Social Question

Demosthenes's avatar

Who do you side with here (read more)

Asked by Demosthenes (14926points) May 20th, 2018
15 responses
“Great Question” (1points)

I saw this on another site and thought it was an interesting case:

https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/human-rights-application-launched-against-windsor-body-waxing-business-by-transgender-woman-1.3925911

A trans woman was refused a wax at a spa because the Muslim employee is forbidden to touch men who are not her husband (and thus she would only wax women, but here you have a trans woman who identifies as a woman, but has male genitalia).

From the business:

“All clients regardless of sex, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation are welcome,” said Carruthers. “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.”

Is this like the “wedding cake” issue? Whose rights win out?

Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0

Answers

kritiper's avatar

This is not a wedding cake issue because no one trying to make bodily (flesh to flesh) contact with a cake.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Muslim law sucks. But, having said that, I can understand the reservation of skin to skin contact, especially between women and strange men, and men and men.

Darth_Algar's avatar

No, it isn’t like the wedding cake issue. No one should be forced to make bodily contact with someone else if they’re not comfortable with it.

LadyMarissa's avatar

I don’t see this as the wedding cake issue. The business did not refuse to wax the Trans…only one employee who would have reacted the same way had it been a hetero male requesting the waxing. Had the Trans completed the transition, I doubt that the employee would have had the same reaction unless informed first. I don’t think that I would want to give my business to a company that has only one waxer because that tells me they aren’t very popular so not very busy & there might be a good reason why!!! I’ve never been above taking my business elsewhere for reasons of my own!!!

On the other hand, had I owned the business, my only waxer would NOT have been a person who had the right to refuse service to any of my customers for any reason. I’d make sure my employees had NO hangups & were willing & ready to do their job!!! You don’t have to agree with a customer’s lifestyle in order to give great customer service!!!

BTW I wax my own legs so I don’t understand why the Trans couldn’t do the same!!!

jonsblond's avatar

So a gay man or straight man would also be refused? Sounds bad for business imo. There should be someone else available who works on all bodies, not just ones with vaginas.

SergeantQueen's avatar

maybe not refer to her as “the trans” and instead just as the woman?
She identifies as a female.
But
The Muslim law doesn’t recognize that. Their law classifies a man as a human with a penis and the chromosomes. So, if she has a penis and is biologically a man, in this instance, she can’t get business here because of their beliefs.

MrGrimm888's avatar

First off. I have never agreed with emotional harm lawsuits, in most cases. We all.suffer it through our entire lives. We cannot just sue anyone who hurts our feelings…

As far as the incident, I don’t have enough information. I know that men get waxed in waxing places, all of the time. Well. It’s not unheard of….

I know gay weddings get denied at Cake Shops, and other places. Is this the same? I don’t know.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I knew before I opened this that you’d all say it wasn’t the same-lol….to me, it’s the same. Religious beliefs versus discrimination.

The problem is that no other waxer was available to do the work, per the article, which seems rather discriminatory.

janbb's avatar

It would seem to me that if they welcome all genders, they need to employ a waxer willing to work on males and trans women in addition to the Muslim.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KNOWITALL

So you think people should be forced into intimate bodily contact?

Darth_Algar's avatar

@janbb

Maybe they do employ another waxer willing to do that work. Maybe that waxer called in sick that day. Or maybe they’re looking, but no one is applying for the job.

LadyMarissa's avatar

Maybe they found a better way to get around refusing service…a lot of “maybe“s here.

Yes straight males get waxed but is it a huge clientele? So, is it cost effective to keep an employee who only handles the males & transgenders?

I’d think it would be a smart business decision to have a waxer who “specializes” in transgender waxing!!! Would increase business & good will at the same time!!!

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Darth_Algar No, I think a responsible business owner should make arrangements to have every customer handled gracefully.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Sometimes, however, customers have requests that, reasonable or not, just can’t be accommodated at that time.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Darth_Algar This probably had something to do with it, maybe even more than not having a waxer available for the job.

The application to the HRTO says Carruthers’ “refusal to provide me with leg-waxing services because I am a Transgender woman, and their disclosing my name, gender identity and personal information to various media outlets has left me feeling threatened, exposed, with my rights violated in terms of seeking services as a woman in the Windsor-Essex community.”

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

Mobile | Desktop


Send Feedback   

`