Yeah, this is pretty clear cut. The woman never asked for a Brazilian, only to get her legs waxed and they did everything they could to get out of because of “people like her”.
On one hand, I understand refusing service for various reasons, like hostility from the customer or something, but it was extremely clear that they were refusing service because she was transgender.
In their phone call, the woman testified, Carruthers told her there was no one on staff who would be comfortable providing services to “someone like you.” Carruthers denied using that phrase or misgendering A.B., but said he didn’t have a staff member who could provide “male waxing services.”
Well men get waxed somewhere so that’s BS. Hair is Hair!
Yea they surely had someone there who has done or does male waxing. Male swimmers get waxed before swim meets, I used to work with a kid that was on his college’s swim team and he had to get waxed before every meet and had to be completely hairless except for eyebrows/scalp hair obviously
Rightly so. There is no reason why this was refused.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has awarded $35,000 in damages to an Indigenous transgender woman who was refused a leg wax at a salon in Windsor six years ago.
In an email to CBC, Carruthers called the ruling “unjust” and said he’s “shocked by the awarded amount as a small business owner.”
's human rights complaint, Carruthers issued a release and was quoted in the media as referring to a “male Brazilian wax” regarding the service A.B.
testified the respondent’s remarks to media outlets “opened up a non-consensual public conversation as to the status of her physical transition,” which was very traumatizing, the decision states.
allegedly threatened a “media circus” and then posted a video about Mad Wax to the Facebook page of a transgender organization.
's legal counsel from the HRLSC, said she had not yet received the application for judicial review but that the tribunal’s ruling was reasonable and she believes it will be upheld.
The original article contains 748 words, the summary contains 150 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
