Transgender Woman Sues After Muslim Refuses Body Waxing Service

[Tom Sawyer]

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

Yes, and the business was accommodating that in 99 out of 100 cases, as I stated. When you get to that 1 out of 100 cases, however, someone needs to lose out. The person who loses should never be the customer, however, since their right to receive services absent discrimination should be the thing that wins. If you have two cake makers in a shop, the anti-gay bigot can avoid making cakes for same sex weddings all he wants until the other guy doesn't show up when such a couple comes in and then the cake shop finds itself in a legal situation.

If you can't perform all the duties required of you in a job, you should not keep that job.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

No, homosexual and heterosexual sex are different services, so employees are fine only providing one or the other, the same way as a tax lawyer is not being discriminatory by not handling a divorce case because it's a different service than what he provides.

If a legal prostitute doesn't want to have sex with black customers, that would be an issue, though. It's an issue that derails the thread and beats a dead horse which has been beaten over and over again here, so I won't make any further comments about that one.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

It is about as analogous as the people marrying toasters counter argument to gay marriage.

 

[dismal]

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.

It's really tough being a fascist isn't it? All these people always trying to do what they want to do instead of what you order them to do.

Oh well, it's nothing indoctrination camps can't fix.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Your proven lack of logical prowess, doesn't negate the clear logical implications of your statements.

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.

First of all, just 1 additional could easily equal a 50% increase in employees. A small waxing company could have just 2 workers, both whom service females (because they are 99% of clients) and 1 who also services males. So, 1 additional employee is a 50% increase with nothing for that extra person to do 90% of the time but wait around just in case 2 males request the service at the same time.

Second, it would require many more than 1 and actually much more than double, because that other person can be sick too or can be busy with another male client. Your argument presumes that any requirement that any customer have to wait longer is discrimination. By logical implication (try to fire up a few neurons for this) that means that every company must be able to immediately provide every service to every potential client. Which means, they must hire enough other employees to be able to immediately service any possible number of males or trans that walk through their door. Otherwise, the second they get an unexpected rush of more male clients than available servers, they are violation of the law. And the fact that most clients make appointments in advance does nothing to solve this. By your same principles, if a person calls for an appointment, their gender or biological sex should not be allowed to determine when they can get an appointment.

 

[Playball40]

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.

No, it's more akin to the person that does the weaves is out today.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

No, homosexual and heterosexual sex are different services, so employees are fine only providing one or the other, the same way as a tax lawyer is not being discriminatory by not handling a divorce case because it's a different service than what he provides.

They are no more different services than looking at and touching the genital area of a male versus a female during a waxing.
In both, the worker is providing a service that involves them touching a person's genital area. The main difference lies in what motives and goals are satisfied by the customer in paying for the service.

 

[Playball40]

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.

No, homosexual and heterosexual sex are different services, so employees are fine only providing one or the other, the same way as a tax lawyer is not being discriminatory by not handling a divorce case because it's a different service than what he provides.

They are no more different services than touching the genitals of a male versus a female during a waxing.
In both, the worker is providing a service that involves them touching a person's genital area. The main difference lies in what motives and goals are satisfied by the customer in paying for the service.

Actually that's not true. The technique and method is different (it has to be). I gave you an example. Not every stylist can do weaves. This does not mean the salon does not serve black people. Not every person can do male brazilian wax, but the salon still provides the service. So unless there is a LAW that says services must be provided ON DEMAND, I do not see that the salon did anything wrong. If I go to Publix to order a cake and they cannot serve me RIGHT THEN because their cake decorator is out, it does not mean I've been discriminated against.

 

[ronburgundy]

They are no more different services than touching the genitals of a male versus a female during a waxing.
In both, the worker is providing a service that involves them touching a person's genital area. The main difference lies in what motives and goals are satisfied by the customer in paying for the service.

Actually that's not true. The technique and method is different (it has to be). I gave you an example. Not every stylist can do weaves. This does not mean the salon does not serve black people. Not every person can do male brazilian wax, but the salon still provides the service. So unless there is a LAW that says services must be provided ON DEMAND, I do not see that the salon did anything wrong. If I go to Publix to order a cake and they cannot serve me RIGHT THEN because their cake decorator is out, it does not mean I've been discriminated against.

You misread. I said that many of the prostitution services to males and females are "no MORE different" than the genital area waxing services provided to males and females.

I am reasonable, so I understand that both tasks are in fact different by gender in ways that should allow for an exception to gender discrimination rules, especially when the only inconvenience is getting the service at a different time.
My point is that Tom, Jimmy and others are claiming there is no difference in waxing and yet don't apply that to prostitution, which is hypocritical.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

No, homosexual and heterosexual sex are different services, so employees are fine only providing one or the other, the same way as a tax lawyer is not being discriminatory by not handling a divorce case because it's a different service than what he provides.

They are no more different services than looking at and touching the genital area of a male versus a female during a waxing.
In both, the worker is providing a service that involves them touching a person's genital area. The main difference lies in what motives and goals are satisfied by the customer in paying for the service.

But we’re not talking about genitals. Her rationale was that her religion forbade her from making physical contact with men. If the guy had come in asking for a back wax, she would have denied him service just the same.

 

[Toni]

They are no more different services than looking at and touching the genital area of a male versus a female during a waxing.
In both, the worker is providing a service that involves them touching a person's genital area. The main difference lies in what motives and goals are satisfied by the customer in paying for the service.

But we’re not talking about genitals. Her rationale was that her religion forbade her from making physical contact with men. If the guy had come in asking for a back wax, she would have denied him service just the same.

Well, yes, we ARE talking about genitals:

from Don's post upthread: http://windsorstar.com/news/local-n...es-human-rights-complaint-against-windsor-spa

The owner of a local waxing spa is mounting a public campaign to clear the name of his business after he was served a human rights complaint for denying service to a transgender woman.

Jason Carruthers, the president of Mad Wax on Walker Road, said he was surprised at the legal move since he had explained to the complainant that the spa did not offer Brazilian wax services on male body parts.

“I have no male wax staff,” Carruthers said Friday. “We are not able to provide that service.”

Carruthers said he decided to go public with the issue because of a derogatory video about his business that was posted online and threats from the complainant to create “a media circus.”

He said his business has no policy against serving transgender clients.

“I once again reiterate and state my position and the position of Mad Wax Windsor Inc. that all clients, regardless of sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, are welcome,” he said in a statement. “However, we also welcome and support all of our staff members and respect their religious beliefs and feelings of safety and dignity in regards to the right to perform waxing services on males or male genitals.”

He said it was clear from his conversation with the complainant that the services sought were for a Brazilian wax and not leg waxing as has been suggested since.

Carruthers said 98 per cent of the spa’s clientele is female and all of his staff are female. The spa has done waxing on the arms and backs of male clients in the past.

“When we’ve been asked about a male Brazilian wax in the past we tell them we’re not able to provide that service and they move on,” Carruthers said. ”It’s never been a issue.”

It seems possible that the business owner is lying or misrepresenting the situation but I don't think this is the case here. The business owner offered to accomodate the prospective client on a different day when an appropriate staff member would be present. I am not certain how different this is than if I called my dentist and asked for a cleaning on a day when that staff member was not available.

It seems to me that the complainant was looking for a service she knew would be denied in order to be able to file a complaint. It may be that the complainant was specifically looking to make the complaint because the staff member is Muslim and/or female.

Frankly, I think that at least some posters are responding to this thread in the way that they are because the staff member is female and/or a Muslim.

That aside, the skill set for performing a Brazillian wax on males and on females is not the same. It would be unwise for anyone to insist on service from someone not trained and experienced in delivering the type of wax they require. And beyond foolish for a service provider to attempt to do so. This would open the service provider up to a potential law suit.

It seems like this was a win/win situation for the complainant with an opportunity to file suit no matter what.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And from that same link

Carruthers said he called her back and explained that the female employee working that day was a practising Muslim who refrains from physical contact with males outside of her family.

So, it's not an issue about genitals. It's an issue about making physical contact with a certain group of customers from an employee who's job it is to make physical contact with customers. Given that this is the religious restriction she has in place, do you feel that she would have been fine providing the service if she'd been asked to do an arm or back wax? It sounds to me that she would still not be willing to do so and that's what I have a problem with.

Now, Brazilian waxes for men and women are different services and I have no issue with someone only providing one or the other and if that is why they denied the service, I'm on the spa's side. That wasn't the stated reason for denying the service, however. That stated reason was that this was due to a religious restriction and that religious restriction was that she could not make contact with men in general, not only specific parts of men. Denying services to a customer on the basis of their gender should be as illegal as denying it because of their race or their sexual orientation.

 

[ronburgundy]

They are no more different services than looking at and touching the genital area of a male versus a female during a waxing.
In both, the worker is providing a service that involves them touching a person's genital area. The main difference lies in what motives and goals are satisfied by the customer in paying for the service.

But we’re not talking about genitals. Her rationale was that her religion forbade her from making physical contact with men. If the guy had come in asking for a back wax, she would have denied him service just the same.

But your argument was not specific to only request for waxing non "sensitive" areas, but was a general argument about waxing services, which very often do require the worker looking at and coming millimeters from (if not making incidental contact) with the genitals.

In fact, if this customer wanted their entire legs waxed, then that is what it would entail.

 

[James Madison]

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.

Well, you agree with the principle, as your statement says if someone else were available at the moment to provide the service, then no foul. Which, of course, makes perfect sense in relation to the public accommodation law.

Public accommodation law doesn’t prohibit public accommodations from employing someone who has racist or religious views that impact which customers they will serve. A business, say a bakery, can, consistent with public accommodation law, employ a racist who will only serve white customers. The public accommodation law is in relation to the business. The business cannot refuse service as a result of some protected characteristic.

These facts are not analogous to a situation in which the business refuses to ever serve the customer. However, as you noted, the problem here is while the business is willing to provide a service, it was unable to temporarily do so at the moment because one, present employee wouldn’t provide the service and the employee who could was absent.

These facts are not the absolute refusal service and these facts are much more mitigating.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Sawyer]

They are no more different services than looking at and touching the genital area of a male versus a female during a waxing.
In both, the worker is providing a service that involves them touching a person's genital area. The main difference lies in what motives and goals are satisfied by the customer in paying for the service.

But we’re not talking about genitals. Her rationale was that her religion forbade her from making physical contact with men. If the guy had come in asking for a back wax, she would have denied him service just the same.

But your argument was not specific to only request for waxing non "sensitive" areas, but was a general argument about waxing services, which very often do require the worker looking at and coming millimeters from (if not making incidental contact) with the genitals.

In fact, if this customer wanted their entire legs waxed, then that is what it would entail.

No, my argument is that she does not allow herself to make physical contact with males outside of her family and then she took a job which involves making physical contact with customers, some of who may end up being male. I have no issue with a spa denying someone service because there's not anyone there who does not want to come in contact with male genitalia, because that's a specific service which they just may or may not provide. I have an issue with the spa denying service to a customer because an employee will not work with someone of that customer's gender at all.

Her religious objection is that she cannot make physical contact with men, which means it would have been the same response if the customer had been asking for an arm or back wax. This rationale which was provided for why the service was denied is what I have a problem with.

 

[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

Yes, and the business was accommodating that in 99 out of 100 cases, as I stated. When you get to that 1 out of 100 cases, however, someone needs to lose out. The person who loses should never be the customer, however, since their right to receive services absent discrimination should be the thing that wins. If you have two cake makers in a shop, the anti-gay bigot can avoid making cakes for same sex weddings all he wants until the other guy doesn't show up when such a couple comes in and then the cake shop finds itself in a legal situation.

If you can't perform all the duties required of you in a job, you should not keep that job.

But these facts and your hypo doesn’t involve a refusal of service but instead a delay in service. A delay in service is not a refusal of service. The same sex couple can still get their cake and will still get their cake.

Here, there wasn’t a refusal, the person could’ve obtained a wax, it would’ve just been delayed. The business was willing and had every intention to provide a wax to the person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, and the business was accommodating that in 99 out of 100 cases, as I stated. When you get to that 1 out of 100 cases, however, someone needs to lose out. The person who loses should never be the customer, however, since their right to receive services absent discrimination should be the thing that wins. If you have two cake makers in a shop, the anti-gay bigot can avoid making cakes for same sex weddings all he wants until the other guy doesn't show up when such a couple comes in and then the cake shop finds itself in a legal situation.

If you can't perform all the duties required of you in a job, you should not keep that job.

But these facts and your hypo doesn’t involve a refusal of service but instead a delay in service. A delay in service is not a refusal of service. The same sex couple can still get their cake and will still get their cake.

Here, there wasn’t a refusal, the person could’ve obtained a wax, it would’ve just been delayed. The business was willing and had every intention to provide a wax to the person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, let me see if I understand your argument. You're saying that if a guy goes into an accounting office and is told "I'm sorry, the only accountants working today are part of the KKK. If you want someone who'll do taxes for black people, you'll need to come back tomorrow", there is no issue with that. Because he isn't being refused service because of his race, he's only having it delayed and the business is willing and has every intention of providing tax services to that customer, everything about the situation is fine and there should be no legal issues involved?

 

[ronburgundy]

But your argument was not specific to only request for waxing non "sensitive" areas, but was a general argument about waxing services, which very often do require the worker looking at and coming millimeters from (if not making incidental contact) with the genitals.

In fact, if this customer wanted their entire legs waxed, then that is what it would entail.

No, my argument is that she does not allow herself to make physical contact with males outside of her family and then she took a job which involves making physical contact with customers, some of who may end up being male. I have no issue with a spa denying someone service because there's not anyone there who does not want to come in contact with male genitalia, because that's a specific service which they just may or may not provide. I have an issue with the spa denying service to a customer because an employee will not work with someone of that customer's gender at all.

Her religious objection is that she cannot make physical contact with men, which means it would have been the same response if the customer had been asking for an arm or back wax. This rationale which was provided for why the service was denied is what I have a problem with.

So, then you would reject this customer's lawsuit, right? Because they wanted a service that requires genital contact.

We seem to agree that there are exceptions to gender discrimination rules, due to the intimate physical contact that is sometimes entailed in some professions.

The difference is that you treat touching a person's inner thigh as more similar to selling them a soda than coming into contact with their genitals.
I view a good deal of waxing jobs as entailing a physical intimacy that most humans feel is quite different from selling a soda and objectively is done between opposite sexes mostly during sexual relations. Since what bodily touching counts as "intimate" is highly arbitrary and subjective, I don't think the law should try to make that fine grained distinction between how many centimeters from the genitals the touching must be for the rule to apply. I think it makes sense to give that whole profession a similar exception that prostitution should get.

BTW, I also agree with you that the company should be allowed to fire or not hire her, and that her religious reason for not wanting to do the job is irrelevant. Which also applies to whether a person wants to work on a Saturday or Sunday or anything else. If it is acceptable to fire or not hire a person for not wanting to do X simply because they don't feel like it, then it is acceptable to fire them if their reason is religious. Doing so in no way is religious discrimination, which requires that the sole basis for the firing is the religious nature of the persons beliefs or actions that have nothing to do with how, when, or where they perform their job. If they don't want to do a job, then their reason for that is irrelevant.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes, and the business was accommodating that in 99 out of 100 cases, as I stated. When you get to that 1 out of 100 cases, however, someone needs to lose out. The person who loses should never be the customer, however, since their right to receive services absent discrimination should be the thing that wins. If you have two cake makers in a shop, the anti-gay bigot can avoid making cakes for same sex weddings all he wants until the other guy doesn't show up when such a couple comes in and then the cake shop finds itself in a legal situation.

If you can't perform all the duties required of you in a job, you should not keep that job.

But these facts and your hypo doesn’t involve a refusal of service but instead a delay in service. A delay in service is not a refusal of service. The same sex couple can still get their cake and will still get their cake.

Here, there wasn’t a refusal, the person could’ve obtained a wax, it would’ve just been delayed. The business was willing and had every intention to provide a wax to the person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, let me see if I understand your argument. You're saying that if a guy goes into an accounting office and is told "I'm sorry, the only accountants working today are part of the KKK. If you want someone who'll do taxes for black people, you'll need to come back tomorrow", there is no issue with that. Because he isn't being refused service because of his race, he's only having it delayed and the business is willing and has every intention of providing tax services to that customer, everything about the situation is fine and there should be no legal issues involved?

No, everything about that situation is not fine, because the basis for that delay is immoral racist hatred. In extreme contrast, not want to touch the genital's of unknown member of the opposite sex is not hate-fueled bigotry toward that sex (although I cannot resonate with that lack of desire
Since the actual act of doing taxes has no objective connection to the reason the person is being delayed (their skin color), we can be certain that it is just a general act of bigotry against that group.

In contrast, the objectively different biology of males and females is directly relevant to making physical contact with those different body parts. Reasonable people know that different feelings about such acts are not fueled by bigotry toward the opposite sex but rather than innate sexual orientation of the person doing the touching, which can easily trigger sexual thoughts and feelings when done with a person of one sex but not the other.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your proven lack of logical prowess, doesn't negate the clear logical implications of your statements.

No, you are absolutely incorrect. There are other ways to mitigate this.

If you hire someone who isn't willing or capable of doing the job they are hired to do, then it is the employer's responsibility to make certain someone is available to perform these tasks, if for no other reason... not to lose business.

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.

First of all, just 1 additional could easily equal a 50% increase in employees. A small waxing company could have just 2 workers, both whom service females (because they are 99% of clients) and 1 who also services males. So, 1 additional employee is a 50% increase with nothing for that extra person to do 90% of the time but wait around just in case 2 males request the service at the same time.

That is nice and all, but as has been pointed out, there was supposed to be two people on staff. So clearly, this wouldn't have broken their business model.