New Law in CA: Can't discriminate against Natural hair

[ashurbanipal]

sorry you can't discriminate against hair

I'm not sure what you're on about now. Have I not already said, twice, that this is so? You've quoted me twice saying so...

you have yet to show that hair is a protected class in anyway shape or form.

Well...I haven't tried to do so. And I don't mean to do so. I don't need to do so to be right. So, again, I have no idea what your point could be.

you also have failed to show that private businesses are not allowed to set reasonable dress codes for employee's.

See previous answer. I haven't tried, don't mean to, don't need to. What in the world are you even talking about now?

not at all. my logical consistency is very much stable.

Uhhh...is that like the "stable genius" thing? I've taught logic at the university level now for over a decade, and I've never heard anyone describe the property of logical consistency as something that could be "very much stable." The phrasing at least suggests, if not implies, that logical consistency could become "unstable," and that's something that cannot happen. Logical consistency is a property of what are sometimes called molecular propositions or logical molecules, and it's a binary property. A given set of propositions either has it, or it doesn't. There's no "kinda...looking bad, looking very unstable here; the logical consistency could go at any time!"

your inability to prove your argument is not my fault.

It wouldn't be, but what is your fault is your inability to even grasp my argument.

If i have a policy that says you can't have extreme hair color i am not discriminating against hair because you can't.
nor am i discriminating against people since hair is not people.

By the same token, if I have a policy saying all white employees will change their skin tone to black immediately, I am not discriminating against the employees, but only their skin. That would be logically consistent with your position, and it's obviously silly (it would also obviously be evil, and should never be permitted).

if you want to have red or blue or green or purple hair that is fine doesn't mean i have to hire you nor is it discrimination
since you can't discriminate against hair.

Again, what in the world are you even talking about? The law prohibits businesses from discriminating against people for having their natural hair--some companies have had policies that require black people to straighten their hair, or not to hire black people who haven't already gone for the "white people" hairstyle--that is, black people who just have their normal hair the way it normally grows, kept trim and neat, might still be turned down for a job because they have naturally kinky hair that they decided not to straighten. And forcing them to straighten it or lose (or not obtain) a job for which they are qualified is absurd.

CA can say that the moon is made of cheese that doesn't make it so.

You asked where hair is protected. I told you where. I have no idea, again, what your point could possibly be with this response.

 

[Hatuey]

... does the hair of a white woman naturally grow into a pony tail? What about bobs, does it naturally grow into bobs?

Weird. No discrimination against those haircuts.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[Hatuey]

Threads like this expose the backwardness of some of DPs residents. The type of idiots to believe colors really embody specific adjectives other than colors.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[AProudLefty]

... does the hair of a white woman naturally grow into a pony tail? What about bobs, does it naturally grow into bobs?

Weird. No discrimination against those haircuts.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

Grats. You're the nth person to read that in the article.

 

[ludin]

Nobody ever said a company can't set a hair policy. I am beginning to think you have a major reading comprehension issue because the point is very very simple to undarstand.

Not at all you can't discriminate against hair. it is not possible.
hair is not a protected class.

 

[ludin]

Why should a company/your employer get to make that decision that is intimate to your being and self-expression? Do you think that we marry our employer when we accept their job offer?

Nope but that doesn't mean i can't set reasonable expectations of dress and behavior. Some people might not think washing their hair for a month is self-expression to me as a company it is unacceptabale to come into work with greasy unclean hair. most companies have BO polices that they can send you home if you stink. When you take a job you agree to the job description and the dress policies at that job.
if you don't like those policies then don't work there.

It is to the point where we need a statement of independence for people in the same way that the Magna Carta gave people independence from kings and the church because many conservatives seem to think that business leaders have more rights and should be permitted to make life choices just because we are their employees.

If you sign a contract that says you will come to work in business casual with clean body and hair and that you agree that your hair meets proper appearances
then you signed the contract. no one forced you to sign the contract.

you can't discriminate against hair anyway, however a business i do have some control over how you appear when you come to work. if you don't like it then don't work there.

 

[ludin]

I'm not sure what you're on about now. Have I not already said, twice, that this is so? You've quoted me twice saying so...

Then why do you continue to push something that isn't true?

Well...I haven't tried to do so. And I don't mean to do so. I don't need to do so to be right. So, again, I have no idea what your point could be.

Then you have no argument thanks for admitting it.

You asked where hair is protected. I told you where. I have no idea, again, what your point could possibly be with this response.

You said because CA said it was. I simply pointed out the logical fallacy of that argument. Just because CA says something doesn't make it so.
since you have no argument on this as you admitted your concession is noted.

 

[Master Debator]

Nope but that doesn't mean i can't set reasonable expectations of dress and behavior. Some people might not think washing their hair for a month is self-expression to me as a company it is unacceptabale to come into work with greasy unclean hair. most companies have BO polices that they can send you home if you stink. When you take a job you agree to the job description and the dress policies at that job.
if you don't like those policies then don't work there.


If you sign a contract that says you will come to work in business casual with clean body and hair and that you agree that your hair meets proper appearances
then you signed the contract. no one forced you to sign the contract.

you can't discriminate against hair anyway, however a business i do have some control over how you appear when you come to work. if you don't like it then don't work there.

There is a difference between cleanliness and style. Just because you don't like afros, braids or dreadlocks doesn't mean they are dirty.

 

[ludin]

There is a difference between cleanliness and style. Just because you don't like afros, braids or dreadlocks doesn't mean they are dirty.

can't discriminate against hair sorry.

 

[j-mac]

... does the hair of a white woman naturally grow into a pony tail? What about bobs, does it naturally grow into bobs?

Weird. No discrimination against those haircuts.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

Hmmmm....I remember when applying to UPS for a driving position, I was told that my beard would have to be shaved off...is that discrimination or am I the wrong color to claim such?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[Master Debator]

can't discriminate against hair sorry.

You can discriminate against people with certain types of hair. Only now if you do it in California you'll face legal consequences. :shrug:

 

[ashurbanipal]

Then why do you continue to push something that isn't true?

I have no idea, again, what you're talking about.

Then you have no argument thanks for admitting it.

Your claim here is nonsense. Of course I have an argument. You've studiously avoided responding to it.

You said because CA said it was.

I said no such thing. And if you think that's why I support this kind of law (i.e. because California said it is so), you simply haven't grasped my point. Not that such is in any way surprising, mind you...

Just because CA says something doesn't make it so.

Sure. Here's the problem that tactic presents for you: you have relied upon the fact that we have laws against public nudity--which amounts to various jurisdictions just "saying something" about the acceptability of public nudity. Your reliance on the mere existence of those laws is no different in principle than reliance on the law under discussion--they're both just laws, and both must be subject to the same principled analysis. You cannot consistently claim that because there are laws against X, it is improper/unconstitutional/wrong to enforce against X, but because there are laws against Y, it is acceptable/laudable/permissible to enforce against Y.

since you have no argument on this as you admitted your concession is noted.

Now you're just trying to run away. Surely you realize that intelligent people can see through this kind of tactic...actually, I suppose apparently you don't, since you decided to try it. The whole "I established hidden goal posts that you didn't meet and now I can claim you've conceded" tactic is shopworn beyond repair, and it's pretty easy to see it for what it is: an attempt for you to save face while getting away from a discussion you fear might be lost on your end.

 

[Hatuey]

Hmmmm....I remember when applying to UPS for a driving position, I was told that my beard would have to be shaved off...is that discrimination or am I the wrong color to claim such?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Sigh. You live in the 1990s. Anyways, does UPS allow bearded women? No? Okay, then. I guess there's no real discrimination here.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[AProudLefty]

Not at all you can't discriminate against hair. it is not possible.
hair is not a protected class.

READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN.
"A new law signed Wednesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom makes California the first state to ban discrimination against black students and employees over their natural hairstyles."

It does not say discrimination against hair.

 

[Lursa]

Being the owner gives one a ton of power to exercise over employees. Hell Amazon is running a big brother operation and instructing their employees to snitch.

"Snitch" on what?

 

[bomberfox]

"Snitch" on what?

Their latest employee videos instruct employees to snitch on any talk of unionization.

 

[Lursa]

Their latest employee videos instruct employees to snitch on any talk of unionization.

Ah. Hmmm.

Thanks