Michigan stylist fired for telling transgender people to use “pet groom.”

A Michigan stylist who claimed First Amendment safeguards when instructing trans customers to use “pet groomers” filed a lawsuit in a northern Michigan judge that dismissed all of their claims.

The Studio 8 Hair Lab in Traverse City filed a complaint against the capital and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights on October 25 in the Grand Traverse County Circuit Court.

Christine Geiger, the owner of the salon, was criticized last July for her controversial use of sponsor pronouns in a Twitter post from Studio 8 Hair Lab’s website.

Read more: According to Michigan hair stylist, telling transgender clients to use “pet grooming” is a First Amendment correct.

” If a man identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please get service at a local pet groomer. You are not permitted at this shop. Period”, the July article reads. Please take note that we may refer to you as “hey you” if you want to have a special pronoun used. ‘… This is America, completely conversation. This smaller business has the authority to refuse service.

Geiger responded to the first article with a reply, this time from her private accounts, saying she had” no problems with LBG.” It’s the TQ+ that I’m not going to support”.

The state civil rights section was sued by the shop against three residents, the town, and the division after several people complained to the salon. Prior to this, Geiger’s lawyer David DeLaney stated that the civil rights section had investigated several complaints against the shop.

The defendants were charged in the complaint filed in the 13th Circuit Court with violating the company’s right to “use its talents and the evocative platform they have… to observe and market God’s design for both men and women.” The petition supports this position in light of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and Traverse City’s Non-Discrimination Ordinance, both of which prevent discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity or appearance.

According to a declaration from the Michigan Department of Attorney General, these claims were dismissed on March 21. The judge cited as justification that the shop had filed its lawsuits against the civil rights section in the incorrect location.

Judge Kevin Elsenheimer ruled the salon’s “primary purpose in initiating the action against the]individual claimants] was to harass, intimidate, threaten and/or retaliate against]them ]”.

Elsenheimer described the restaurant’s claims as “frivolous,” especially those made against Traverse City, where the city did not take any action against the shop.

Geiger’s claims differentiate from companies that saw talk protections from various U. S. Supreme Court situations, especially the 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis event in 2023.

” In 303 Creative, the defendants stipulated that the landlord was willing to work with all people regardless of sexual orientation or other secured groupings, whereas here, the Plaintiff’s Facebook post indicated that she will not offer services to transgender people”, according to the court decision.

In a statement released on March 21, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel praised the selection.

This choice reinforces that the ELCRA protects transgender people, that hairstyles do not entail spiritual conversation, and that threats to silence or torment people who speak out against prejudice will not be tolerated, she said.