USA: State finds Traverse City hair salon's anti-trans posts violated law

What homophobic comments did they make?

Good, what an awful thing to say. Your right to free speech ends when you start being abusive to people.

Did they mean trans people or those who identify as animals? If the latter I don’t blame them.

This hair salon is being daft because as a small business they are vulnerable to boycotts and legal actions. Of course, everyone should be welcome in any business, but there is an issue if the people working there are forced to use wrong-sex pronouns to cater to certain customers.

Apparenly the owner posted that the “LGB” was still welcome at her salon but the “TQ+” includes pedophiles (that is a big debate). So, I'm not seeing where the homophobic comments were apparently made, as clamed above.

I'm not sure how the midgets comment relates to homophobia. As a lesbian, I'm sick of the whole rainbow thing (what it's become and how it's used is homophobic in many ways and makes many gay people feel uncomfortable). That follower is an idiot, but the follower is a separate person from the people running the salon, so it's not accurate to say they were making homophobic comments. They may have, but it's not obvious where.

They do sound a bit peculiar. If you have a point to make about their Facebook posts it’s probably best to deal with them directly rather than speak to the women here. We won’t be able to help you

If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer.

To me, this reads quite clearly as saying that trans people are welcome (after all, trans people identify as men and women, just not the sex they were born as) but that people who identify as anything else (eg as a dog or a cat) are not welcome.

That might not be what they meant, but it's certainly how it reads.

So American then and nothing to do with UK law - I assume this is in no way an attempt to post a gotcha on the day that the EHRC guidance comes into force

Reminds me of the case a few years ago when a bakery refused to supply a cake for a gay wedding (maybe wrong on the details)
As far as I recall, the verdict was that if you are offering services to the general public, you cannot be discriminatory. So their 'Christian' belief was no excuse.

I think that is the right logic: if you serve the general public, you serve all of them without prejudice.

Obvious caveats:
The right to refuse service if the customer is abusive or rude
The right to limit services to single-sex if there is intimate contact (normal hairdressing would not qualify as single-sex only)
The right to refuse service if the customer does not meet hygiene requirements
The right to close up shop and no longer serve anyone.

This is the first I've heard of this case and I don't want to spend hours looking into it, so I can only go by the OP. So my main question is, was the business turning down trans custom, or was it turning down furry custom? The quote suggests they're fine with transwomen and transmen, but not otherkin.

Bit confused to be honest.

The bakery actually won the case. The cake was a wedding cake but was not intended for a wedding. The request was for the cake to have icing message in favour of equal marriage rights (gay marriage as it was generally referred to at the time). As Christians the bakers declined to ice the message but were happy to provide both the cake and the icing for the customer to put the message themselves.

Interesting. On what grounds did they win?

On the grounds that the bakery didn't discriminate against the gay rights activist ordering a wedding cake iced with the message "Support Gay Marriage" as they were happy to supply the wedding cake. They couldn't be forced to ice a political message on the cake contrary to their own rights to freedom of expression

That sounds like a good verdict.
It is the fine line between providing a service to all customers without discrimination, and refusing to be forced to endorse a political view.

Human Rights Act.

The hair salon case was in 2023.

If I'm ever in.. where was it again? Traverse City, I won't give them my custom because I think the dog-grooming thing was rude, and that's not good public relations, is it?

It's a shame, because I like the idea of a business that recognises that the LGB community exists, separately from the TQ++ community who are a different set of people with different issues, identities, histories, etc etc.

I might have got a decent haircut there, unlike the barbers who refuse to cut my hair because I'm a woman.

They've forfeited my custom - punishment enough, surely?😏

edited for spelling, I thought there was a spellchecker on these posts? clearly not, or else it randomly withholds its services to make me look bad😄

Good. They announced their intention to discriminate they acted illegally.

I don't think it's like that case at all

Do you mean I got the details wrong or you disagree with the logic?

I agree it sounds like a statement against people wanting to be treated as if they are animals.

Generally small business are not in favour of losing custom. They want customers. I’d assume the rant was the result of a couple of difficult experiences with specific customers, and they foolishly included the whole alphabet in it.

Presumably you have the right to refuse service to a furry in costume? I’d also refuse service to someone who was being exceptionally demanding. Anyone upsetting staff would expect to be removed.

Apparently the salon people didn't want to be obliged to refer to men who claim to be women as "she" or "her". I admit I'd have a problem with that too.

“If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer. You are not welcome at this salon. Period.”

That sounds like they're having a dig at Furries. Not the Trans community.