Table Of Content
“Following the hearing, the judge will provide a recommendation as to whether discrimination took place and if so, what the appropriate penalty should be,” the state said. There has, however, been repeated misinformation regarding HB 4474, which is a bill seeking to expand Michigan’s hate crime laws to include protections for a host of classes including gay and transgender individuals. The salon's announcement and subsequent backlash come after the Supreme Court's ruling at the end of June that businesses could refuse to serve LGBTQ+ clients. The court ruled 6-3 that a wedding website's owner could deny services to gay couples. In their suit, Studio 8 challenges the constitutionality of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, gender or race.
Discover More Local Pros
Some residents say the city’s cheery exterior masks racial and cultural divides similar to those elsewhere in the U.S. In a statement, Traverse City officials expressed their disappointment after receiving multiple complaints regarding Geiger's discriminatory language. “We are likely going to see more attempts to try and use that decision and religious beliefs to justify discrimination in non-religious activity,” he says. A friend of Christine Geiger, the owner of Studio 8, made a post on Facebook saying she supports Geiger for standing up for what she believes in.
Embracing Inclusivity: Exploring LGBTQ+-Friendly Hair Salons in Traverse City
BBB asks third parties who publish complaints, reviews and/or responses on this website to affirm that the information provided is accurate. However, BBB does not verify the accuracy of information provided by third parties, and does not guarantee the accuracy of any information in Business Profiles. Your first name and first initial of your last name will display online. Your full name will only be used to allow the business to verify that you are a customer.
Provide Your Info to Leave a Review
Studio 8 is suing the City of Traverse City and three individuals who filed complaints against the salon, accusing them of violating the salon’s free speech and religious freedom rights. Supreme Court decision along 6-3 partisan lines that ruled a Colorado website designer could not be compelled to create wedding websites for LGBTQ+ couples. The ruling, which was relatively narrow, determined the website designer was creating customized speech and was protected on First Amendment grounds.
Recent Posts
"We stand in solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community and reiterate our commitment to supporting their rights," Jack Winn Pro continued. On Wednesday, protesters stood outside the salon chanting and holding signs, AP reported. “Speaking and conduct two different things…And they can’t equate the two.
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Advance Local. If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy. But Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan’s LGBTQ+ Project, said the same argument could not be applied in the case of Studio 8 Hair Lab as giving a haircut would not qualify as a customized tailored speech. News of Studio 8 Hair Lab’s post, and subsequent refusal of service, was first reported by the northern Michigan television station 9&10 News.
Traverse City salon sparks outrage after anti-trans social media posts - UpNorthLive.com
Traverse City salon sparks outrage after anti-trans social media posts.
Posted: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 07:00:00 GMT [source]
A Facebook post from Studio 8 Hair Lab suggested that anyone who identifies as anything other than a man or a woman should see a pet groomer and that service would be denied to them. Late last month multiple outlets, including Fox News and the Daily Mail, ran stories arguing the legislation would make it a felony to use the wrong pronouns for someone, despite the fact the word “pronouns” appears nowhere in the bill. The court later ruled in her favor, noting that her designs constituted a form of speech and that forcing her to design a website which ran afoul of her faith could stifle her First Amendment rights. State Rep. Betsy Coffia, D-Traverse City, issued a response on Tuesday addressing Studio 8 Hair Lab's remarks. She denounced the comparison of "LGBTQ+ neighbors to animals and pedophiles," describing it as "breathtaking hate and bigotry."
Owner bans some LGBTQ customers from Michigan hair salon over pronouns. ‘Not welcome’ - Kansas City Star
Owner bans some LGBTQ customers from Michigan hair salon over pronouns. ‘Not welcome’.
Posted: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 07:00:00 GMT [source]
In her claims, Gieger argued that Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act is unconstitional, after pushback over a social media post in which she said that Studio 8 would only serve people who identify as male or female. The next step for the Studio 8 case will be awaiting a hearing before an administrative law judge. The MDCR’s charge requests that Geiger pay the claimants for emotional distress and “mental anguish” her posts caused. If decided after a hearing, Studio 8 and Geiger could have state licensing certifications revoked based on violation of ELCRA. “Under the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act, there are protections against retaliation for participating in a protected activity, such as filing an unlawful discrimination complaint with our department,” Trevino said.
Trible-Laucht otherwise declined to comment on the case, citing the ongoing nature of the litigation. The case is before Judge Kevin Elsenheimer, though no hearings have yet been set. Supreme Court decision in the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, in which a Colorado-based web designer argued her state’s anti-discrimination law would compel her to create wedding websites for same sex-couples – something she disagreed with, citing her faith.
While some argued that the private business should operate as it sees fit, others urged the community to refrain from seeking hair care services at Studio 8 Hair Lab. In the original Facebook post, Geiger inaccurately referenced House Bill 4744 while expressing the salon's refusal to acknowledge preferred pronouns. Hair product manufacturer Jack Winn Pro publicly distanced itself from Geiger's remarks, while expressing its unwavering support for LGBTQ+ rights. The Civil Rights Department says this case is not about free speech because Studio 8 violated the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights act. The act prevents discrimination based on religion, race or color, and the department says Geiger advertised unlawful discrimination. Back in July, the owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab, Christine Geiger, posted on Facebook that anyone who identifies other than male or female needs to get serviced at a pet groomer.
"It's the TQ+ that I'm not going to support," she said, referring to transgender and queer or questioning people. The comment, posted in a local Facebook group, used language often repeated by far-right conspiracy theorists to paint LGBTQ people as "groomers" dangerous to young people. The salon's owner did not respond to requests for comment from USA TODAY or the Detroit Free Press, part of the USA TODAY Network.
No comments:
Post a Comment