females? Because that is far more analogous to this case than the examples you provided.

I suspect you may hold that view, which at least makes you consistent, but I am betting that not everyone here calling for this women to be fired and/or for the company to be liable will be honest enough to admit that this is what their position requires.