After telling trans customers to use ‘pet groomer,’ Michigan salon could face legal trouble, experts say

Dec 05, 2023

A Traverse City hair salon has come under fire this week for posts its owner made to Facebook, saying transgender customers are not welcome and should instead “seek services at a local pet groomer.”

Now legal experts say that not only is the business misinterpreting a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the topic to refuse service, but that it may be running afoul of discrimination protections in Michigan.

News of Studio 8 Hair Lab’s post, and subsequent refusal of service, was first reported by the northern Michigan television station 9&10 News. The business has since deleted its Facebook page, though an image of the initial post can still be found online.

RELATED: Traverse City investigating Michigan salon that told trans patrons to use ‘pet groomer’

“If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman please seek services at a local pet groomer,” a portion of the post reads. “You are not welcome at this salon. Period. ... This is America; free speech. This small business has the right to refuse services.”

MLive reached out to Studio 8 Hair Lab owner Christine Geiger but did not hear back in time for publication.

Studio 8 Hair Lab’s post comes following a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, in which a Colorado-based web designer argued her state’s anti-discrimination law would compel her to create wedding websites for same sex-couples – something she disagreed with, citing her faith.

The court later ruled in her favor, noting that her designs constituted a form of speech and that forcing her to design a website which ran afoul of her faith could stifle her First Amendment rights.

But Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan’s LGBTQ+ Project, said the same argument could not be applied in the case of Studio 8 Hair Lab as giving a haircut would not qualify as a customized tailored speech.

“We don’t believe that she falls under that exemption,” Kaplan said. “That applies to (careers) like speech writers or muralists, where they’re conveying a certain message with their product. Very few customers are going to come to somebody who says, ‘no, I don’t care what (haircut) you want.’ That’s not the way she’d operate.”

RELATED: Michigan protected LGBTQ rights. The U.S. Supreme Court carved out an exception.

He pointed to a 2022 Michigan Supreme Court ruling which, barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, saying that in making the post, the salon might be in violation of state precedent. State lawmakers codified that ruling into law earlier this year, though as the bill did not receive immediate effect, it’s not currently able to be enforced.

Similarly, in a thread posted to Twitter, Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit also argued the salon was in violation of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act which he said “expressly forbids businesses from ‘deny(ing) the full and equal enjoyment’ of ‘goods and services’ because of a person’s ‘gender identity or expression’

“303 Creative involved a web designer who refused to make wedding websites for same-sex couples. ... But the decision was limited to ‘expressive conduct’,” Savit wrote. “The court did not say that, in general, business owners may ignore state anti-discrimination laws (like Elliott-Larsen). Those laws still generally apply, albeit with a constitutional carve-out for ‘expressive’ conduct.”

For anyone wondering: this action is flatly illegal under Michigan law--and the recent Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative doesn't change that. 🧵/1https://t.co/uuW1Ekiow1

Attorney General Dana Nessel has also argued the court’s recent decision would have no impact on Michigan’s civil rights laws, saying in a recent statement that it could not be “applied to protect against discrimination in the provision of public accommodations that do not constitute speech.”

Nessel press secretary Danny Wimmer, in an email sent to MLive early Wednesday, added that the department has since received “several complaints pertaining to the bigotry exhibited by the salon proprietor in Traverse City.”

“As to the question of the legality of the statements and any subsequent actions of the salon under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and the Michigan Supreme Court’s holding in Rouch World, the matter is likely to be litigated in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling in 303 Creative that opened the door to discrimination by business entities where ‘expressive speech’ is at issue,” Wimmer said.

Though Geiger did not return a request for comment, an account under her name posted Monday to the “Overheard in Traverse City” Facebook group that she had “no issues with LGB. It’s the TQ+ that I’m not going to support.”

“This stance was taken to insure that clients have the best experience and I am admitting that since I am not willing to play the pronoun game or cater to requests outside of what I perceive as normal this probably isn’t the best option for that type of client,” she wrote. “There are over 800 licensed stylists in the County. There are plenty of salons/stylists willing to cater to what I will not. This is a free country and I am not a slave to any narrative.

“Conservatives need to acclimate these woke individuals to their new reality.”

RELATED: What’s in a hate crime? Michigan looks to add sexuality, disabilities to 35-year-old law

In the initial post, which has since gained national attention, the salon also teed off against pronoun use as well, writing that should a person request their stylist use a specific pronoun for them “we may simply refer to you as ‘hey you’. Regardless of MI HB 4744.”

It’s unclear how House Bill 4744 deals with pronoun use, as the legislation focuses on elections and seeks to prohibit Michigan from joining the Electronic Registration Information Center – an organization to help states improve the accuracy of its voting rolls.

There has, however, been repeated misinformation regarding HB 4474, which is a bill seeking to expand Michigan’s hate crime laws to include protections for a host of classes including gay and transgender individuals.

Late last month multiple outlets, including Fox News and the Daily Mail, ran stories arguing the legislation would make it a felony to use the wrong pronouns for someone, despite the fact the word “pronouns” appears nowhere in the bill.

It does note that there could be civil action against someone who discriminates against another for gender identity or expression, though this could apply to both transgender and cisgender people alike. Cisgender is a term to describe a person whose gender aligns with the sex they were registered as at birth.

HB 4474 passed the Michigan House in a bipartisan vote on June 20 and awaits further consideration in the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.