• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

sjmay said:
Thats idiotic, if you were fired or a job rescinded because you refused to part your hair on the right instead of the left, you'd be furious as well.
Click to expand...

But would I feel discriminated against?

No.
 
Mr Person said:
Why are you so concerned with how a black person styles their hair?
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with black people but appearance in the work place. More so in front of customers or other businesses.

How many lawyers do you know show up to court in deadlocks? The court has a standard of dress that is acceptable and dress that is not.

So if lawyers must comply with a dress code why can private business not enforce the same thing.
 
ludin said:
It has nothing to do with black people but appearance in the work place. More so in front of customers or other businesses.

How many lawyers do you know show up to court in deadlocks? The court has a standard of dress that is acceptable and dress that is not.

So if lawyers must comply with a dress code why can private business not enforce the same thing.
Click to expand...

Because this is just racial discrimination pretending to be a dress code. These hair policies are only enforced against black people.
 
j-mac said:
So, when the right of businesses are infringed to the point of no longer being able to do business, hey, at least you'll have the right to have your hair how you want, right?
Click to expand...

If your business relies on violating people's rights you shouldn't be in business in the first place.
 
ludin said:
It has nothing to do with black people but appearance in the work place. More so in front of customers or other businesses.

How many lawyers do you know show up to court in deadlocks? The court has a standard of dress that is acceptable and dress that is not.

So if lawyers must comply with a dress code why can private business not enforce the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the problem is that acceptable "appearance in the workplace" is largely based on the aesthetic canons of white Northern European peoples, or those with that heritage, and that brings with it a rather obvious view of black and brown people as inherently ugly, thereby perpetuating racism. There's a long history, going all the way back to the 16th century, of white people encountering black or brown people throughout the world, and finding them inferior and in need of "correction" because they looked different than white people.
 
sjmay said:
Can not make this up,

CROWN Act: California becomes first state to ban discrimination against natural hair - CBS News


I get the understanding and thought process behind it, but the article is poorly written, so their examples, makes you think there HAS to be more to the story than just what they are saying....
Click to expand...

This is one on the piss ant things California occupies itself with so they don’t have to deal with real problems. The issue behind this is Latino owned small businesses discriminating against hiring blacks drawing attention to their ethnicity. (Or whites for that matter).
 
Carjosse said:
If your business relies on violating people's rights you shouldn't be in business in the first place.
Click to expand...

So, If you're seeking a job, are you saying you have a right to get that job you're seeking?
 
j-mac said:
So, If you're seeking a job, are you saying you have a right to get that job you're seeking?
Click to expand...

When did I say that? I am saying if your business model relies on violating the rights of your employees you should not even be in business in the first place.

How exactly do laws like this affect the business's ability to operate in any way?
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
When did I say that?
Click to expand...

When you said/say:

"If your business relies on violating people's rights "

You are in essence saying just that...1. I am not aware of the 'hairstyle' clause in the bill of rights...2. Businesses are individually owned, NOT owned by the State. So, if someone is not hired based on their appearance, or their ability to do the job, then that is in the scope of the owner, and they may find that they are passing up more qualified employees because of their own bias, or stupidity if you will...

But we don't need laws to regulate stupidity.

I am saying if your business model relies on violating the rights of your employees you should not even be in business in the first place.
Click to expand...

And the market would decide that right? Or, are you suggesting some kind of board that one would have to pass to make sure they are politically "woke" enough to pass muster?

How exactly do laws like this affect the business's ability to operate in any way?
Click to expand...

For one, they open the liability to business of frivolous law suits that a. drive up insurance costs to the employer, and b. make it impossible to find the right people for the job...
 
j-mac said:
When you said/say:

"If your business relies on violating people's rights "

You are in essence saying just that...1. I am not aware of the 'hairstyle' clause in the bill of rights...2. Businesses are individually owned, NOT owned by the State. So, if someone is not hired based on their appearance, or their ability to do the job, then that is in the scope of the owner, and they may find that they are passing up more qualified employees because of their own bias, or stupidity if you will...

But we don't need laws to regulate stupidity.
Click to expand...
There's no "skin color" clause in the bill of rights either, that's why we needed a civil rights act. Hair is another characteristic used to distinguish "races". The intent of this law is to clarify how to apply civil rights protections when people are expected to appear more white through hairstyle choices.
 
exoplanet said:
There's no "skin color" clause in the bill of rights either, that's why we needed a civil rights act. Hair is another characteristic used to distinguish "races". The intent of this law is to clarify how to apply civil rights protections when people are expected to appear more white through hairstyle choices.
Click to expand...

You must be really scared seeing racists wherever you turn....
 
j-mac said:
You must be really scared seeing racists wherever you turn....
Click to expand...
Because I bothered to read the text of the law that's being discussed?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
We’re talking about discrimination against hairstyles, not African American women, women of any race who prepare their hair in professional style do not need a law like this. It’s sweeping socialism intended to break all norms of society
Click to expand...

You clearly dont have a clue on what this is about.. it is exactly about African American women that have been discriminated against even in the US military.

How Natural Black Hair at Work Became a Civil Rights Issue | JSTOR Daily

Black Women Are Still Discriminated Against Because of Their Hair | InStyle.com

And so on and so on.
 
j-mac said:
You must be really scared seeing racists wherever you turn....
Click to expand...

Must be nice to be so privileged that you've never seen these types of discrimination in your life. Moreso, you're so far removed from these issues you can't even conceive of this ever happening to someone.
 
Mycroft said:
Does the hair of African American women grow into dreadlocks? If not, then it's not their natural hair.
Click to expand...

If you let hair grow and do nothing, that's exactly what it does. And then people tie them up or back when they get long, maybe braid them loosely.

Dreadlocks are not cornrow braids. (Not that it should matter)

And in the Alabama case discussed...the woman worked in a call center :doh
 
exoplanet said:
Many people with curly hair would have dreadlocks if they never combed, brushed or styled it. Most dreadlocks that people intentionally have require a minimal amount of maintenance that is probably less than most hairstyles (if you think an afro does not require styling and maintenance, think again). That said, I doubt the intent of this law is only address what happens if no intentional styling was done period.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's about as natural as it comes.
 
PeteEU said:
You clearly dont have a clue on what this is about.. it is exactly about African American women that have been discriminated against even in the US military.

How Natural Black Hair at Work Became a Civil Rights Issue | JSTOR Daily

Black Women Are Still Discriminated Against Because of Their Hair | InStyle.com

And so on and so on.
Click to expand...
BECAUSE OF THEIR HAIR so black women are not being discriminated against on the basis of being black women, the discrimination is due to deviant visible traits that are not intrinsic to being a black woman.
 
Deuce said:
Must be nice to be so privileged that you've never seen these types of discrimination in your life. Moreso, you're so far removed from these issues you can't even conceive of this ever happening to someone.
Click to expand...

Me? Privileged? lol....That's a hoot...! :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom