Michigan Hair Salon That Told Trans Customers to Go to Pet Groomer Charged with Discrimination

The Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) has issued a charge of discrimination against a local hair salon owner for discriminating against transgender people. 

According to the state agency, Traverse City hairstylist Christine Geiger is facing a discrimination charge after telling transgender people to seek services at a “pet groomer” rather than at her salon.

“In this case, (Geiger) made sure that people in her community and beyond knew her position by publishing comments on social media, spelling out the people she would refuse to serve and why,” Department of Civil Rights Director John Johnson said on Wednesday.

“If a person did not fit her definition of sex, they were not welcome to take part in the same services offered for every other member of the public ... The owner of Studio 8 need not literally to have shoved someone out of her doors to be found in violation of ELCRA (Michigan civil rights law).”

The charge was issued after a claim was filed by three different individuals including one cisgender woman and two non-binary individuals in connection to a Facebook post from Studio 8 Hair Lab that went viral for saying that if “a human being identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer. You are not welcome here. Period.”

While the salon has the right to refuse service, the state’s Civil Rights Act prohibits a place of public accommodation from discrimination against a class of person by way of posting or publishing a statement or advertisement.

According to Michigan Advance, Studio 8 Hair Labin posted several anti-trans comments on Facebook claiming that the salon was protected by “free speech.”

Geiger’s own attorney, David DeLaney even acknowledged the issue in a case filed in 13th Circuit Court Oct. 25. He also claimed that under the First Amendment Geiger had the right to practice her religion which believed in only two genders.

 The Michigan Department of Civil Rights noted that Geiger never mentioned religiously held beliefs when making the initial posts throughout the summer nor agreed to meet up with the agency to address issues in the complaint.

MDCR Director of Legal Affairs Bryant Osikowicz noted that the charge shouldn’t be misconstrued as an issue of religion or freedom of speech in this case.

“I will just say that free speech is not absolute,” Osikowicz said. “The classic example from law school is you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, that type of thing, and we were very specific in this charge. This is not a free speech case. This is a discriminatory advertisement case.”

In a July interview with The Associated Press, Geiger also stood by her posts and said small business owners should be free to serve whomever they wish.

“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 said.

At this time a hearing has not been scheduled. Once a hearing is scheduled, an administrative law judge will review the complaint and recommend what the Civil Rights Commission should do next.

Per M Live, the commission can either adopt that judge’s recommendation or issue a recommendation of their own. It can also decide whether “additional hearings are necessary in moving forward with a final order and determination.”

If Geiger is found guilty she could be liable for paying emotional distress and anguish in addition to possibly losing or suspending her state cosmetology license.