RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Transgender Files $50,000 Complaint Because - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Transgender Files $50,000 Complaint Because Muslim Woman Refuses to Wax Genitals Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,551
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 04:40 AM

Quote

Transgender Files $50,000 Complaint Because Muslim Woman Refuses to Wax Genitals

Patheos
Mark Meckler
May 21, 2018

excerpt:


A female Muslim employee of a salon refused to wax the genitals of a man, because her religion prohibits her not to physically touch the private area of a male outside her family. I say “male,” because I’m using the traditional sense of the word… meaning the person has a penis. He is under the impression that he’s a female, because he identifies as such.

Yet, there are certain biological realities that this Muslim employee recognizes which he apparently does not. Powerline reports:

Quote

Earlier this month, a male-to-female transgender filed a $50,000 human rights complaint after a Muslim woman refused to perform a Brazilian wax on his genitals. …

“She never once asked for a leg wax [from] us,” Max Wax manager, president and CEO Jason Carruthers told PJ Media. “She said, ‘Women have penises and women have balls and if your staff is not comfortable they can look for another job.’”


That might be the funniest line ever spoken: “Women have penises and women have balls and if your staff is not comfortable they can look for another job.” Or, since the speaker was actually serious, perhaps one of the most mentally ill? Either way, the peace and tolerance crowd really needs to relax, right?

*snip*

LINKY

Uh-oh... a Progressive paradox. :dramaqueen:
0

#2 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 12,402
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 06:14 AM

View Postgrimreefer, on 23 May 2018 - 04:40 AM, said:

Uh-oh... a Progressive paradox. :dramaqueen:

From the article:

"because her religion prohibits her not to physically touch the private area of a male outside her family."

So she is "prohibited" from "not touching?"

Where is the problem? In the words of Mr. Myagi, "Wax on! Wax off!"
0

#3 User is online   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,152
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 06:32 AM

Oh Boy! A circular firing squad! Wonder how our resident lefties will track on this one.
0

#4 User is offline   cobalt-blue 

  • Member of the RN Curmudgeon's Brotherhood. Get off my lawn
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 10,139
  • Joined: 10-July 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 06:56 AM

Okay, let me preface this the following. (Just to be clear to our more totalitarian leftists on the board.)
Personally, I despise anything to do with Islam. However, I believe everybody has a right to believe and act as they choose as long as it hurts nobody else. And I believe businesses should be able to serve or not serve whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose.

Now, that being said, based on recent court rulings, the "person" complaining is very likely to win. It's not right, but it's the reality. Now if someone would just point this out to Magic Mirror Comics shop in Washington, we could watch blue haired heads explode.
0

#5 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,178
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 23 May 2018 - 07:48 AM

Would someone who was born a male, but identifies as female demand treatment from a gynecologist?

This post has been edited by Ladybird: 23 May 2018 - 07:55 AM

0

#6 User is offline   firecoco 

  • Yes! We! Can!
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 16,050
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 08:05 AM

View PostLadybird, on 23 May 2018 - 07:48 AM, said:

Would someone who was born a male, but identifies as female demand treatment from a gynecologist?

Don't be silly...Of course he would
0

#7 User is offline   LongKnife 

  • Don't start none, won't be none.
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,002
  • Joined: 10-November 04

Posted 23 May 2018 - 08:07 AM

View Postfirecoco, on 23 May 2018 - 08:05 AM, said:

Don't be silly...Of course he would

And he'd better get it too.
0

#8 User is offline   firecoco 

  • Yes! We! Can!
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 16,050
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 08:17 AM

View PostLongKnife, on 23 May 2018 - 08:07 AM, said:

And he'd better get it too.

I would insist on a male gynecologist so we could talk baseball while I get checked out
0

#9 User is offline   Mrdirt73 

  • Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 4,829
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 08:29 AM

View PostLadybird, on 23 May 2018 - 07:48 AM, said:

Would someone who was born a male, but identifies as female demand treatment from a gynecologist?

It's not "would" he, but "could" he?
0

#10 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 12,402
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 08:30 AM

View PostLongKnife, on 23 May 2018 - 08:07 AM, said:

And he'd better get it too.

Better get it?

Since they are trying to use the force of the government to force everyone to act as if they ARE female, transgender (man to woman) should be required to see a gynecologist.
0

#11 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,330
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 08:32 AM

It's already been established that you cannot use your personal religious convictions to refuse providing a product or service. Wait... she's a Muslim. Remember when this was the crazy featured on The Jerry Spring Show not a docket for the Supreme Court?

View PostLadybird, on 23 May 2018 - 07:48 AM, said:

Would someone who was born a male, but identifies as female demand treatment from a gynecologist?


Yes, I know a few whose primary practitioners are gynecologists.
0

#12 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,551
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 08:33 AM

View PostLadybird, on 23 May 2018 - 07:48 AM, said:

Would someone who was born a male, but identifies as female demand treatment from a gynecologist?

I'm just wondering what the monetary amount claimed for damages would be... either way. :scratch:
0

#13 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,798
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 10:15 AM

View PostJerryL, on 23 May 2018 - 06:14 AM, said:

From the article:

"because her religion prohibits her not to physically touch the private area of a male outside her family."

So she is "prohibited" from "not touching?"

Where is the problem? In the words of Mr. Myagi, "Wax on! Wax off!"


Yeah, LOL, I noticed that too. You know how pedantic I am about grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.

If you're prohibited from not touching something, it means you must touch it.

B)
0

#14 User is offline   swede1962 

  • Look, Ma! I'm a Wag-Toon!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 3,624
  • Joined: 28-April 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 10:23 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 23 May 2018 - 10:15 AM, said:

Yeah, LOL, I noticed that too. You know how pedantic I am about grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.

If you're prohibited from not touching something, it means you must touch it.

B)


To add to the pedanticness (new word, I just made it up, that'll be $500 please) I just thought, "Does this mean it's ok for her to touch the private parts of ANY male in her family? EWWWWWW!!! :unsure:
0

#15 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,178
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 23 May 2018 - 10:25 AM

View Postgrimreefer, on 23 May 2018 - 08:33 AM, said:

I'm just wondering what the monetary amount claimed for damages would be... either way. :scratch:

If this lady, who is not used to waxing and trimming the male anatomy, zigs instead of zags, he’ll be suing anyway.
0

#16 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,798
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 10:32 AM

View Postswede1962, on 23 May 2018 - 10:23 AM, said:

To add to the pedanticness (new word, I just made it up, that'll be $500 please) I just thought, "Does this mean it's ok for her to touch the private parts of ANY male in her family? EWWWWWW!!! :unsure:


Ewww indeed.

(And the word is "pedantry"...)

;)
0

#17 User is offline   intotheblackhole 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 7,722
  • Joined: 01-June 04

Posted 23 May 2018 - 11:07 AM

This is the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

The woman has the upper hand because she is claiming a religious exemption which is written into the US Constitution while the guy/girl/whatever can only claim laws written after the Constitution. The Constitution will win in a court of law unless of course the jury is made up of liberals who hate the Constitution. But it will win on appeal especially if it goes to the SCOTUS.
0

#18 User is offline   SARGE 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 10,912
  • Joined: 26-June 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 11:18 AM

View Postintotheblackhole, on 23 May 2018 - 11:07 AM, said:

This is the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

The woman has the upper hand because she is claiming a religious exemption which is written into the US Constitution while the guy/girl/whatever can only claim laws written after the Constitution. The Constitution will win in a court of law unless of course the jury is made up of liberals who hate the Constitution. But it will win on appeal especially if it goes to the SCOTUS.


...or unless this happened in Canada. :whistling:

"But it’s an issue now, one that is before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario."---http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/muslim-woman-sued-for-declining-to-wax-mans-genitals.php

This post has been edited by SARGE: 23 May 2018 - 11:19 AM

0

#19 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 12,402
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 11:22 AM

View Postintotheblackhole, on 23 May 2018 - 11:07 AM, said:

This is the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

The woman has the upper hand because she is claiming a religious exemption which is written into the US Constitution while the guy/girl/whatever can only claim laws written after the Constitution. The Constitution will win in a court of law unless of course the jury is made up of liberals who hate the Constitution. But it will win on appeal especially if it goes to the SCOTUS.

How can this be right. This is a service offered by the salon she works at. She refused to provide the service because of her religious beliefs.

She should be crucified in the press and the salon should have their business ruined by SJWs.
0

#20 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,330
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 23 May 2018 - 11:39 AM

View Postintotheblackhole, on 23 May 2018 - 11:07 AM, said:

This is the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

The woman has the upper hand because she is claiming a religious exemption which is written into the US Constitution while the guy/girl/whatever can only claim laws written after the Constitution. The Constitution will win in a court of law unless of course the jury is made up of liberals who hate the Constitution. But it will win on appeal especially if it goes to the SCOTUS.


This happened in D'oh Canada.

May stalwart personkind, and gentle personkind rise...
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users