Hair law

[The Folk Prophet]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crown-act-california-becomes-first-state-to-ban-discrimination-against-natural-hair/

Along these lines, shouldn't they also pass a law banning discrimination against those who don't shower?

I want a beard discrimination law passed! My friend got in trouble at the school where he taught for having a Duck Dynasty style beard! He was told he scared the children. How dare they discriminate against him?!

And, reasonably speaking, there should also be a law banning discrimination against those who want to grow Howard Hughes style toenails.

[NightSG]

No comments on the irony of the Peroxide Princess in the signing video?

[mordorbund]

Quote

Natural hairstyles inherent to Black identity such as locks, braids, bantu knots, etc. are ranked the lowest for ‘job readiness.’

Have I finally gotten old? What does "natural" mean in this context?

[mikbone]

This is long overdue...

[Midwest LDS]

I love how the article says "women with certain hairstyles are sometimes subject to unequal treatment". I can just see someone saying the following now. "I was going to deny this woman a job because of her curly hair because I'm weird, but now I can't because it's illegal, oh well." I'm glad we are finally legislating all the minor inconveniences and occasional unfairness in life away. Once we write enough laws, no one will ever be treated badly again! Thanks California!

Edited July 5, 2019 by Midwest LDS

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Have I finally gotten old? What does "natural" mean in this context?

[The Folk Prophet]

11 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Have I finally gotten old? What does "natural" mean in this context?

Apparently it means dreadlocks and cornrows.

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

That's what I thought when I read the phrase, but it was clarified to include "locks, braids, bantu knots".

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Apparently it means dreadlocks and cornrows.

Right. So forgive my ignorance of hair and hairstyles, but I would think "natural" hairstyles would preclude any that were formed through hours of manipulation.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

That's what I thought when I read the phrase, but it was clarified to include "locks, braids, bantu knots".

Right. So forgive my ignorance of hair and hairstyles, but I would think "natural" hairstyles would preclude any that were formed through hours of manipulation.

Were you expecting California laws to make sense?

[Traveler]

On 7/4/2019 at 9:14 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crown-act-california-becomes-first-state-to-ban-discrimination-against-natural-hair/

Along these lines, shouldn't they also pass a law banning discrimination against those who don't shower?

I want a beard discrimination law passed! My friend got in trouble at the school where he taught for having a Duck Dynasty style beard! He was told he scared the children. How dare they discriminate against him?!

And, reasonably speaking, there should also be a law banning discrimination against those who want to grow Howard Hughes style toenails.

I have thought on this for a while and decided that it is not constitutional and should be challenged on the basis that such a law is contrary to the first amendment that allows a person the freedom of expression that includes not just what we may like but what we do not like as well.  In addition there are things that a person does to make them self appear different - which is an expression of discrimination that puts the person that expresses themselves with a hairstyle that they are acting in a discriminating manner by their hair style which is a contradiction of the law or at least the intent of the law which is to prevent discrimination based on "natural hair".   Thus it become impossible for anyone not to discriminate.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Thus it become impossible for anyone not to discriminate.

I have a novel idea for the world:

Discrimination is good!

Unfair bias isn't. But discrimination itself? The lack thereof is practically the very definition of foolishness.

One might think the question ought to be simple. Is requiring someone to change their hair style unfair? But of course when it comes to the rights of ownership in business it's not quit that simple, because the question also becomes at what level does a business have the right to be unfair?

 

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I have a novel idea for the world:

Discrimination is good!

Unfair bias isn't. But discrimination itself? The lack thereof is practically the very definition of foolishness.

One might think the question ought to be simple. Is requiring someone to change their hair style unfair? But of course when it comes to the rights of ownership in business it's not quit that simple, because the question also becomes at what level does a business have the right to be unfair?

 

And while we're on this topic, I just got my hair caught in the impact drill...

[Traveler]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I have a novel idea for the world:

Discrimination is good!

Unfair bias isn't. But discrimination itself? The lack thereof is practically the very definition of foolishness.

One might think the question ought to be simple. Is requiring someone to change their hair style unfair? But of course when it comes to the rights of ownership in business it's not quit that simple, because the question also becomes at what level does a business have the right to be unfair?

 

I have followed a story about 6 policemen being refused service at an Arizona Starbucks because they "frightened" a customer that was there and complained.    Without going into any details about why someone is frightened by policemen (that are sworn to protect) I now wonder:

Why someone can be harassed or denied service because of their political associations (working as a pres secretary for the president).  Just thinking about hateful speech - should there not be a law the prohibits government officials (or individuals in the press) that openly call for mistreatment and abusive harassment behavior towards citizens (that are obeying the law) that do not agree with their political expressions.  Is this not more important than hair styles?

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And while we're on this topic, I just got my hair caught in the impact drill...

I thought you were a software developer.  

Edited July 8, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

should there not be a law the prohibits government officials (or individuals in the press) that openly call for mistreatment and abusive harassment behavior towards citizens (that are obeying the law) that do not agree with their political expressions. 

I believe that's already illegal. It's just not being enforced. I dunno. Maybe @Just_A_Guy can weigh in.

[Just_A_Guy]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I believe that's already illegal. It's just not being enforced. I dunno. Maybe @Just_A_Guy can weigh in.

I would think that’d be actionable as a federal 1983 lawsuit, inasmuch as it is done by government employees acting within the scope of their employment.  But I don’t know to what degree 1983 actions legally apply to elected officials, for whom some measure of demagoguery is frankly par for the course.  

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would think that’d be actionable as a federal 1983 lawsuit, inasmuch as it is done by government employees acting within the scope of their employment.  But I don’t know to what degree 1983 actions legally apply to elected officials, for whom some measure of demagoguery is frankly par for the course.  

Let me see if I understand your legal jargon.  This means that the 9th Circuit Court would rule against conservatives and for progressives whenever there is a possible distinction concerning an elected official?

 

The Traveler

[NightSG]

20 hours ago, Traveler said:

Let me see if I understand your legal jargon.  This means that the 9th Circuit Court would rule against conservatives and for progressives whenever there is a possible distinction concerning an elected official?

Nothing guarantees a win in the Supreme Court like a loss in the 9th. 

[Anddenex]

Well, I am glad all that money was so well spent.

[anatess2]

Intermission:

I don't know what it is about my hair lately... I was drying off the dog and my hair got sucked into the screen where the motor is.  Maybe I should try to sue Conair and Dewalt... there are no hair warnings on their devices!

Edited July 9, 2019 by anatess2