He doesnt care...he was unaware they even had a tech that deals with male clients. Facts arent important, only narrative.The spa is in Canada.
He doesnt care...he was unaware they even had a tech that deals with male clients. Facts arent important, only narrative.The spa is in Canada.
Even more specific then. The Canadian Human Rights Act states that employers and services in Ontario must provide “accommodations for transgender or gender non-conforming persons when necessary.”The spa is in Canada.
The spa is in Canada.
The CEO himself stated, “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." And here's another one. “I have no male wax staff,” Carruthers said Friday. “We are not able to provide that service.” Seems to contradict your statement.He doesnt care...he was unaware they even had a tech that deals with male clients. Facts arent important, only narrative.
So does that same discrimination occur in the reverse...why wont any of these women come get Brazilian waxes from the men...they arent predators. They are just trying to make a living. Women should have to go to those businesses to, so they can perform the service, they wanted the service any way. Right to earn a living! Oh wait...you understand capitalism some times...but not when it doesnt fit your narrative.I stated I'm not personally for banning Trumpers, but legally businesses are allowed to because that falls under political discrimination. What they aren't allowed to discriminate on are skin color, race, religion, sex, and nationality.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically says businesses can't refuse to serve based on sex. How is that ambiguous?
“accommodations for transgender or gender non-conforming persons when necessary.”
This makes no sense. If a woman goes to a Brazilian waxing salon they are legally entitled to be served yes.So does that same discrimination occur in the reverse...why wont any of these women come get Brazilian waxes from the men...they arent predators. They are just trying to make a living. Women should have to go to those businesses to, so they can perform the service, they wanted the service any way. Right to earn a living! Oh wait...you understand capitalism some times...but not when it doesnt fit your narrative.
It is their job. They work at a salon that sells Brazilian waxes.I'd say when it's only women there who feel uncomfortable, and who's job it isn't, then it's not necessary, wouldn't you?
But, but I thought the tax cut targeted massive deductions for wealthy taxpayers?The IRS pushed back today against states like NY and NJ that have tried to come up with work-arounds for the new SALT deduction limits. These states are letting its wealthiest taxpayers recharacterize the tax payments as charitable contributions. The IRS is calling the move B.S. and people who try it are looking at owing serious penalties and interest in addition to the back tax.
"Calling an alligator a hairless, toothy, non-barking dog doesn’t make it so,” said Mark Klein, the chairman of law firm Hodgson Russ in New York. “I have grave concerns that taxpayers who ‘voluntarily’ give to these state and local charities could be subject to tax, interest and penalties if the IRS picks up on it.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/per...n-avoiding-property-deduction-caps/ar-AAxHzM7
No, it's not their job. I've tried explaining this to you a dozens times. Their job is to wax women, not men pretending to be women. A tranny coming and claiming "Women have penises. Women have balls." doesn't make him a woman. He somehow thinks dressing in drag makes him an exception, regardless of his cock and balls.It is their job. They work at a salon that sells Brazilian waxes.
You're making my point, not yours. "staff member he had who did male waxing" directly contradicts your premise that "Their job is to wax women, not men".No, it's not their job. I've tried explaining this to you a dozens times. Their job is to wax women, not men pretending to be women. A tranny coming and claiming "Women have penises. Women have balls." doesn't make him a woman. He somehow thinks dressing in drag makes him an exception, regardless of his cock and balls.
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-n...es-human-rights-complaint-against-windsor-spa
Following a conversation with an employee, she asked to speak with the owner. 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.
He further explained the only staff member he had who did male waxing was off on a sick leave and there was no one else.
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.”
“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.”
This isn't that hard to understand. The women working at the time the tranny came into the establishment, it isn't their job to wax males, only females. That's the policy. Stop being insufferable.You're making my point, not yours. "the only staff member he had who did male waxing" directly contradicts your premise of, "Their job is to wax women, not men".
If you're a genital waxing business, it's illegal to have such a policy.
I agree it isn't that hard to understand. They work at a salon that offers Brazilian waxes and is not legally allowed to discriminate based on sex, or in Ontario, sexual orientation. It is their job. I'm not the one who's insufferable.This isn't that hard to understand. The women working at the time the tranny came into the establishment, it isn't their job to wax males, only females. Stop being insufferable.
Which under Canadian law is illegal.But they werent. Its a woman. They were not serving her because she had nuts.
If you don't want to wax genitals, don't work at a genital waxing salon. Seems pretty easy to avoid.For all the her body, her choice we get from the left, seems a bit hypocritical to argue women should be force to fondle the balls of any man that walks through the door.
They work at a salon that offers Brazilian waxes and is not legally allowed to discriminate based on sex,
It is their job
I'm not the one who's insufferable.
Waxing your balls is a thing? Really?
Shutting up because you're wrong. If only more conservatives would follow your lead!I'll do you a favor and stop responding.
Shutting up because you're wrong. If only more conservatives would follow your lead!
If you don't want to wax genitals, don't work at a genital waxing salon. Seems pretty easy to avoid.
“I have no male wax staff,” Carruthers said Friday. So who's going to do the waxing that they're legally required to provide to both sexes and "transgender or gender non-conforming persons" if they have no male staff?Nowhere under the law does it say that all employees are required to preform all functions of a job. Bottom line, women who work at spas do not have to wax the balls of men or men pretending to be women.
Which is why the best solution is to let owners run their business how they see fit, and consumers shop where they see fit. If a business chooses not to sell to a certain clientele, it will open up opportunities for another business to come along who will. I'm a wedding DJ. I have no problem Djing a gay wedding. Some DJ's won't and that's more money for me. I want to be able to choose my clients. I wouldn't want to DJ a satanic wedding for example. I'm sure there is someone who would. Where there is a need, someone will come along to make money off of it. Demanding someone offer you their services is slavery. Keep it free for everyone to choose and you won't have to worry about religious conflicts, or sexual orientation issues. Simple.1) It is not settled law that sexual orientation is a protected class under the constitution such that strict scrutiny should be applied. Heightened or intermediate scrutiny is still the level of review applied in most circuits. IMO, I do not agree that sexual orientation should be a true protected class
2) IMO, there should be a balancing of interests applied when someone's freedom of religion (which is a very fundamental, powerful and personal right) clashes with another's rights under the equal protection clause. Again, IMO, where strict scrutiny is not applied (in the absence of a protected class), one's good-faith religious objections to serve another should outweigh another person's right to make that person serve them.