Try really hard not to laugh at this one.

A hair salon is being accused of discrimination over a July Facebook post that stated that trans customers were “not welcome” and should “seek services at a local pet groomer," according to The New York Post.

The Department of Civil Rights claimed Christine Geiger, the owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab, violated Michigan’s Civil Rights Act by discriminating against the claimants.

“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. Period,” the post read, according to The New York Post.

To be fair, if you are not a man or a woman, what would that make you? Because my cat is not a woman, I have to call the pet groomer for her.

“Should you request to have a particular pronoun used, please note we may simply refer to you as ‘hey you.’ Regardless of MI HB 4744,” the post stated.

We all know that hurt feelings are not criminal. Obviously, Michigan did not get that memo. But a lot of people would agree that compelled speech is unconstitutional.

HB 4744 is the code for a Michigan hate crime law, which was changed to include discrimination based on “gender identity or expression,” and “sexual orientation.”

The salon owner filed her own complaint against the City and the three individuals, accusing each of violating her First Amendment rights.

Geiger clarified on a different social media post that she has no issues with lesbians, gays, or bisexual people, but it is “the TQ+” that she does not support.

“I am admitting that since I am not willing to play the pronoun game or cater to requests outside of what I perceive as normal this probably isn’t the best option for that type of client,” she wrote in part of the post.

She defended her stance in an interview with the Associated Press, where she said that she believes owners should be able to serve who they want.

“I just don’t want the woke dollar, " she would “rather not be as busy than to have to do services” that she does not agree with.

The real issue here is that the activists bringing these legal challenges may not even want a haircut, it is very possible that they just want to force someone to provide such a service even if it means violating their own conscious or religious beliefs.

And if you really think that the owner of the salon refusing services based on pronouns is evil, why do you want them to hide behind a law? Wouldn’t they rather identify the “bigots” in order to not benefit such a business?

Well, that doesn't even matter because I would not be surprised if she goes bankrupt in the near future.

At the very least, if we care even the tiniest bit about preserving freedom of expression, we must distinguish between people and their ideas.

Do you think it is constitutional that governments have the ability to tread on a person's consciences in order to compel conformity to certain beliefs?