Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius
That's kind of the thing. If Yaniv didn't think it was a big deal to get the waxing, why did they mention that they were transgender at all? Since Yaniv claimed to have had Brazilian / Manzilian waxing performed before, then they should have known it was different procedure that not everybody is necessarily trained in. It just would have been wiser for the defendents to say that, but Yaniv probably took advantage of the language barrier.
|
This person's MO is to target businesses or women they feel might not or can't fight back and target them with bull#### complaints. You don't rack up 16 or so complaints to the HRC over the same issue and with similar respondents without it being intentional and malicious. Pull a bait and switch and then complain or settle off to the side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
If you look at the HRC and what's going on that's exactly what the defendent stated that she had told Yaniv that she wasn't trained in doing the procedure on male genitalia and wasn't comfortable doing it.
Instead of doing what most people would do, and appreciate the honesty of the business, She decided to make this a whole, she doesn't want to do it because I'm transgender.
To the business, and the owner this wasn't about transgender issues, its about not being comfortable waxing someone's male genitalia.
At the end of the day the owner was effectively screwed, if she said no, Yaniv was going to once again go screaming to the HRC, if she did it and bungled it Yaniv would probably run to the press and a lawyer.
|
Yaniv knows they'll be able to cook up a complaint either way and is completely fine with exploiting both vulnerable women and actual transgendered people for their own personal gain. The fact that the human rights tribunals are enabling this behavior is ridiculous.