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

[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.

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.

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

 

[Saelune]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

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

Don't most places have "Good Samaritan" laws that protect Doctors and other medical professionals from lawsuit in certain emergency situations? Obviously they wouldn't apply to something taking place inside of a hospital or ER, but I'm pretty sure there are laws that protect doctors that happen to be on the scene of a car crash or other accident and attempt to provide aid even if it's outside their specialty. I think they came about because often times the people the most qualified to help in an emergency would be unwilling to out of the fear of getting sued

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

If I go to a kosher deli and demand a steak sandwich with Swiss cheese, both of those being products they stock, are they not entitled to refuse to combine them into a product to serve to me on the basis of religion?

 

[Saelune]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

If I go to a kosher deli and demand a steak sandwich with Swiss cheese, both of those being products they stock, are they not entitled to refuse to combine them into a product to serve to me on the basis of religion?

Not like they have to eat it themselves.

 

[Lil devils x_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.

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

Not wanting to touch a penis is reason enough to not have to do so. When you wax a female, you actually do not have to touch their genitals because there is nothing to move out of the way. Regardless though, if she chooses to only wax people with vulvas, that should be her choice to do so and her beliefs on that should be reason enough. No, people who do not believe they should touch penises should be forced to touch penises against their will simply because you don't respect their beliefs. Her job does not require her to touch penises simply because she waxes people with vulvas.

There are salons that specialize in waxing male genitals and they would need to seek one of those to have this done, not attempt to force someone who only waxes female genitals to do so.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

If I go to a kosher deli and demand a steak sandwich with Swiss cheese, both of those being products they stock, are they not entitled to refuse to combine them into a product to serve to me on the basis of religion?

Not like they have to eat it themselves.

Have you ever been to a kosher deli? They're great places, but they don't serve non-kosher food, or non-kosher combinations of kosher food. No dairy with meat is a big one. And it doesn't matter that they don't eat it themselves: They are not require to provide a combination of their products that they religiously object to.

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

Don't most places have "Good Samaritan" laws that protect Doctors and other medical professionals from lawsuit in certain emergency situations? Obviously they wouldn't apply to something taking place inside of a hospital or ER, but I'm pretty sure there are laws that protect doctors that happen to be on the scene of a car crash or other accident and attempt to provide aid even if it's outside their specialty. I think they came about because often times the people the most qualified to help in an emergency would be unwilling to out of the fear of getting sued

Obligatory "not a lawyer" and "not your lawyer"

Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they usually apply, in my experience, to laypeople who render emergency aid like CPR. When I took a CPR class, they flat out told us that it's possible and indeed likely that prolonged CPR, even if medically necessary, would break ribs.

There is no general obligation under law towards strangers. If I see someone choking on food I am not legally obligated to help them, even if I know the Heimlich maneuver. However, if I do so, I am obligated to a standard of care. If you undertake a "rescue", you are obligated to do so with a certain level of competence. If you act recklessly in saving someone and they are injured because of that recklessness, you can be on the hook.

What Good Samaritan laws usually do is state that if a person undertakes a rescue they they have competency to do, on a stranger, in good faith, that that person is not generally responsible for negative side effects that may result from the attempt. Using that CPR example: If I perform CPR on someone who needs it and do so competently, I am not responsible for the fact that several ribs broke and the person ran up medical bills.

But then again, this is general. You should consult with your own jurisdiction's statute on the matter or a lawyer.

 

[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.

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.

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

Not wanting to touch a penis is reason enough to not have to do so. When you wax a female, you actually do not have to touch their genitals because there is nothing to move out of the way. Regardless though, if she chooses to only wax people with vulvas, that should be her choice to do so and her beliefs on that should be reason enough. No, people who do not believe they should touch penises should be forced to touch penises against their will simply because you don't respect their beliefs. Her job does not require her to touch penises simply because she waxes people with vulvas.

If she doesn't want to touch penises, she should change jobs then. She has the freedom to not do jobs that require touching penises. She has the freedom to quit.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Wait I'm confused here. Granted I'm a dude, so I don't get Brazilian waxes, but aren't Brazilians specifically for a vagina? Meaning if you've trained to give them, you've trained on a vagina?
Wouldn't going to a Brazilian wax salon to wax a scrotum be like going to a gynecologists to check for testicular cancer? ie close, but no cigar?

 

[Saelune]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

If I go to a kosher deli and demand a steak sandwich with Swiss cheese, both of those being products they stock, are they not entitled to refuse to combine them into a product to serve to me on the basis of religion?

Not like they have to eat it themselves.

Have you ever been to a kosher deli? They're great places, but they don't serve non-kosher food, or non-kosher combinations of kosher food. No dairy with meat is a big one. And it doesn't matter that they don't eat it themselves: They are not require to provide a combination of their products that they religiously object to.

All religions have silly rules that serve no benefit. I don't give any religion excuse, I just don't focus on things beyond outright bigotry, but doesn't mean I think these rules are reasonable. I just try to abide a 'live and let live' philosophy.

 

[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.

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

Not wanting to touch a penis is reason enough to not have to do so. When you wax a female, you actually do not have to touch their genitals because there is nothing to move out of the way. Regardless though, if she chooses to only wax people with vulvas, that should be her choice to do so and her beliefs on that should be reason enough. No, people who do not believe they should touch penises should be forced to touch penises against their will simply because you don't respect their beliefs. Her job does not require her to touch penises simply because she waxes people with vulvas.

If she doesn't want to touch penises, she should change jobs then. She has the freedom to not do jobs that require touching penises. She has the freedom to quit.

Her job doesn't involve touching penises until this potential client insisted on having their penis touched.

And really, if you're going to throw out the "just find another job" defense, we can just as easily raise the "find another waxer" defense. There are places to get your man-bits groomed. Places that explicitly cater to male genitalia. Don't ask me how I know this, but I do.

Wait I'm confused here. Granted I'm a dude, so I don't get Brazilian waxes, but aren't Brazilians specifically for a vagina? Meaning if you've trained to give them, you've trained on a vagina?
Wouldn't going to a Brazilian wax salon to wax a scrotum be like going to a gynecologists to check for testicular cancer? ie close, but no cigar?

There are waxes that remove all pubic hair on men. They're frequently referred to as Brazilian waxes, even if that's not quite the technical term.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

If I go to a kosher deli and demand a steak sandwich with Swiss cheese, both of those being products they stock, are they not entitled to refuse to combine them into a product to serve to me on the basis of religion?

Not like they have to eat it themselves.

Have you ever been to a kosher deli? They're great places, but they don't serve non-kosher food, or non-kosher combinations of kosher food. No dairy with meat is a big one. And it doesn't matter that they don't eat it themselves: They are not require to provide a combination of their products that they religiously object to.

All religions have silly rules that serve no benefit. I don't give any religion excuse, I just don't focus on things beyond outright bigotry, but doesn't mean I think these rules are reasonable. I just try to abide a 'live and let live' philosophy.

You're sidestepping the question. Should a kosher deli be required to provide me with a swiss cheese and steak sandwich upon request, even if that violates their religious rules? Yes or no?

 

[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.

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.

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

Not wanting to touch a penis is reason enough to not have to do so. When you wax a female, you actually do not have to touch their genitals because there is nothing to move out of the way. Regardless though, if she chooses to only wax people with vulvas, that should be her choice to do so and her beliefs on that should be reason enough. No, people who do not believe they should touch penises should be forced to touch penises against their will simply because you don't respect their beliefs. Her job does not require her to touch penises simply because she waxes people with vulvas.

If she doesn't want to touch penises, she should change jobs then. She has the freedom to not do jobs that require touching penises. She has the freedom to quit.

Her job doesn't involve touching penises until this potential client insisted on having their penis touched.

And really, if you're going to throw out the "just find another job" defense, we can just as easily raise the "find another waxer" defense. There are places to get your man-bits groomed. Places that explicitly cater to male genitalia. Don't ask me how I know this, but I do.

I do think they are wasting their time on this and should have just found a better place. Doesn't mean I don't think the waxer isn't also wrong. Personally, I think waxing salons should be trained to wax everyone. Just as I think Barbers and Hair stylists should be open to anyone with hair to cut wanting their hair cut there.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

If I go to a kosher deli and demand a steak sandwich with Swiss cheese, both of those being products they stock, are they not entitled to refuse to combine them into a product to serve to me on the basis of religion?

That sort of reminds me of when I was bartending in college and this fine dining restaurant. The chef there was from El Salvador and was an amazing chef, but eccentric and extremely temperamental. We had this guy come in and attempt to order a steak and asked if we could ask the chef to chop it up and serve it as an appetizer. The customer was of course told that was not possible so he then asked to speak to the chef directly. The chef was so enraged by this request he literally grabbed a meat cleaver screaming like a psycho and chased the man from the restaurant and banned him for life. If a customer's request is just refused and that is all that happened, they should be glad they didn't ask this chef... who might just be crazy enough to find out where you live.

 

[Lil devils x_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.

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

Not wanting to touch a penis is reason enough to not have to do so. When you wax a female, you actually do not have to touch their genitals because there is nothing to move out of the way. Regardless though, if she chooses to only wax people with vulvas, that should be her choice to do so and her beliefs on that should be reason enough. No, people who do not believe they should touch penises should be forced to touch penises against their will simply because you don't respect their beliefs. Her job does not require her to touch penises simply because she waxes people with vulvas.

If she doesn't want to touch penises, she should change jobs then. She has the freedom to not do jobs that require touching penises. She has the freedom to quit.

Her job doesn't require her to touch penises as her job only requires her to wax people with vulvas. The person with the penis is free to go to a salon that specializes in waxing people with penises rather than attempt to force someone who waxes people with vulvas to do so against their will.

Her job would only require her to touch penises if she actually worked at a salon that required her to wax people with penises. That is why they have salons that actually specialize in that in the first place, not all of them do by default. They only offer services to which they have people who are willing to do those services. That is why what services are offered at each salon vary from salon to salon.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

If I go to a kosher deli and demand a steak sandwich with Swiss cheese, both of those being products they stock, are they not entitled to refuse to combine them into a product to serve to me on the basis of religion?

That sort of reminds me of when I was bartending in college and this fine dining restaurant. The chef there was from El Salvador and was an amazing chef, but eccentric and extremely temperamental. We had this guy come in and attempt to order a steak and asked if we could ask the chef to chop it up and serve it as an appetizer. The customer was of course told that was not possible so he then asked to speak to the chef directly. The chef was so enraged by this request he literally grabbed a meat cleaver screaming like a psycho and chased the man from the restaurant and banned him for life. If a customer's request is just refused and that is all that happened, they should be glad they didn't ask this chef... who might just be crazy enough to find out where you live.

That's an interesting story.

EDIT: Sorry, I misread who wrote this.

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.

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

Not wanting to touch a penis is reason enough to not have to do so. When you wax a female, you actually do not have to touch their genitals because there is nothing to move out of the way. Regardless though, if she chooses to only wax people with vulvas, that should be her choice to do so and her beliefs on that should be reason enough. No, people who do not believe they should touch penises should be forced to touch penises against their will simply because you don't respect their beliefs. Her job does not require her to touch penises simply because she waxes people with vulvas.

If she doesn't want to touch penises, she should change jobs then. She has the freedom to not do jobs that require touching penises. She has the freedom to quit.

Her job doesn't involve touching penises until this potential client insisted on having their penis touched.

And really, if you're going to throw out the "just find another job" defense, we can just as easily raise the "find another waxer" defense. There are places to get your man-bits groomed. Places that explicitly cater to male genitalia. Don't ask me how I know this, but I do.

I do think they are wasting their time on this and should have just found a better place. Doesn't mean I don't think the waxer isn't also wrong. Personally, I think waxing salons should be trained to wax everyone. Just as I think Barbers and Hair stylists should be open to anyone with hair to cut wanting their hair cut there.

"I demand you touch my penis" =/= "I am not comfortable touching your penis because it is not a part of my job and also it's against my religious beliefs"

 

[Saelune]

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

If I go to a kosher deli and demand a steak sandwich with Swiss cheese, both of those being products they stock, are they not entitled to refuse to combine them into a product to serve to me on the basis of religion?

Not like they have to eat it themselves.

Have you ever been to a kosher deli? They're great places, but they don't serve non-kosher food, or non-kosher combinations of kosher food. No dairy with meat is a big one. And it doesn't matter that they don't eat it themselves: They are not require to provide a combination of their products that they religiously object to.

All religions have silly rules that serve no benefit. I don't give any religion excuse, I just don't focus on things beyond outright bigotry, but doesn't mean I think these rules are reasonable. I just try to abide a 'live and let live' philosophy.

You're sidestepping the question. Should a kosher deli be required to provide me with a swiss cheese and steak sandwich upon request, even if that violates their religious rules? Yes or no?

Assuming you're not about to throw some BS at me, yes. I side with consumers over businesses, and I think religion is a terrible excuse.

 

[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.

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.

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

Not wanting to touch a penis is reason enough to not have to do so. When you wax a female, you actually do not have to touch their genitals because there is nothing to move out of the way. Regardless though, if she chooses to only wax people with vulvas, that should be her choice to do so and her beliefs on that should be reason enough. No, people who do not believe they should touch penises should be forced to touch penises against their will simply because you don't respect their beliefs. Her job does not require her to touch penises simply because she waxes people with vulvas.

If she doesn't want to touch penises, she should change jobs then. She has the freedom to not do jobs that require touching penises. She has the freedom to quit.

Her job doesn't require her to touch penises as her job only requires her to wax people with vulvas. The person with the penis is free to go to a salon that specializes in waxing people with penises rather than attempt to force someone who waxes people with vulvas to do so against their will.

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

A business is not required to provide any service under the sun just because they have an employee capable of doing it. Again, I'm going to use an analogy to law. Many lawyers I've worked with have a background in finance and are capable of doing taxes for clients. However, this is not a service the firm offers, so they don't do that job even if asked directly.

And again, we're talking about someone who signed up for a job to wax female genitalia being asked to wax testicles. That's quite a big difference.

But she didn't use that defense. She used religion and 'its gross' as her defense. If she just used the defense of 'I am incapable of doing it', I would have given her a pass, BUT SHE DIDNT.

If I go to a kosher deli and demand a steak sandwich with Swiss cheese, both of those being products they stock, are they not entitled to refuse to combine them into a product to serve to me on the basis of religion?

That sort of reminds me of when I was bartending in college and this fine dining restaurant. The chef there was from El Salvador and was an amazing chef, but eccentric and extremely temperamental. We had this guy come in and attempt to order a steak and asked if we could ask the chef to chop it up and serve it as an appetizer. The customer was of course told that was not possible so he then asked to speak to the chef directly. The chef was so enraged by this request he literally grabbed a meat cleaver screaming like a psycho and chased the man from the restaurant and banned him for life. If a customer's request is just refused and that is all that happened, they should be glad they didn't ask this chef... who might just be crazy enough to find out where you live.

That's an interesting story.

EDIT: Sorry, I misread who wrote this.

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.

She has the tools and the products. If she only used the 'I lack the training' defense, I would have given her a pass. That is my point.

There is a difference between people asking for a product you literally don't have versus a service you could do, but wont.

Not wanting to touch a penis is reason enough to not have to do so. When you wax a female, you actually do not have to touch their genitals because there is nothing to move out of the way. Regardless though, if she chooses to only wax people with vulvas, that should be her choice to do so and her beliefs on that should be reason enough. No, people who do not believe they should touch penises should be forced to touch penises against their will simply because you don't respect their beliefs. Her job does not require her to touch penises simply because she waxes people with vulvas.

If she doesn't want to touch penises, she should change jobs then. She has the freedom to not do jobs that require touching penises. She has the freedom to quit.

Her job doesn't involve touching penises until this potential client insisted on having their penis touched.

And really, if you're going to throw out the "just find another job" defense, we can just as easily raise the "find another waxer" defense. There are places to get your man-bits groomed. Places that explicitly cater to male genitalia. Don't ask me how I know this, but I do.

I do think they are wasting their time on this and should have just found a better place. Doesn't mean I don't think the waxer isn't also wrong. Personally, I think waxing salons should be trained to wax everyone. Just as I think Barbers and Hair stylists should be open to anyone with hair to cut wanting their hair cut there.

"I demand you touch my penis" =/= "I am not comfortable touching your penis because it is not a part of my job and also it's against my religious beliefs"

Waxing hair is not a demand to touch penises, nor is it a demand to sexually assault someone. Both of you are dragging this into a BS argument.

If she cant be proffesional, that is her failing.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Wait I'm confused here. Granted I'm a dude, so I don't get Brazilian waxes, but aren't Brazilians specifically for a vagina? Meaning if you've trained to give them, you've trained on a vagina?
Wouldn't going to a Brazilian wax salon to wax a scrotum be like going to a gynecologists to check for testicular cancer? ie close, but no cigar?

There are waxes that remove all pubic hair on men. They're frequently referred to as Brazilian waxes, even if that's not quite the technical term.

No I don't mean terminology, I mean training. If someone is trained to preform Brazilian waxes, meaning for vaginas, do they have the training for a penis? Or is that a different skill/expertise/certificate?