I'm really interested to see if the 3rd case is also a religious/immigrant/from a different culture woman. A woman shouldn't have to excuse their boundaries through religion/culture. I get why its being argued this way because the women so far have been religious and from different cultures but I want JY to be told no means no even if its an atheist whose family has been in Canada for generations.
The tweets are fascinating, JY is actually trying to assert that this poor woman is a liar because a flier says waxing services 24 hours a day and her facebook says 10-6. JY really shouldn't try and "gotcha" people when refusing to answer basic questions about the area on the body in question for waxing.
"JY - male on DL at time, had to have SRS to change at that time, female on BC, won't answer re original BC - has been destroyed" If JY won't state that original BC did not say female, how can protected status of transgender be established?
The tribunal should not be letting JY get away without answering so many fundamental questions. The waxers would in no way get away with not answering such important questions. Its ridiculous, they should have cancelled the whole thing when JY refused to answer questions about the waxing area/tampons/periods in the first hearing.
I'm actually worried JY will win (still hope common sense will prevail) but I've been doing some reading and the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that LGBT rights trump religious rights (www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44501139) and while generally something like a personal service is very different than a law school, I'm still worried.