Not that long ago, this would have been a satisfactory explanation:
Carruthers said 98 percent of the spa’s clientele is female, and he employs no male staff. The spa has waxed the arms and backs of male clients, but has never hidden its inability to accommodate a Brazilian wax for a male.
“When we’ve been asked about a male Brazilian wax [which removes hair from the client’s genital area] in the past we tell them we’re not able to provide that service and they move on,” Carruthers told the Windsor Star. “It’s never been an issue.”
So what’s changed? Well, as PJMedia’s Tyler O’Neil explains, in the view of some people, having male genitalia no longer makes one male. Thus, a man who says that he’s a woman feels entitled to sue a waxing salon for $50,000 because its female Muslim employee will not play along with his view of reality.
One suspects that the money is not really the issue. Our society has cultivated a toxic system of self-interest, activism, and moral euphoria. For a more-local example, look to a sensationalizing article in GoLocalProv. When a lesbian couple inquired about preschool at a nearby Christian school, the school sent them, among other things, the affiliated church’s statement of faith, which included the phrase, “the Bible, the word of God, clearly identifies homosexual practices as sin and abhorrent to God.”
The applicants sought publicity against the school, and the response led the organization to take security measures. The person who incited that response disclaims responsibility:
“The fact that he said he contacted law enforcement? I can’t help with what the Internet reaction was. I can’t help who called or who did any of that. If people are that incited, they’re incited for a reason. I was simply trying to raise awareness,” said [Lisa] Hazard.
Not that long ago, those inclined toward alternative lifestyles encouraged an attitude of “live and let live.” If a school had found itself under threat because somebody had discovered that the headmaster was homosexual, and if the person who had promoted that discovery had denied responsibility because “people are upset for a reason,” Hazard’s ilk would have cited it as evidence of intolerance.
So what’s changed? The radicals feel they have the upper hand, so all that talk about tolerance and diversity is no longer convenient as they seek to force universal conformity to their worldview.