TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – In the ongoing legal battle between Studio 8 Hair Lab in Traverse City and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR), the small business has become a lightning rod for debates over free speech, public accommodation, and gender identity.

Owner Christine Geiger, a self-identified Christian, posted controversial statements on the salon’s Facebook page in July 2023, including remarks that rejected serving individuals who do not identify strictly as male or female. The Facebook post in question includes the statement: “If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman please seek services at a local pet groomer. You are not welcome at this salon.”

MORE NEWS: UM Tuition Increases During Pandemic as College Enjoys Record Enrollment Levels

This sparked a series of legal filings from the MDCR on behalf of complainants who alleged that the posts are discriminatory under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), which prohibits discrimination based on several criteria including sex, now expanded to include gender identity.

Legal maneuvers and constitutional claims.

Studio 8’s defense hinges on constitutional arguments, asserting that the statements on its Facebook page are protected by the First Amendment, particularly the rights to free speech and religious expression.

Public accommodation or protected speech?

At the heart of the dispute is whether Studio 8’s online statements – suggesting individuals who identify outside the male/female binary seek services elsewhere – constitute a violation of public accommodation laws or are simply an expression of the owner’s religious beliefs.

MDCR maintains that the salon’s posts clearly violate ELCRA by discouraging individuals from receiving services based on their gender identity, which has been recognized as a form of sex discrimination. Studio 8 contends that its posts are not commercial advertisements and, therefore, fall outside the scope of discriminatory advertising under the ELCRA.

Studio 8 ordered to remove discriminatory content, undergo civil rights training.

The MDCR made a decision which was supported by the administrative law judge in a “proposal for decision” issued on September 26th. It calls for Studio 8 to remove the discriminatory posts and undergo civil rights training. Additionally, the decision by Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Meade, includes ordering Studio 8 to “post notices in a conspicuous place within their place of business regarding civil rights law or other relevant information the Commission determines necessary to explain those laws” as well as ordering respondent to pay Claimants’ reasonable attorney fees.

Lastly, the Commission will certify to the relevant licensing authorities with the Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) that Respondent’s violation of ELCRA is grounds for suspension or revocation of Respondent’s license(s).

Studio 8 attorney files Exceptions to ruling.

MORE NEWS: Federal Pandemic Money Rescued Benton Harbor Schools

Studio 8 is pushing back, calling for the judicial system, rather than administrative agencies, to handle these constitutional questions. In their Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision, which is a party’s formal objections to a proposed decision or recommendation made by an administrative law judge, Studio 8’s attorney cites several recent federal cases, including the landmark 303 Creative v. Elenis, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that certain compelled speech in public accommodation laws violated First Amendment rights.

Additional arguments in their exceptions response include noting that the Facebook posts are public statements made on social media and do not qualify as discriminatory speech under public accommodation laws. The respondent asserts that their Facebook post was a reflection of their religious beliefs, which are protected under the First Amendment.

Furthermore, Studio 8 contests that the MDCR has overstepped its constitutional boundaries by interpreting the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act to include “gender identity” as a protected class without clear legislative intent.

Studio 8 argues that their Facebook statement merely addressed their views on gender and did not deny any services, nor did it target any individual, thus claiming that this is a matter of pure speech, not unlawful discrimination. The Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision reads “The complainants are not customers of Studio 8; the complainants have never been customers of Studio 8 and were never denied service at Studio 8.”

Studio 8 seeks judicial intervention, asserting that the constitutional protections of free speech and religious expression should supersede the administrative agency’s interpretation of the public accommodation law. Additionally, they request a clear definition of terms such as “gender” and “nonbinary” within the legal framework, arguing that the current interpretation lacks precision and exceeds the scope of the law. According to Studio 8’s attorney, the state has 14 days to respond to their Exceptions to Proposal for Decision.

A battle of legal principles.

As this case unfolds, it highlights the increasing tension between public accommodation laws and individual constitutional rights, setting the stage for a lengthy and potentially precedent-setting showdown in Michigan’s courts.

With constitutional interpretations, civil rights, and public opinion in play, the outcome of this case could have lasting implications for small businesses across Michigan and the broader national conversation on gender identity and religious freedoms.