They're gonna use things like the CROWN Act to say hair styling is expressive
https://www.9and10news.com/2023/07/11/traverse-city-hair-salon-no-longer-servicing-lgbtq-members/
@annmlipton Nope, that's blatant bullshit. They're banning LGBTQ people, not LGBTQ speech. They should get their asses kicked by a discrimination lawsuit.
@LouisIngenthron I mean, are you confident that's how courts will rule? Because I am not.
@annmlipton No, of course not, but that's the precedent set by 303, right? If they said, "We won't do any gay hairstyles", they might get away with it. But by banning LGBTQ people specifically, they've stepped outside of the protected zone of 1A and into the protected zone of 14A.
@annmlipton I have no doubt they'll try it, but the Facebook post sure sounds like a slam dunk civil rights act case on its own.
It's interesting to think about if they tried to insist they are opposed to giving an "opposite sex" haircut or hairstyle to someone, b/c how would they even define what kind of hairstyle each sex is allowed to wear? I mean cis people wear all kinds of hairstyles, regardless of gender.
Will they put a chart up on the wall showing a menu of approved hairstyles/cuts for all men and one for all women? If a cis-woman came in and asked for a buzz cut, would they refuse her? Would they refuse man-bun hairstyles for cis-men?
@LouisIngenthron The problem is they will get a lawyer who will reframe it as a doing gay people's hair is tacit approval, or what if it's not the person but the hair matched to the lifestyle? I am not at all confident it won't succeed. Maybe not in CA6 but when someone tries it in CA5.
Cf
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-10145-CV0.pdf