[POLITICS] Incident in Canada regarding a transgender woman sueing for not getting a brazilian wax.

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

If a woman doesn't want to touch your penis she shouldn't have to touch your penis.

I'll add onto that: Just because a woman has a job waxing the mons pubis area on women doesn't mean they're obligated to do so for the penis and scrotum area on another client, regardless of that client's gender orientation.

I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

I think many of us are arguing that this is not within her job description, no matter how much the plaintiff may wish that to be the case. And that the plaintiff has portrayed themselves in a very unsympathetic manner and as such they are being ridiculed for it and their claims.

It's an interesting one. I get that forcing women to touch some creepy pervs penis for waxing is bad and thats obviously a very respectable position but relating to talking about jobs, what if she were a doctor instead of some luxury needless aesthetic thing like waxing? What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

If a woman doesn't want to touch your penis she shouldn't have to touch your penis.

I'll add onto that: Just because a woman has a job waxing the mons pubis area on women doesn't mean they're obligated to do so for the penis and scrotum area on another client, regardless of that client's gender orientation.

I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

I think many of us are arguing that this is not within her job description, no matter how much the plaintiff may wish that to be the case. And that the plaintiff has portrayed themselves in a very unsympathetic manner and as such they are being ridiculed for it and their claims.

It's an interesting one. I get that forcing women to touch some creepy pervs penis for waxing is bad but relating to talking about jobs, what if she were a doctor instead of some luxury needless aesthetic thing like waxing? What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Doctors take an oath, a waxer doesn't and isn't expected to.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yea, I am going to have to side with the business. Making a cake is not the same as having to handle someone's genitals. Just as we have specialists in medicine that deal with specific fields, the same could apply here as well. OBGYN's do not take male patients as that is not their specialty. When you wax a female, you do not actually have to handle their genitals as there are no balls or penis to have to move or "lift" out of the way to be able to do the wax on a woman to begin with so you can safely wax a woman without having to touch their genitals at all. On a male body, unless you want hot wax on the penis or balls you would be forced to move them out of the way while applying the wax.

On the religious issue, I do believe one's beliefs should be respected and considered to an extent, but they are not necessarily the only factor to be considered. Many people choose to have a career in jobs that they can also respect their religious beliefs. If they view interacting with someone of the opposite sex's genitalia as being sexual, they have the option to choose jobs where they would not be forced to do that. Giving women waxes is not a job that they would be dealing with male genitals anymore than being an OBGYN would be and nor should they be expected to. There are salons that provide waxing services for male genitalia and they would have to see one of those that specializes in this rather than expect one that does not to perform a service which is outside their field, or find a business or individual who is willing to do so rather than try to force someone who is not to do something against their will.

There is no religion that says you can't bake a cake for someone because you disagree with their beliefs, thus I do not see refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple as actually in violation of one's religion. The baker on the other hand can refuse to add anything that they may find offensive to a cake such as refuse to add genitalia, swear words ect. They do however have 100% creative control over what shape they are willing to make a cake and what they will or will not write or decorate a cake with. If they are willing to make a cake of the same shape and/or decorations/ writing for a heterosexual couple, they should also be willing to do so for a gay couple, as that is not actually doing anything that would impact their actual religion and it is not asking them to do anything different than they would do for anyone else. Trying to have someone handle someone else's genitals however is not asking them to be treated as they treat anyone else, it is actually asking them to be treated differently than they treat others, so that is why it is seen as an unreasonable request and if the person who is being asked to do something different for them, they have every right to choose not to.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Doctors are really an exception in that field, considering they deal with life or death medical issues.

I'll give you another professional example: Lawyers. At least in the USA, and in most states, lawyers are not required to take any case that walks in their door, even if it has merit, even if there's no conflict of interest, and even if it's in their field of practice. Suppose I'm a med-mal lawyer, and a guy comes in with a meritorious case (we have no cab-rank rule here). However, I can tell from the facts in the case and how he presents them that I don't want to be around the guy, for whatever reason. Say he has a horrible personality or he insists on a legal strategy I think is wrong. I'm entitled to tell him to jog on and find another lawyer. And as Hipsters has pointed out: Doctors are fundamentally held to a standard that waxers are not.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If a woman doesn't want to touch your penis she shouldn't have to touch your penis.

I'll add onto that: Just because a woman has a job waxing the mons pubis area on women doesn't mean they're obligated to do so for the penis and scrotum area on another client, regardless of that client's gender orientation.

I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

I think many of us are arguing that this is not within her job description, no matter how much the plaintiff may wish that to be the case. And that the plaintiff has portrayed themselves in a very unsympathetic manner and as such they are being ridiculed for it and their claims.

It's an interesting one. I get that forcing women to touch some creepy pervs penis for waxing is bad but relating to talking about jobs, what if she were a doctor instead of some luxury needless aesthetic thing like waxing? What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Doctors take an oath, a waxer doesn't and isn't expected to.

A physician taking an oath also does not in any way mean they would ever be forced to handle genitals in the first place as we have specializations that allow physicians to choose the field they wish to work in. A podiatrist would have no reason to handle a person's genitals, and as I stated above, even a physician who specializes in female reproductive health has no reason to take a patient with male genitals. Yes, OBGYN's would refuse to see a patient with male genitalia, and have no reason to handle male genitalia, as that is outside their specialization.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Doctors are really an exception in that field, considering they deal with life or death medical issues.

I'll give you another professional example: Lawyers. At least in the USA, and in most states, lawyers are not required to take any case that walks in their door, even if it has merit, even if there's no conflict of interest, and even if it's in their field of practice. Suppose I'm a med-mal lawyer, and a guy comes in with a meritorious case (we have no cab-rank rule here). However, I can tell from the facts in the case and how he presents them that I don't want to be around the guy, for whatever reason. Say he has a horrible personality or he insists on a legal strategy I think is wrong. I'm entitled to tell him to jog on and find another lawyer. And as Hipsters has pointed out: Doctors are fundamentally held to a standard that waxers are not.

This also depends on what the doctor chose to specialize in. Like I stated above, yes, doctors can and do refuse patients depending on their field of specialization.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Doctors are really an exception in that field, considering they deal with life or death medical issues.

I'll give you another professional example: Lawyers. At least in the USA, and in most states, lawyers are not required to take any case that walks in their door, even if it has merit, even if there's no conflict of interest, and even if it's in their field of practice. Suppose I'm a med-mal lawyer, and a guy comes in with a meritorious case (we have no cab-rank rule here). However, I can tell from the facts in the case and how he presents them that I don't want to be around the guy, for whatever reason. Say he has a horrible personality or he insists on a legal strategy I think is wrong. I'm entitled to tell him to jog on and find another lawyer. And as Hipsters has pointed out: Doctors are fundamentally held to a standard that waxers are not.

This also depends on what the doctor chose to specialize in. Like I stated above, yes, doctors can and do refuse patients depending on their field of specialization.

There is a sort of exception in emergencies, though. Another important aside. But none of those compare to having one's genitalia waxed.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

If a woman doesn't want to touch your penis she shouldn't have to touch your penis.

I'll add onto that: Just because a woman has a job waxing the mons pubis area on women doesn't mean they're obligated to do so for the penis and scrotum area on another client, regardless of that client's gender orientation.

I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

I think many of us are arguing that this is not within her job description, no matter how much the plaintiff may wish that to be the case. And that the plaintiff has portrayed themselves in a very unsympathetic manner and as such they are being ridiculed for it and their claims.

It's an interesting one. I get that forcing women to touch some creepy pervs penis for waxing is bad but relating to talking about jobs, what if she were a doctor instead of some luxury needless aesthetic thing like waxing? What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Doctors take an oath, a waxer doesn't and isn't expected to.

A physician taking an oath also does not in any way mean they would ever be forced to handle genitals in the first place as we have specializations that allow physicians to choose the field they wish to work in. A podiatrist would have no reason to handle a person's genitals, and as I stated above, even a physician who specializes in female reproductive health has no reason to take a patient with male genitals. Yes, OBGYN's would refuse to see a patient with male genitalia, and have no reason to handle male genitalia, as that is outside their specialization.

Yup, that's a good point. I would assume that there may be times when doctors who do not specialize in particular genitalia may be asked to handle it (emergency room visit due to trauma to that area of the body for example), but medicine is definitely not my area of expertise and I would defer to you with regards to the healthcare field since I know you work in it.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

What if a doctor refused to do something to you in those kinda 'sex' areas, like your genitals or anus because of their religion or something about you that you can't help?

Doctors are really an exception in that field, considering they deal with life or death medical issues.

I'll give you another professional example: Lawyers. At least in the USA, and in most states, lawyers are not required to take any case that walks in their door, even if it has merit, even if there's no conflict of interest, and even if it's in their field of practice. Suppose I'm a med-mal lawyer, and a guy comes in with a meritorious case (we have no cab-rank rule here). However, I can tell from the facts in the case and how he presents them that I don't want to be around the guy, for whatever reason. Say he has a horrible personality or he insists on a legal strategy I think is wrong. I'm entitled to tell him to jog on and find another lawyer. And as Hipsters has pointed out: Doctors are fundamentally held to a standard that waxers are not.

This also depends on what the doctor chose to specialize in. Like I stated above, yes, doctors can and do refuse patients depending on their field of specialization.

There is a sort of exception in emergencies, though. Another important aside. But none of those compare to having one's genitalia waxed.

Even in an emergency, their specialization would still apply. You will not suddenly turn a podiatrist into a trauma surgeon and expect them to be capable to perform the same procedures. Doctors can offer assistance within the scope of their specialization and possibly some general medical help, but not all doctors will even be able to help all patients due to the limitations of their own field. An OBGYN is not going to be of much use to a man when he needs a Urologist, and even the OBGYN would likely be better off calling a Urologist instead of trying to inadequately treat the patient themselves.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Even in an emergency, their specialization would still apply. You will not suddenly turn a podiatrist into a trauma surgeon and expect them to be capable to perform the same procedures. Doctors can offer assistance within the scope of their specialization and possibly some general medical help, but not all doctors will even be able to help all patients due to the limitations of their own field. An OBGYN is not going to be of much use to a man when he needs a urologist, and would likely be better off calling a urologist instead of trying to inadequately treat the patient themselves.

Let me describe the hypothetical I'm thinking of:
Man gets stabbed in the upper thigh right under his scrotum. He stumbles into a hospital. Only doc right there to treat him is a OB/GYN on duty but not currently seeing a patient. This is the sort of thing any doctor can attend to. In that case, which is far removed from what we're talking about, I would think the doctor has a duty to intervene, medically.

But I'm not a doctor.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

Yea, I am going to have to side with the business. Making a cake is not the same as having to handle someone's genitals. Just as we have specialists in medicine that deal with specific fields, the same could apply here as well. OBGYN's do not take male patients as that is not their specialty. When you wax a female, you do not actually have to handle their genitals as there are no balls or penis to have to move or "lift" our of the way to be able to do the wax on a woman to begin with so you can safely wax a woman without having to touch their genitals at all. On a male body, unless you want hot wax on the penis or balls you would be forced to move them out of the way while applying the wax.

On the religious issue, I do believe one's beliefs should be respected and considered to an extent, but they are not necessarily the only factor to be considered. Many people choose to have a career in jobs that they can also respect their religious beliefs. If they view interacting with someone of the opposite sex's genitalia as being sexual, they have the option to choose jobs where they would not be forced to do that. Giving women waxes is not a job that they would be dealing with male genitals anymore than being an OBGYN would be and nor should they be expected to. There are salons that provide waxing services for male genitalia and they would have to see one of those that specializes in this rather than expect one that does not to perform a service which is outside their field, or find a business or individual who is willing to do so rather than try to force someone who is not to do something against their will.

There is no religion that says you can't bake a cake for someone because you disagree with their beliefs, thus I do not see refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple as actually in violation of one's religion. The baker on the other hand can refuse to add anything that they may find offensive to a cake such as refuse to add genitalia, swear words ect. They do however have 100% creative control over what shape they are willing to make a cake and what they will or will not write or decorate a cake with. If they are willing to make a cake of the same shape and/or decorations/ writing for a heterosexual couple, they should also be willing to do so for a gay couple, as that is not actually doing anything that would impact their actual religion and it is not asking them to do anything different than they would do for anyone else. Trying to have someone handle someone else's genitals however is not asking them to be treated as they treat anyone else, it is actually asking them to be treated differently than they treat others, so that is why it is seen as an unreasonable request and if the person who is being asked to do something different for them, they have every right to choose not to.

Yes this situation is less like a wedding cake baker refusing to make a cake because it will be used in a ceremony their religion finds immoral, but more like a wedding cake baker refusing to make someone a pie for their wedding. It doesn't really matter why the cake maker doesn't make pies and it isn't suddenly discrimination based on the identity of the person asking for the pie.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Even in an emergency, their specialization would still apply. You will not suddenly turn a podiatrist into a trauma surgeon and expect them to be capable to perform the same procedures. Doctors can offer assistance within the scope of their specialization and possibly some general medical help, but not all doctors will even be able to help all patients due to the limitations of their own field. An OBGYN is not going to be of much use to a man when he needs a urologist, and would likely be better off calling a urologist instead of trying to inadequately treat the patient themselves.

Let me describe the hypothetical I'm thinking of:
Man gets stabbed in the upper thigh right under his scrotum. He stumbles into a hospital. Only doc right there to treat him is a OB/GYN on duty but not currently seeing a patient. This is the sort of thing any doctor can attend to. In that case, which is far removed from what we're talking about, I would think the doctor has a duty to intervene, medically.

But I'm not a doctor.

That actually isn't how this works at all, nor is that something any Physician can handle and yes they would be referred to one that does as how it is treated can determine whether or not the patient loses the ability to use their leg and cause it to improperly heal. Not all Physicians even work in the ER in the first place. There are plenty of fields that doctors have never had to step foot into an ER at all. Even when we have people walking in with knives sticking out of their backs in the ER in Dallas, the first available physician is not who treats them, the Knife stays where it is until it is determined it is safe to remove it by the proper trauma surgeon, and not until then as anyone else who is not qualified to do so could do more harm than good. Improperly treating someone outside your field would be malpractice as you are not qualified to do so.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Even in an emergency, their specialization would still apply. You will not suddenly turn a podiatrist into a trauma surgeon and expect them to be capable to perform the same procedures. Doctors can offer assistance within the scope of their specialization and possibly some general medical help, but not all doctors will even be able to help all patients due to the limitations of their own field. An OBGYN is not going to be of much use to a man when he needs a urologist, and would likely be better off calling a urologist instead of trying to inadequately treat the patient themselves.

Let me describe the hypothetical I'm thinking of:
Man gets stabbed in the upper thigh right under his scrotum. He stumbles into a hospital. Only doc right there to treat him is a OB/GYN on duty but not currently seeing a patient. This is the sort of thing any doctor can attend to. In that case, which is far removed from what we're talking about, I would think the doctor has a duty to intervene, medically.

But I'm not a doctor.

That actually isn't how this works at all, nor is that something any Physician can handle and yes they would be referred to one that does as how it is treated can determine whether or not the patient loses the ability to use their leg and cause it to improperly heal. Not all Physicians even work in the ER in the first place. There are plenty of fields that doctors have never had to step foot into an ER at all. Even when we have people walking in with knives sticking out of their backs in the ER in Dallas, the first available physician is not who treats them, the Knife stays where it is until it is determined it is safe to remove it by the proper trauma surgeon, and not until then as anyone else who is not qualified to do so could do more harm than good. Improperly treating someone outside your field would be malpractice as you are not qualified to do so.

Well then, I guess I was wrong.

Ah well. I can at least attest to being correct about lawyers.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Even in an emergency, their specialization would still apply. You will not suddenly turn a podiatrist into a trauma surgeon and expect them to be capable to perform the same procedures. Doctors can offer assistance within the scope of their specialization and possibly some general medical help, but not all doctors will even be able to help all patients due to the limitations of their own field. An OBGYN is not going to be of much use to a man when he needs a urologist, and would likely be better off calling a urologist instead of trying to inadequately treat the patient themselves.

Let me describe the hypothetical I'm thinking of:
Man gets stabbed in the upper thigh right under his scrotum. He stumbles into a hospital. Only doc right there to treat him is a OB/GYN on duty but not currently seeing a patient. This is the sort of thing any doctor can attend to. In that case, which is far removed from what we're talking about, I would think the doctor has a duty to intervene, medically.

But I'm not a doctor.

That actually isn't how this works at all, nor is that something any Physician can handle and yes they would be referred to one that does as how it is treated can determine whether or not the patient loses the ability to use their leg and cause it to improperly heal. Not all Physicians even work in the ER in the first place. There are plenty of fields that doctors have never had to step foot into an ER at all. Even when we have people walking in with knives sticking out of their backs in the ER in Dallas, the first available physician is not who treats them, the Knife stays where it is until it is determined it is safe to remove it by the proper trauma surgeon, and not until then as anyone else who is not qualified to do so could do more harm than good. Improperly treating someone outside your field would be malpractice as you are not qualified to do so.

Well then, I guess I was wrong.

Ah well. I can at least attest to being correct about lawyers.

So then you would also likely know that doing something you are not qualified to do very well could get you sued.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Even in an emergency, their specialization would still apply. You will not suddenly turn a podiatrist into a trauma surgeon and expect them to be capable to perform the same procedures. Doctors can offer assistance within the scope of their specialization and possibly some general medical help, but not all doctors will even be able to help all patients due to the limitations of their own field. An OBGYN is not going to be of much use to a man when he needs a urologist, and would likely be better off calling a urologist instead of trying to inadequately treat the patient themselves.

Let me describe the hypothetical I'm thinking of:
Man gets stabbed in the upper thigh right under his scrotum. He stumbles into a hospital. Only doc right there to treat him is a OB/GYN on duty but not currently seeing a patient. This is the sort of thing any doctor can attend to. In that case, which is far removed from what we're talking about, I would think the doctor has a duty to intervene, medically.

But I'm not a doctor.

That actually isn't how this works at all, nor is that something any Physician can handle and yes they would be referred to one that does as how it is treated can determine whether or not the patient loses the ability to use their leg and cause it to improperly heal. Not all Physicians even work in the ER in the first place. There are plenty of fields that doctors have never had to step foot into an ER at all. Even when we have people walking in with knives sticking out of their backs in the ER in Dallas, the first available physician is not who treats them, the Knife stays where it is until it is determined it is safe to remove it by the proper trauma surgeon, and not until then as anyone else who is not qualified to do so could do more harm than good. Improperly treating someone outside your field would be malpractice as you are not qualified to do so.

Well then, I guess I was wrong.

Ah well. I can at least attest to being correct about lawyers.

So then you would also likely know that doing something you are not qualified to do very well could get you sued.

I did know that at least. I just thought based on the doctors I know and conversations I've had with them (which admittedly isn't a great argument) that most any MD would be qualified to treat a flesh wound like that regardless of specialty.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Even in an emergency, their specialization would still apply. You will not suddenly turn a podiatrist into a trauma surgeon and expect them to be capable to perform the same procedures. Doctors can offer assistance within the scope of their specialization and possibly some general medical help, but not all doctors will even be able to help all patients due to the limitations of their own field. An OBGYN is not going to be of much use to a man when he needs a urologist, and would likely be better off calling a urologist instead of trying to inadequately treat the patient themselves.

Let me describe the hypothetical I'm thinking of:
Man gets stabbed in the upper thigh right under his scrotum. He stumbles into a hospital. Only doc right there to treat him is a OB/GYN on duty but not currently seeing a patient. This is the sort of thing any doctor can attend to. In that case, which is far removed from what we're talking about, I would think the doctor has a duty to intervene, medically.

But I'm not a doctor.

That actually isn't how this works at all, nor is that something any Physician can handle and yes they would be referred to one that does as how it is treated can determine whether or not the patient loses the ability to use their leg and cause it to improperly heal. Not all Physicians even work in the ER in the first place. There are plenty of fields that doctors have never had to step foot into an ER at all. Even when we have people walking in with knives sticking out of their backs in the ER in Dallas, the first available physician is not who treats them, the Knife stays where it is until it is determined it is safe to remove it by the proper trauma surgeon, and not until then as anyone else who is not qualified to do so could do more harm than good. Improperly treating someone outside your field would be malpractice as you are not qualified to do so.

That example though isn't what I think CM meant to get at because I think he was trying to create a 'treat me now or I die' scenario. Impalement it's usually better to leave it in until the expert gets there sure but what if it was some kind of situation like an open wound bleeding profusely?

 

[Saelune]

I've already seen plenty of right wing types frame this in the "regressive" narrative with statements like "progressives think women should be forced to touch male genitals against their will" and stuff like that. It also probably doesn't help that this is a case of a lesbian transwoman which tends to be divisive even among progressives.

I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

I think there are plenty of non-religious reasons to be unwilling to wax someone's balls. Even so, I don't think this woman was using her religion as an excuse to not do her job anymore than the owner of a Kosher deli/butcher would not be doing their job by refusing to serve pork products or shellfish even though to a non-religious person just sees those as another kind of meat that they could reasonably expect to find in a meat shop.

Not stocking a product is not the same as not providing a service you can provide. What if they had pork on the menu, but said 'No, I wont give you pork on your sandwich cause it also has lettuce on it'.

Not an exactly equal metaphor, but then neither is yours.

 

[Saelune]

Second, the problem is her excuses. Sure, there was the practical and reasonable 'I am not equipped or trained to do this', but then she cites being 'uncomfortable' doing it.

I think you'll find that most people are uncomfortable handling penises.

Religion too is a garbage excuse. If your religion prevents you from doing your job, quit.

It never was her job until someone turned up demanding that she make it her job.

Most people actually probably are not uncomfortable handling penises, considering about half have them, and a majority of those who don't are attracted to people who do have penises, but that's more just a 'showerthought'.

What a rapey sounding sentence.

"Women shouldn't be uncomfortable with penises, they're attracted to them aren't they? A stranger showing a woman his penis should be seen as a compliment" (to be read in J Jonah Jameson's voice).

If a woman doesn't want to touch your penis she shouldn't have to touch your penis.

I made a point to say it was more of a side thought rather than a legit defense.

The statement was about handling penises, period. No mention of who that penis belonged to.

 

[Saelune]

If a woman doesn't want to touch your penis she shouldn't have to touch your penis.

I'll add onto that: Just because a woman has a job waxing the mons pubis area on women doesn't mean they're obligated to do so for the penis and scrotum area on another client, regardless of that client's gender orientation.

I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

I think many of us are arguing that this is not within her job description, no matter how much the plaintiff may wish that to be the case. And that the plaintiff has portrayed themselves in a very unsympathetic manner and as such they are being ridiculed for it and their claims.

Her job description is 'Body Hair Waxer'. Or whatever the more technical term for that is.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I've already seen plenty of right wing types frame this in the "regressive" narrative with statements like "progressives think women should be forced to touch male genitals against their will" and stuff like that. It also probably doesn't help that this is a case of a lesbian transwoman which tends to be divisive even among progressives.

I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

I think there are plenty of non-religious reasons to be unwilling to wax someone's balls. Even so, I don't think this woman was using her religion as an excuse to not do her job anymore than the owner of a Kosher deli/butcher would not be doing their job by refusing to serve pork products or shellfish even though to a non-religious person just sees those as another kind of meat that they could reasonably expect to find in a meat shop.

Not stocking a product is not the same as not providing a service you can provide. What if they had pork on the menu, but said 'No, I wont give you pork on your sandwich cause it also has lettuce on it'.

Not an exactly equal metaphor, but then neither is yours.

Only this isn't a restaurant that has pork or has ever served pork, only chicken. And now someone has come in trying to order a pork sandwich.

If a woman doesn't want to touch your penis she shouldn't have to touch your penis.

I'll add onto that: Just because a woman has a job waxing the mons pubis area on women doesn't mean they're obligated to do so for the penis and scrotum area on another client, regardless of that client's gender orientation.

I think people should do the jobs they have and that religion is not an acceptable excuse to not do your job.

I think many of us are arguing that this is not within her job description, no matter how much the plaintiff may wish that to be the case. And that the plaintiff has portrayed themselves in a very unsympathetic manner and as such they are being ridiculed for it and their claims.

Her job description is 'Body Hair Waxer'. Or whatever the more technical term for that is.

Do you have a source for her exact job title/job description? Because again, while a job title may seem all-encompassing, it's quite possible for the official description of duties to not be that broad.