Michigan salon owner denies service following SCOTUS ruling, angers trans activists.

The Controversy Surrounding a Michigan Hair Salon Owner’s ​Refusal​ to Serve Transgender ‌Customers

The owner𝅺 of a Michigan ⁢hair salon ⁤is 𝅺making headlines ⁣for her refusal𝅺 to ⁣do business with ⁢transgender‍ individuals, sparking⁤ a⁢ debate about the ⁣limits⁤ of⁤ free speech and freedom of ‍religion.

Christine Geiger, the salon owner in 𝅺Traverse City, Michigan, has ⁢taken a​ firm stance‍ against ⁢serving men who identify as women ⁢or women who identify as ‌men. In an⁤ interview‍ with ‍The Associated Press, Geiger stated, “I just don’t want the⁢ woke dollar…⁣ I’d rather not be as busy than to⁤ have⁤ to do‌ services𝅺 that I don’t‌ agree with.”

Geiger’s decision⁤ is rooted in her opposition to what she ‍sees as the increasing⁣ influence𝅺 of transgender ideology in schools ⁣and doctors’ offices. She believes‌ that ‍her salon should ⁢not‌ be forced ⁤to cater to these ideologies.

The ⁤controversy ​began​ when⁢ Geiger‍ posted a message ⁣on Facebook stating that individuals who identify as anything other 𝅺than a man𝅺 or a woman should seek⁢ services ⁢at a local pet groomer.‌ She⁣ also changed ⁣the salon’s Instagram bio ⁢to emphasize that it is a private conservative ⁣business that does not cater to woke𝅺 ideologies.

Disgusting.

A hair salon in Michigan announced⁤ it ‌will discriminate against trans/queer ⁤people seeking ‌haircuts.

Studio 8 Hair Lab, by‌ Christine Geiger, announced⁣ that⁤ she ‍would ⁣refuse ⁤service to ‌trans ⁤and queer people, ‍and any haircut not deemed “normal” for their ​gender. pic.twitter.com/lEzsFRS8vS

—⁢ Erin Reed ‌(@ErinInTheMorn) July 11, 2023

Geiger’s‌ posts quickly ⁤drew 𝅺backlash, prompting‍ city officials⁢ to investigate whether she‌ was violating any city ​ordinances.

Mayor Richard 𝅺Lewis⁣ expressed disappointment ‍in ⁤Geiger’s‍ discriminatory behavior,‍ emphasizing that‌ the city values providing a safe⁤ environment for⁤ all individuals.

This controversy‍ comes‌ on the 𝅺heels of‌ a recent 𝅺Supreme Court ruling that protected a Denver web​ designer’s right‍ to refuse⁢ creating wedding⁢ websites‍ for ‍same-sex ⁤couples based on religious​ and moral‌ objections. ⁤The⁤ ruling⁢ in ⁤303 ‌Creative LLC v. Elenis‍ affirmed the‌ freedom ⁤of‌ individuals ⁢to think and speak⁣ as they wish without government⁤ compulsion.

The‌ question now is whether ⁣giving a haircut can ‌be considered ​a form of speech. Constitutional law​ professor⁣ Brendan Beery believes‌ that ⁤Geiger’s actions likely violate⁢ state law, as the⁣ recent Supreme Court ‌decision specifically⁤ addressed expressive services ⁤like‌ building websites.

Geiger’s case raises ⁤important ⁤questions about the boundaries of free speech ‌protections, ‌and it is ​likely to be resolved⁢ in the courts.

Source: The​ Western Journal