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.
@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
@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.
