Commentary: Michigan Salon Owner Refuses Service After Landmark SCOTUS Ruling—Trans Activists Are Steaming

The owner of a Michigan hair salon is pushing a recent Supreme Court decision about as far as it can go by refusing to do business with transgender people.

This from westernjournal.com.

But is she right? Does the decision supporting free speech and freedom of religion cover her refusal to give haircuts to certain customers?

Salon owner Christine Geiger of Traverse City, Michigan, stirred a hornet’s nest when she announced that she would not serve men claiming to be women or women claiming to be men.

Geiger told The Associated Press:

I just don’t want the woke dollar. … I’d rather not be as busy than to have to do services that I don’t agree with.

She also insisted that:

[H]er policy is in opposition to the worrying trend of children being inundated with transgender ideology in schools and doctors’ offices.

Geiger first raised the ire of liberals with a Facebook post reading:

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. Should you request to have a particular pronoun used please note we may simply refer to you as ‘hey you.’

Studio 8 Hair Lab’s Instagram bio was also changed to read:

A private CONSERVATIVE business that does not cater to woke ideologies.

The Detroit Free Press reported:

That Instagram account is currently set to private.

Geiger said, referring to transgender and “queer” people, according to USA Today:

It’s the TQ+ that I’m not going to support.

Geiger’s now-hidden and deleted posts raised a ruckus and sent Traverse City officials looking to see if she was violating any city ordinances.

Mayor Richard Lewis said:

We are disheartened to hear of any discriminatory behavior in our region.

The City of Traverse City has valued itself on providing a safe environment for all people.

The controversy comes weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Colorado could not compel a Denver web designer to create wedding websites for same-sex couples against her religious and moral objections.

The decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis noted that web designer Lorie Smith and all Americans are “free to think and speak as they wish” and neither federal, state nor local governments can compel speech.

So, the big question for Geiger is whether giving a haircut counts as speech.

One expert told WZZM-TV that the hair stylist’s actions are likely unconstitutional. But this interpretation assumes styling hair is not “expressive” but web design is “expressive.”

Go figure!

In fact, Brendan Beery, a constitutional law professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, noted that the recent Supreme Court decision focused on “expressive” services like building websites.

Beery said:

If giving somebody a haircut is not expressive, then, yep, this kind of discrimination is barred under state law very clearly.

Geiger’s case raises the question of just how far We the People can push free speech protections. And we can be certain that this one will head to the courts.

Final thoughts: Rock on Christine Geiger.