Should Muslim women be forced to give beauty treatments to males?

[HecatesCatsInFancyHats]

"Unisex salon stand by their decision to REJECT a gender-fluid singer from a nail appointment - because they thought they were 'a man' so Muslim beautician objected"

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9601197/Nail-salon-refuse-manicure-gender-fluid-singer-beautician-Muslim.html

[thepuredrop]

No.
Did they try to reschedule the appointment? Couldn’t read full article as it wouldn’t load.

[Nancylovesthecock]

How on earth would someone know if someone was 'gender fluid'? Unless they were a total bore and banging on about it at every opportunity?

[TedImgoingmad]

No. And if she did, she potentially puts herself in danger, as an adulterer in the eyes of an orthodox religion that often doesn't treat females who transgress strict sex segregation rules well.

Religion aside, because of the intimate nature of many beauty treatments, salons should be able to operate on a sex segregated basis.

Hope this isn't going to be the UK's version of Yaniv.

[jasminoide]

Absolutely not.

[Cuntryhouse]

Who gives a flying fuck what gender you are. What sex are you? It's basic respect for her religion isn't it. Ffs. Protected characteristics.

Such sexist bullshit.

[ArabellaScott]

No, they should not.

Looks a lot like a Yaniv case, to me.

Does 'transgender identity' trump protected beliefs under the Equality Act? Can't imagine so, but it's interesting to see what happens when the two conflict like this.

[SunflowerOwl]

Surely the salon should have just rearranged the appointment for when a different technician was available and apologised. Of course a Muslim woman (or any woman) shouldn't be forced to touch a man but seems quite unprofessional.

[Monicuddle]

It’s a shame that beauticians can’t just refuse to do treatments on males without having to give religion as a reason. On the other hand, advertising a “unisex” salon isn’t very clear, if you want to be a single sex service. The would-be client sounds like a royal PITA though.

[DoingItMyself]

No, no-one should.

[ArabellaScott]

I'm not sure, Sunflower, but I get the impression this is a very small salon, there may only be a couple of people working in it.

[Nancylovesthecock]

Oh I see, now I've read the article it's typical male entitlement and privilege.

No one performing personal care services of any kind is obliged to do so on ANYONE for ANY reason. ANY REASON AT All wether man, woman or llama.

Get back in your box, prick.

[SunflowerOwl]

Oh I see are we supposed to be outraged that he was called a man rather than because his appointment was cancelled?

[Tibtom]

As a unisex salon that provides haircuts for men, I think the sex of the recipient of a manicure is not relevant. It is not a beauty treatment that is done in private and the salon is not sex segregated.

[ScrollingLeaves]

No

[DoingItMyself]

And that's a small salon, probably not many staff. A small business. Women trying to make a living. Fucking hell, what a bastard to give them a hard time.

[RedToothBrush]

Dickhead who is gender fluid doesn't fall under a protected characteristic do they? Being non-binary isn't actually covered by law yet is it?

Female muslim employee falls under two.

Also efforts to force Muslim women to treat gender fluid (or trans) customers will only result in them no longer working in the industry, which isn't exactly increasing inclusivity.

What always gets me in these cases is the 'victim' always seems to have a portfolio of images of themselves ready to hand to the press. The alleged 'abuser' being from a religious or ethnic minority also seems to be part of the pattern.

Odd isn't it?

[RedToothBrush]

I believe the salon is unisex for hair but only offers single sex personal treatments for other things.

Seems fair enough.

[Nancylovesthecock]

Yes it is. If the person providing the personal service has a reason for not wanting to. No person is obliged to touch another in ANY CAPACITY for ANY REASON.

[RufustheBadgeringReindeer]

Definitely not

[Arbadacarba]

No, she shouldn't be forced to give treatments to anyone, regardless of sex/gender.

[Tibtom]

I am surprised to find myself disagreeing with the responses here.

Of course a Muslim woman (or any woman) shouldn't be forced to touch a man but seems quite unprofessional

Would you say the same for a female muslim doctor?

If they were providing a single sex service then I would agree but a unisex salon?

[Clymene]

@Tibtom

I am surprised to find myself disagreeing with the responses here.

Of course a Muslim woman (or any woman) shouldn't be forced to touch a man but seems quite unprofessional

Would you say the same for a female muslim doctor?

If they were providing a single sex service then I would agree but a unisex salon?

It's a unisex hair salon. The beautician service is women only.

What a foul stinking bully Andrew is.

[Tibtom]

Of course you should be able to exclude any abusive potential customers though.

[MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously]

I'm not sure tbh. Depends on the terms under which the employee took the job. If it's a unisex Salon (for all services) then an employee imo ought to serve both men and women. But if certain services are sex segregated, then no, an employee shouldn't be under any obligation.
It is just a manicure though, not anything intimate.

[BraveBananaBadge]

Seems the customer was treated poorly, things were handled insensitively and not surprising they were pissed off, but the behaviour in response is a typical TRA attack in language and intent.

It seems similar to the Demi Levato announcement the other day - you can nod and smile and politely go along with it all, but it's exhausting to pretend you can't see what's really in front of you.