How One Michigan Hair Salon Is Rejecting Wokeness

A hair salon in Traverse City, Michigan has vowed to turn away customers who identify as “non-binary” and asked them to “seek a pet groomer.”

Screenshots taken of Studio 8 Hair Lab’s now-deleted Facebook post show the salon refusing to serve patrons with “preferred pronouns,” according to The Kansas City Star.

“If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,” the hair salon owner, Christine Geiger, said in the post. “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,’” the post continued. “Regardless of MI HB 4744.”

Michigan hair salon BANS non-binary people & anyone who uses pronouns from using the salon- telling them to visit the pet groomers instead.

‘If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman please seek services at a local pet groomer.’

Do you agree or disagree? ⬇️🐶 pic.twitter.com/mNMHaQJVmW
— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) July 12, 2023

“This is America; free speech,” the post added. “This small business has the right to refuse services. We are not bound to any oaths as realtors are regarding discrimination.”

On its Instagram page, the salon describes itself as a “private CONSERVATIVE business that does not cater to woke ideologies.”

Matt reported how Michigan’s HB 4744 could make it a felony to intimidate someone by intentionally using the wrong gender pronouns. This includes up to five years in jail or a $10,000 fine.

Late last month, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Christian website designer who refused to create same-sex wedding websites. The case, 303 Creative v. Elenis, involved Colorado web designer Lorie Smith who declined to create these websites due to her religious beliefs, which Leah covered.

In the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the dissenting justices “[reimagine] the facts of this case from top to bottom.”

“It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case,” he wrote. “Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?”