The CROWN Act

[ClydeR]

The House on Friday passed the CROWN Act, which would ban hair-related discrimination.

The measure, H.R. 2116, passed in a vote of 235-189 along party lines. It was introduced by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., CROWN stands for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. It prohibits "discrimination based on an individual's texture or style of hair." The bill will now go to the Senate for consideration.

The legislation states that “routinely, people of African descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities” for wearing their hair in natural or protective hairstyles such as locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, or Afros.

More... (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/house-passes-crown-act-banning-discrimination-black-hairstyles-rcna20617)

It doesn't say that it only applies to hair on top of your head. I could apply to beards too.

[Tgo01]

A) Do Democrats ever tire of using the black community to further their disgusting agenda?
B) How was it "passed along party lines" when there are 222 Democrat House members and 211 Republican House members? Does the media ever get tired of lying?

[Gelston]

It doesn't say that it only applies to hair on top of your head. I could apply to beards too.

Didn't read it at all did you? It specifically states race based hair discrimination. Beards are not race based.

[Tgo01]

Didn't read it at all did you? It specifically states race based hair discrimination. Beards are not race based.

Is hair really "race based" either?

Even some pasty-faced white dudes have afros.

[Gelston]

Is hair really "race based" either?

Even some pasty-faced white dudes have afros.

Absolutely, black people have a different hair texture from white people.

[Parkbandit]

A) Do Democrats ever tire of using the black community to further their disgusting agenda?


Why would they? The black community seems to be willing partners.

[Parkbandit]

Absolutely, black people have a different hair texture from white people.

https://dressthatman.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/BLOG-white-guy-afro.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/84/4b/0c/844b0ccf29020316935b123e70844279.png

[Tgo01]

Absolutely, black people have a different hair texture from white people.

It mentions styles though, not textures. It specifically lists: locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, or Afros

I know for sure some white people have their hair in locs, cornrows, braids, twists, and Afros. I really don't know about Bantu knots but I'm pretty sure they do too.

[Gelston]

The bill seeks to protect against bias based on hair texture and protective styles, including locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros.

[Vindicate]

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

Seems to me that a reasonable person would consider hair texture to be covered within VII.

But i'm no lawyer

[Gelston]

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

Seems to me that a reasonable person would consider hair texture to be covered within VII.

But i'm no lawyer

It is supposed to, but different judges interpreted it different ways. This is making it more clear.

[Methais]

It doesn't say that it only applies to hair on top of your head. I could apply to beards too.

Finally, some justice for Frank and Carl Gallagher.

https://assets.rbl.ms/10748431/origin.jpg

https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/776/0a3/8de7b99c28bc4f1332aa87f64f94c14140-04-shameless-02.2x.h473.w710.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/02/82/b7/0282b7ab243ba10588a8072240708832.jpg

[Tgo01]

It is supposed to, but different judges interpreted it different ways. This is making it more clear.

I'm pretty sure if a company says cornrows are unacceptable for any employee to have then that is by no means discrimination. If that's what judges are doing then I don't see the problem. If a company said we don't like them black people with their cornrows then that's another story.

This bill is just all kinds of dumb and pandering. Actually protecting hair styles and claiming racism.

What's the next bill?

"Protect sagging pants bill of 2024." No more racist dress codes saying employees can't wear their pants around their ankles!

[Neveragain]

I'm pretty sure if a company says cornrows are unacceptable for any employee to have then that is by no means discrimination. If that's what judges are doing then I don't see the problem. If a company said we don't like them black people with their cornrows then that's another story.

This bill is just all kinds of dumb and pandering. Actually protecting hair styles and claiming racism.

What's the next bill?

"Protect sagging pants bill of 2024." No more racist dress codes saying employees can't wear their pants around their ankles!

Employers have been using hairstyles to discriminate against people for decades. Face it, employers in the US can be assholes about hiring people that don't look right. Hell, in the US, a persons mental health, social status, income, etc. can be directly impacted for not looking right. It's kind of fucked up if you think about it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9lh7lqZojc

[Tgo01]

Employers have been using hairstyles to discriminate against people for decades. Face it, employers in the US can be assholes about hiring people that don't look right. Hell, in the US, a persons mental health, social status, income, etc. can be directly impacted for not looking right. It's kind of fucked up if you think about it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9lh7lqZojc

They also discriminate against people who have tattoos, piercings, and all sorts of things. Do we really need a law to protect against all of this?

According to the alt-leftists I have the most privilege of anyone who has ever lived, even more privilege than kings in other countries, and yet I couldn't get a job as a teenager until I cut my long hair. I sure wish the gub'mint made a law to protect me and my hair style!

[Neveragain]

Do we really need a law to protect against all of this?

Obviously we do. You would be lying if you were to say that you don't know anyone that has had their entire life impacted because they didn't meet an artificial social norm.

[Tgo01]

Obviously we do. You would be lying if you were to say that you don't know anyone that has had their entire life impacted because they didn't meet an artificial social norm.

Or maybe people can just abide by the dress code of the said hiring company, like this overly privileged white male had to do to get a job. I certainly didn't scream victim and demand congress protect my hairstyle. Or find a company to work for that doesn't give a shit about your hairstyle.

So is the "Protect sagging pants bill of 2024" up next then? Gotta protect those lifestyle choices. Damn racists.

[Methais]

I got turned down for all sorts of jobs in the 90s because my hair was long at the time.

Who should I contact to get my reparations?

[Parkbandit]

We.

Need.

Term.

Limits.

[Neveragain]

Or maybe people can just abide by the dress code of the said hiring company

Because a person is unable to afford said dress code only exacerbates what neo-cons hate most, welfare programs.


like this overly privileged white male had to do to get a job.

We already know had you been black the odds of getting that job are lowered.


I certainly didn't scream victim and demand congress protect my hairstyle.

Just because you didn't have the will to stand against discrimination doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to end injustices.

The only difference is that you believe business comes before humanity, I don't share those values.

[Neveragain]

We.

Need.

Term.

Limits.

Or people could start electing people based on their abilities.

[Tgo01]

Because a person is unable to afford said dress code only exacerbates what neo-cons hate most, welfare programs.



We already know had you been black the odds of getting that job are lowered.



Just because you didn't have the will to stand against discrimination doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to end injustices.

The only difference is that you believe business comes before humanity, I don't share those values.

Okay fine. So does this bill finally solve racism in hiring practices in the US? Or will the Democrats need to come up with another pandering bill during the next election cycle when the polls show they are fucked? Because shit like this is much easier than actually solving real issues facing the black community.

[Parkbandit]

Because a person is unable to afford said dress code only exacerbates what neo-cons hate most, welfare programs.

What dress code is so expensive that you can't afford it? A haircut? A pair of pants?


We already know had you been black the odds of getting that job are lowered.

Just because you didn't have the will to stand against discrimination doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to end injustices.

The only difference is that you believe business comes before humanity, I don't share those values.

LOL.

[Parkbandit]

Or people could start electing people based on their abilities.

A Republican just died that has been in office for almost as long as I have been alive.

That's too.fucking.long.

Once you get into office, it's extremely difficult to get you out.

Term.Limits.Period.

[~Rocktar~]

Term limits are not the panacea that everyone seems to think they would be. They would breed a new layer of super lobbyist, the previously elected, experts in one matter or another, advising the newly elected and being a more defacto shadow government than we have now.

[Parkbandit]

Term limits are not the panacea that everyone seems to think they would be. They would breed a new layer of super lobbyist, the previously elected, experts in one matter or another, advising the newly elected and being a more defacto shadow government than we have now.

Public Service was never meant to be a get rich and stay in politics for your entire life type of deal as it is currently.

Entrenched politicians aren't even representative of their districts as the money becomes so great that it's extremely difficult to unseat them.

[~Rocktar~]

Public Service was never meant to be a get rich and stay in politics for your entire life type of deal as it is currently.

Entrenched politicians aren't even representative of their districts as the money becomes so great that it's extremely difficult to unseat them.

Yes, they were meant to mostly be unpaid, landed citizens were the only voters and they had to support themselves. Times change and so has the country. The issue remains that term limits are not a panacea. I would like there to be some requirement that people must live in their districts, like maintain residence there and spend x amount of time habituating there or something. I would also like to see objective media and some kind of outcome in the current situations that doesn't end in war abroad and at home in the next few years. I would like to meet Santa Claus and the tooth fairy too.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, they were meant to mostly be unpaid, landed citizens were the only voters and they had to support themselves. Times change and so has the country. The issue remains that term limits are not a panacea. I would like there to be some requirement that people must live in their districts, like maintain residence there and spend x amount of time habituating there or something. I would also like to see objective media and some kind of outcome in the current situations that doesn't end in war abroad and at home in the next few years. I would like to meet Santa Claus and the tooth fairy too.

I realize that "panacea" must be your on your "Word of the Day" calendar... but clearly you don't understand the meaning. No one is saying that term limits are the end all, be all solution to the issues of Congress... they are just a step in the right direction. President has term limits. Many states have term limits for their local and state government officials.

Congress needs term limits too.

[Methais]

Or people could start electing people based on their abilities.

We'd still need term limits.


Term limits are not the panacea that everyone seems to think they would be. They would breed a new layer of super lobbyist, the previously elected, experts in one matter or another, advising the newly elected and being a more defacto shadow government than we have now.

Pretty sure nobody's saying that's going to fix everything, but that doesn't change the fact that people who were alive during things like when The Wizard of Oz came out, during World War 2, when black & white TV was still mainstream, before The Beatles existed, etc., have no business being in office today and are a huge part of the problem.

[Seran]

It doesn't say that it only applies to hair on top of your head. I could apply to beards too.

I imagine how offensive it was to the Republicans who voted against the bill that Congress is trying to protect citizens from discrimination.

[Parkbandit]

I imagine how offensive it was to the Republicans who voted against the bill that Congress is trying to protect citizens from discrimination.

Imagine how offensive it was to normal people that THIS was the bill that the House Democrats determined was the most pressing issue right now.

[Methais]

I imagine how much of a retard I am.

You remind us constantly. No need to imagine.

[kutter]

Imagine how offensive it was to normal people that THIS was the bill that the House Democrats determined was the most pressing issue right now.

I was thinking this exact thing. Just to make sure I am not living in bizarro land, we have record inflation, record fuel prices, a world 'superpower' invading a neighboring country, another superpower rattling sabers trying to say they have a legal claim to take back an island that they lay claim to through some contorted mental gymnastics and congress decides this is the legislation we need to work on, full well knowing it will never pass the senate.

[Parkbandit]

I was thinking this exact thing. Just to make sure I am not living in bizarro land, we have record inflation, record fuel prices, a world 'superpower' invading a neighboring country, another superpower rattling sabers trying to say they have a legal claim to take back an island that they lay claim to through some contorted mental gymnastics and congress decides this is the legislation we need to work on, full well knowing it will never pass the senate.

You sound like a hairist. Are you a hairist, Kutter???? ARE YOU!?!?!??

[kutter]

You sound like a hairist. Are you a hairist, Kutter???? ARE YOU!?!?!??

Well considering I find more and more of it either in the drain or growing in places I do not want it to, I might just be!

[Seran]

Imagine how offensive it was to normal people that THIS was the bill that the House Democrats determined was the most pressing issue right now.

Because the entirety of Congress is a one subject body and the entirety of reform, regulation, funding and investigations should go on the wayside? Nah.

[Parkbandit]

Because the entirety of Congress is a one subject body and the entirety of reform, regulation, funding and investigations should go on the wayside? Nah.

This was nothing but a political move by the lunatics in the House. They know it has zero chance to be even discussed in the Senate.. but they want their constituents to know they are fighting for their hair freedom!

And retards like you will be all:

https://c.tenor.com/P5_hF2KzfqEAAAAC/uhhuh-clap.gif

[Gelston]

This was nothing but a political move by the lunatics in the House. They know it has zero chance to be even discussed in the Senate.. but they want their constituents to know they are fighting for their hair freedom!

And retards like you will be all:

https://c.tenor.com/P5_hF2KzfqEAAAAC/uhhuh-clap.gif

It is expected to pass the Senate.

[Parkbandit]

It is expected to pass the Senate.

Source?

Everything I have read, from NPR to ABC says at best, it's unknown.. but there is not a very good chance it will pass the Senate.

[Gelston]

Source?

Everything I have read, from NPR to ABC says at best, it's unknown.. but there is not a very good chance it will pass the Senate.

Article I read when it passed the House said it was expected to be 50-50 with Harris breaking the tie.

[Methais]

Article I read when it passed the House said it was expected to be 50-50 with Harris breaking the tie.

Ironically with her white people hair.

[Gelston]

Ironically with her white people hair.

That is only because the CROWN Act didn't exist. After it passes she will get a large Afro.

[ClydeR]

Article I read when it passed the House said it was expected to be 50-50 with Harris breaking the tie.

Somebody will filibuster it.

[Methais]

That is only because the CROWN Act didn't exist. After it passes she will get a large Afro.

Actual footage from the future of Kamala showing up to work the day after:

https://i.imgur.com/XOzV9ol.gif

[kutter]

Let's assume for a moment that it passes the senate and papa joe signs it into law. Now we have a law that says you cannot discriminate against someone because they wear cornrows or whatever, what changes?

If you apply for a job in a Fortune 500 company with a hair style covered by this silly bill, you won't get the job, but it won't be because you wore a particular hairstyle, it will be because you are not the candidate they were looking for. Companies like that want conformist, people that fit a public image, that work hard, fly below the radar, and are looking to move up the ladder. Moving up does not occur because you stand out in a crowd for anything other than work effort and production.

The Japanese have a proverb, 'The nail that sticks out, gets hammered down.' Go ahead, be that nail, all of us have at one point or another but the machine always wins but you do not.

The dem leadership may convince all 50 in the senate to vote for it with Kamala signing it, I mean she has to say she did SOMETHING while VP.

[Seran]

Let's assume for a moment that it passes the senate and papa joe signs it into law. Now we have a law that says you cannot discriminate against someone because they wear cornrows or whatever, what changes?

If you apply for a job in a Fortune 500 company with a hair style covered by this silly bill, you won't get the job, but it won't be because you wore a particular hairstyle, it will be because you are not the candidate they were looking for. Companies like that want conformist, people that fit a public image, that work hard, fly below the radar, and are looking to move up the ladder. Moving up does not occur because you stand out in a crowd for anything other than work effort and production.

The Japanese have a proverb, 'The nail that sticks out, gets hammered down.' Go ahead, be that nail, all of us have at one point or another but the machine always wins but you do not.

The dem leadership may convince all 50 in the senate to vote for it with Kamala signing it, I mean she has to say she did SOMETHING while VP.

Your belief that somebody with cornrows can't work for a Fortune 500 company is about as backwards as it comes, and the definition why a bill protecting against discrimination based upon somebody's hair style is needed.

[Parkbandit]

Your belief that somebody with cornrows can't work for a Fortune 500 company is about as backwards as it comes, and the definition why a bill protecting against discrimination based upon somebody's hair style is needed.

What will it prevent though? Do you believe that the hiring manager will say "We aren't going to hire you because of your hair style" ? No, they will say they have more qualified candidates and hire someone else.

We already have laws on the books (that Democrats fought against) that says you can't discriminate against race and sex... what specifically will this law change?

SPOILER: Nothing.

[Methais]

Your belief that somebody with cornrows can't work for a Fortune 500 company is about as backwards as it comes, and the definition why a bill protecting against discrimination based upon somebody's hair style is needed.



If you apply for a job in a Fortune 500 company with a hair style covered by this silly bill, you won't get the job, but it won't be because you wore a particular hairstyle,


https://i.imgur.com/LlA9lf2.png


In before Seran demands hairstyle affirmative action.

[~Rocktar~]

Your belief that somebody with cornrows can't work for a Fortune 500 company is about as backwards as it comes, and the definition why a bill protecting against discrimination based upon somebody's hair style is needed.

Your lack of understanding of a company seeking to appeal to a certain demographic or understand how such bills are discriminatory is unsurprising.

[Bhaalizmo]

Your lack of understanding of a company seeking to appeal to a certain demographic or understand how such bills are discriminatory is unsurprising.

Your use of word are dissapoint.

[Seran]

Your lack of understanding of a company seeking to appeal to a certain demographic or understand how such bills are discriminatory is unsurprising.

So you think someone's hairstyle has an impact on how they'd perform in a position at a fortune 500 company? You're literally defending the belief that hairstyles are limited to certain classes and are indicative of their socioeconomic value. That is every bit as stupid as the lefties who attack people for wearing or styling a certain way as being cultural appropriation.

[~Rocktar~]

So you think someone's hairstyle has an impact on how they'd perform in a position at a fortune 500 company? You're literally defending the belief that hairstyles are limited to certain classes and are indicative of their socioeconomic value. That is every bit as stupid as the lefties who attack people for wearing or styling a certain way as being cultural appropriation.

You literally have no fucking clue. It doesn't matter what I think or you think, it matters what the companies customers think. You and others can bitch all you want, the simple fact is, certain professions and demographic groups have certain expectations. Those that meet those expectations perform better and see more success than those that don't. Companies don't want their image tarnished because of some customer facing person's VOLUNTARY appearance choices and they should have the right to say that and stand by it.

Remember, you are the one that has argued that companies can ban people based on political views and demand that they should have to perform duties that go against their moral or religious beliefs because you said so yet here you are saying that a person can be protected if they want to wear certain hair styles because of feels. Hypocrite much?

[Methais]

So you think someone's hairstyle has an impact on how they'd perform in a position at a fortune 500 company? You're literally defending the belief that hairstyles are limited to certain classes and are indicative of their socioeconomic value. That is every bit as stupid as the lefties who attack people for wearing or styling a certain way as being cultural appropriation.

Would you hire someone who looked like this if you ran a Fortune 500 company? Asking for Bhaalizmo's mom.

You can pretend they're not white if it helps you figure out your answer.

https://www.ladbible.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=720,quality=70,format=jpeg,fit=pad,dpr=1/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-images.ladbible.com%2Fs3%2Fcontent%2F46c3b71161c1e e79dc4dd9379c5e4b2d.png

[Seran]

You literally have no fucking clue. It doesn't matter what I think or you think, it matters what the companies customers think. You and others can bitch all you want, the simple fact is, certain professions and demographic groups have certain expectations. Those that meet those expectations perform better and see more success than those that don't. Companies don't want their image tarnished because of some customer facing person's VOLUNTARY appearance choices and they should have the right to say that and stand by it.

Remember, you are the one that has argued that companies can ban people based on political views and demand that they should have to perform duties that go against their moral or religious beliefs because you said so yet here you are saying that a person can be protected if they want to wear certain hair styles because of feels. Hypocrite much?

You just said your same post, with different words. Saying that someone's voluntary hair style choices would deny them the position is still pushing the discriminatory argument that hair styles are a predictor of how someone would perform in a job. Look at the list of states that have passed their own Crown Act, the list is fully bipartisan. Your racial discrimination meanwhile is still discrimination.

And thanks for bringing that up! Selectively choosing your clientele based upon how they fit into your moral or religious beliefs is textbook discrimination. Originally the Supreme Court declined to overturn the federal appeals court ruling that it was discrimination, but now it'll actually be heard this fall. I'm betting the Supreme Court will rule denying services based upon one's own religious beliefs isn't a constitutional exercise of free speech.

[Methais]

You just said your same post, with different words. Saying that someone's voluntary hair style choices would deny them the position is still pushing the discriminatory argument that hair styles are a predictor of how someone would perform in a job. Look at the list of states that have passed their own Crown Act, the list is fully bipartisan. Your racial discrimination meanwhile is still discrimination.

And thanks for bringing that up! Selectively choosing your clientele based upon how they fit into your moral or religious beliefs is textbook discrimination. Originally the Supreme Court declined to overturn the federal appeals court ruling that it was discrimination, but now it'll actually be heard this fall. I'm betting the Supreme Court will rule denying services based upon one's own religious beliefs isn't a constitutional exercise of free speech.

Thank you white woman, lord and savior of the colored people.

[Jeril]

So you think someone's hairstyle has an impact on how they'd perform in a position at a fortune 500 company? You're literally defending the belief that hairstyles are limited to certain classes and are indicative of their socioeconomic value. That is every bit as stupid as the lefties who attack people for wearing or styling a certain way as being cultural appropriation.

So, I take all this whining to mean you didn't learn the importance of personal appearance and hygiene growing up?

Clothes are just about appearance, does that mean I can just show up to work naked if I wanted as long as it wasn't a safety issue and didn't affect my performance?

And it isn't like hairstyles are an immutable characteristic either, they can be changed unlike someone's skin color or their mental disorders.

[Seran]

So, I take all this whining to mean you didn't learn the importance of personal appearance and hygiene growing up?

Clothes are just about appearance, does that mean I can just show up to work naked if I wanted as long as it wasn't a safety issue and didn't affect my performance?

And it isn't like hairstyles are an immutable characteristic either, they can be changed unlike someone's skin color or their mental disorders.

What about weave or cornrows says a lack of personal hygiene or poor personal appearance? It doesn't to me, in fact someone who spent so much care to presenting personal grooming would be a plus in an interview. So no, I think the premise of your question is fundamentally wrong.

Hairstyles are mutable, you're right. Wanna know what else is mutable? Your sixty year old throw back in to the 50s and 60s that that targets hairstyles worn primarily by African Americans to discriminate against their hiring.

[Tgo01]

Hairstyles are mutable, you're right. Wanna know what else is mutable? Your sixty year old throw back in to the 50s and 60s that that targets hairstyles worn primarily by African Americans to discriminate against their hiring.

How do racists such as yourself reconcile the fact that many whites are "discriminated against" with their hairstyle? The racists have to be racist towards whites to cover up their racistness?

Just for once wouldn't it be nice if you made sense? Just once?

[Seran]

For all of you Republican hairstylists out there, what hair style do you feel would be appropriate to avoid discrimination in hiring?

[Seran]

How do racists such as yourself reconcile the fact that many whites are "discriminated against" with their hairstyle? The racists have to be racist towards whites to cover up their racistness?

Just for once wouldn't it be nice if you made sense? Just once?

The Crown Act protects anyone of any racial background from discrimination or termination for bearing a hairstyle attributable to any particular race or national origin. So yes Dreaven, white people would also be protected. Do you support it now?

[Tgo01]

The Crown Act protects anyone of any racial background from discrimination or termination for bearing a hairstyle attributable to any particular race or national origin. So yes Dreaven, white people would also be protected. Do you support it now?

You either misunderstood my question or you're dumb. Oh who are we kidding? You're dumb.

My question was...considering white people in the present and past have been "discriminated" against for their hairstyles, how do you reconcile this fact (I know that word is like holy water to you) with your assertion that these dress codes are racist against black people?

[~Rocktar~]

You just said your same post, with different words. Saying that someone's voluntary hair style choices would deny them the position is still pushing the discriminatory argument that hair styles are a predictor of how someone would perform in a job. Look at the list of states that have passed their own Crown Act, the list is fully bipartisan. Your racial discrimination meanwhile is still discrimination.

And thanks for bringing that up! Selectively choosing your clientele based upon how they fit into your moral or religious beliefs is textbook discrimination. Originally the Supreme Court declined to overturn the federal appeals court ruling that it was discrimination, but now it'll actually be heard this fall. I'm betting the Supreme Court will rule denying services based upon one's own religious beliefs isn't a constitutional exercise of free speech.


So, just to clarify your position, you are saying that it’s not ok to discriminate against customers in business because of appearance, religious, moral or political inclinations?

Then you further intone that somehow a lot of people saying something makes it ok or right.

Lastly, you are saying that hairstyle, a personal choice, is a racial characteristic.

Just to be clear, this is what you are saying right?

[Realk]

wtf does this law even do other than put up some stupid ass law suits and spend money... PB is right who is gonna say oh I didn't not hire you because of your hair... I hired xxx because i was impressed in the interview.

Didn't we just see that with the dude in the NFL.. not quite the same.. but you can't prove that anyone didnt select you because of your hair.(or to meet a quota in the nfl) If you take the job and then decide to change your hair that's on you to make sure it is under the companies guidelines.

[Realk]

https://www.ladbible.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=720,quality=70,format=jpeg,fit=pad,dpr=1/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-images.ladbible.com%2Fs3%2Fcontent%2F46c3b71161c1e e79dc4dd9379c5e4b2d.png

I would totally hire these guys to be salesmen for bath and body works and target old folks.. The lead line would be I railed your grand daughter last week she needs new sheets here is the tablet.

just kidding, but seriously if you dont put faces that your clients want to see or are comfortable with they wont be your clients long

[Tgo01]

https://images.baklol.com/1_jpegba919c58375c1ff4b9e18cafb97ce2e0.jpeg

I can't believe companies won't hire this guy because of the way he chooses to present himself. What a bunch of racists.

[Jeril]

What about weave or cornrows says a lack of personal hygiene or poor personal appearance? It doesn't to me, in fact someone who spent so much care to presenting personal grooming would be a plus in an interview. So no, I think the premise of your question is fundamentally wrong.

Hairstyles are mutable, you're right. Wanna know what else is mutable? Your sixty year old throw back in to the 50s and 60s that that targets hairstyles worn primarily by African Americans to discriminate against their hiring.

Your face is also mutable. And so is your grammar. You may want to stick to the argument though and try not to label people because of your feelings. This is almost as bad as labeling someone because of their hair, skin color, or whatever.

I know this is going to be hard for you to understand but as an adult I know that if I look a certain way I may not get a particular job. And in this day and age why would anyone want to work at a place that doesn't find their appearance acceptable?

And as others have pointed out, this law is redundant and useless. There are already laws in place to stop racial discrimination. People who aren't hiring others based on race are going to claim other reasons for not hiring people. Unless you can somehow read their minds and prove in a court of law what they are doing this bill is more useless than your posts are.

[Neveragain]

The Crown Act protects anyone of any racial background from discrimination or termination for bearing a hairstyle attributable to any particular race or national origin. So yes Dreaven, white people would also be protected. Do you support it now?

Historically speaking, discrimination over hairstyle isn't race driven but rather discrimination against a set of beliefs. Even the title of the law suggests the symbolism of hairstyles rather than any form of race.

The only reason I support this law has nothing to do with race, but rather, ones freedom of belief. Something that you yourself are quick to show your bigotry towards.

https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/6b/a5/35/6ba535f5399dd0217124db04f06fa894.jpg

[Orthin]

Not going to lie when my company added the discrimination bit related to appearance (like if a chick is butch etc) I felt more comfortable growing my hair out where originally I hadn't. Bear in mind this Act wouldn't be protected me as a mildly overweight white guy but I am happy I can grow my hair out and wear it in a crude bun or topknot. Same employment 5-6 years ago I wouldn't have felt comfortable doing so and probably would have been talked to but it isn't a thing now and I do meet with our Customers.

So long as it is not disruptive I think folks should be able to look how they want and I always have. People get too hung up on appearance, there are plenty of clean cut folks who do shit jobs. Do I think we need a law for it (related to this article) not necessarily but I also have not experienced what this is purporting so I would take my opinion with a grain of salt.

[Parkbandit]

The Crown Act protects anyone of any racial background from discrimination or termination for bearing a hairstyle attributable to any particular race or national origin. So yes Dreaven, white people would also be protected. Do you support it now?

This Act doesn't do anything.

If a candidate comes to me with a hairstyle that doesn't go with my company image, that person just wasn't the right fit or I found a better candidate.

You are fooling yourself if you actually believe this act does something.

It doesn't.

I'll still be very surprised if this gets through the Senate.... and if it does, it better have something big in it for Manchin and Sinema.

Hopefully in November, we can reset the lunacy that is the House of Representatives and get back to actual work for the American people.

[Methais]

What about weave or cornrows says a lack of personal hygiene or poor personal appearance? It doesn't to me, in fact someone who spent so much care to presenting personal grooming would be a plus in an interview. So no, I think the premise of your question is fundamentally wrong.

Hairstyles are mutable, you're right. Wanna know what else is mutable? Your sixty year old throw back in to the 50s and 60s that that targets hairstyles worn primarily by African Americans to discriminate against their hiring.

Actual footage of Seran as he was typing that post:

https://c.tenor.com/ThsaKmAufCEAAAAC/conan-deadlocks.gif

Also Seran at any given time:

https://i.imgur.com/ci3rTK5.png

[Orthin]

This Act doesn't do anything.

If a candidate comes to me with a hairstyle that doesn't go with my company image, that person just wasn't the right fit or I found a better candidate.

You are fooling yourself if you actually believe this act does something.

It doesn't.

I'll still be very surprised if this gets through the Senate.... and if it does, it better have something big in it for Manchin and Sinema.

Hopefully in November, we can reset the lunacy that is the House of Representatives and get back to actual work for the American people.

I think this probably leans to protect folks already in a position since multiple people have pointed out how difficult it would be to prove discrimination for not getting the job. If someone who is already established at an employment and moved to have one of these hair styles and suddenly lost their job this may have more justification. Still difficult to prove and probably state dependent but more plausible.

[Gelston]

I think this probably leans to protect folks already in a position since multiple people have pointed out how difficult it would be to prove discrimination for not getting the job. If someone who is already established at an employment and moved to have one of these hair styles and suddenly lost their job this may have more justification. Still difficult to prove and probably state dependent but more plausible.

With it becoming a Federal Act, state wouldn't matter.

[Wrathbringer]

Actual footage of Seran as he was typing that post:

https://c.tenor.com/ThsaKmAufCEAAAAC/conan-deadlocks.gif

Also Seran at any given time:

https://i.imgur.com/ci3rTK5.png

These are both correct. Also Seran:

9915

[Parkbandit]

I think this probably leans to protect folks already in a position since multiple people have pointed out how difficult it would be to prove discrimination for not getting the job. If someone who is already established at an employment and moved to have one of these hair styles and suddenly lost their job this may have more justification. Still difficult to prove and probably state dependent but more plausible.

I have never, ever had difficulty terminating an employee. Ever.

I have never been successfully sued for terminating an employee. Ever.

And I've terminated probably hundreds in my 35+ years of management and ownership.

[Orthin]

I have never, ever had difficulty terminating an employee. Ever.

I have never been successfully sued for terminating an employee. Ever.

And I've terminated probably hundreds in my 35+ years of management and ownership.

This is probably in line with 90-95% of anyone who has let people go, but there is a reason we have the anti-discrimination laws for employment. I wasn't pointing it at you if that is what you thought apologies.

[Stolis]

I have never, ever had difficulty terminating an employee. Ever.

I have never been successfully sued for terminating an employee. Ever.

And I've terminated probably hundreds in my 35+ years of management and ownership.

Kinda follows in line with, it's not what you say but how you say it. You could fire anyone for anything and not have to give the exact reason. It's shocking that people don't see this. "We have decided to move in a different direction..." and that's really all you need to say. Bam. Not a them thing, but a company thing.

[Seran]

Your face is also mutable. And so is your grammar. You may want to stick to the argument though and try not to label people because of your feelings. This is almost as bad as labeling someone because of their hair, skin color, or whatever.

I know this is going to be hard for you to understand but as an adult I know that if I look a certain way I may not get a particular job. And in this day and age why would anyone want to work at a place that doesn't find their appearance acceptable?

And as others have pointed out, this law is redundant and useless. There are already laws in place to stop racial discrimination. People who aren't hiring others based on race are going to claim other reasons for not hiring people. Unless you can somehow read their minds and prove in a court of law what they are doing this bill is more useless than your posts are.

Uh huh, so it's pointless and useless but of the 189 who voted against it in the House, they what, don't what it passed out due to symbolism? They feel it's pointless to offer protections which in your opinion aren't needed, so why codify it?

You keep trying to paint your support of discrimination as being practical, but you're failing miserably.

[Seran]

Kinda follows in line with, it's not what you say but how you say it. You could fire anyone for anything and not have to give the exact reason. It's shocking that people don't see this. "We have decided to move in a different direction..." and that's really all you need to say. Bam. Not a them thing, but a company thing.

And in those situations where it is found that a less qualified candidate is given preference, then legislation such as the CROWN Act either at the state or federal level allows for the judicial system, whether administrative by the local EOC or by civil suit. Again, this bill allows for action against creative discriminatory practices.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

And in those situations where it is found that a less qualified candidate is given preference

this bill allows for action against creative discriminatory practices.

So Biden would be sued for discrimination for predicating his SCOTUS nom as being black and a woman with no thought to other candidates qualifications or experience, amirite?

[~Rocktar~]

You just said your same post, with different words. Saying that someone's voluntary hair style choices would deny them the position is still pushing the discriminatory argument that hair styles are a predictor of how someone would perform in a job. Look at the list of states that have passed their own Crown Act, the list is fully bipartisan. Your racial discrimination meanwhile is still discrimination.

And thanks for bringing that up! Selectively choosing your clientele based upon how they fit into your moral or religious beliefs is textbook discrimination. Originally the Supreme Court declined to overturn the federal appeals court ruling that it was discrimination, but now it'll actually be heard this fall. I'm betting the Supreme Court will rule denying services based upon one's own religious beliefs isn't a constitutional exercise of free speech.


So, just to clarify your position, you are saying that it’s not ok to discriminate against customers in business because of appearance, religious, moral or political inclinations?

Then you further intone that somehow a lot of people saying something makes it ok or right.

Lastly, you are saying that hairstyle, a personal choice, is a racial characteristic.

Just to be clear, this is what you are saying right?

Yep, still no response.

[Methais]

So Biden would be sued for discrimination for predicating his SCOTUS nom as being black and a woman with no thought to other candidates qualifications or experience, amirite?

In b4...

https://i.imgur.com/6c6gL7w.png

[Gelston]

So Biden would be sued for discrimination for predicating his SCOTUS nom as being black and a woman with no thought to other candidates qualifications or experience, amirite?

That was the dumbest thing in the world to me that he decided he had to announce those qualifications. He can have them in his head and still pick who he picked. She is immensely qualified and no one would have questioned the pick. Instead he says he is only picking from black women, so it looks like a "diversity hire" and that she got there on the basis of her race and sex and not her own merit.

[Seran]

So Biden would be sued for discrimination for predicating his SCOTUS nom as being black and a woman with no thought to other candidates qualifications or experience, amirite?

No, that is definetly discrimination. Pointed that out in an earlier thread that any hiring on the basis of skin color is blatantly discriminatory against other well qualified candidates.

[Methais]

No, that is definetly discrimination. Pointed that out in an earlier thread that any hiring on the basis of skin color is blatantly discriminatory against other well qualified candidates.

I agree with you that Biden is racist.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

That was the dumbest thing in the world to me that he decided he had to announce those qualifications. He can have them in his head and still pick who he picked. She is immensely qualified and no one would have questioned the pick. Instead he says he is only picking from black women, so it looks like a "diversity hire" and that she got there on the basis of her race and sex and not her own merit.

Yeah, she seems very qualified, I agree. He shouldn't have virtue signaled and instead just done it and people would have nothing to say.

[Parkbandit]

This is probably in line with 90-95% of anyone who has let people go, but there is a reason we have the anti-discrimination laws for employment. I wasn't pointing it at you if that is what you thought apologies.

No, I was just telling it like it is.

This act does nothing at all... except make employers just dot an "i" and cross a "t".. but it literally does nothing regarding hiring people that isn't already covered by existing state and federal laws.

It's a feel good act for the mentally disabled like Seran.

[Parkbandit]

And in those situations where it is found that a less qualified candidate is given preference, then legislation such as the CROWN Act either at the state or federal level allows for the judicial system, whether administrative by the local EOC or by civil suit. Again, this bill allows for action against creative discriminatory practices.

Anyone can sue anyone for any reason...

This will allow people to sue more for unsubstantiated "reasons" but it will literally do nothing about actual discriminatory practices at all.

But you continue to virtue signal the shit out of it... because it makes you feel like you are less of a racist than you actually are.

[Parkbandit]

I agree with you that Biden is racist.

He's a Democrat.. of course he is.

He believes this will absolve him of his decades of racist comments though.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, she seems very qualified, I agree. He shouldn't have virtue signaled and instead just done it and people would have nothing to say.

He had to appease his lunatic, alt-leftist base.

Let's hope this doesn't turn out like the last time he said he would only consider a woman POC...

https://media0.giphy.com/media/qZabG7FmSZw8TDNwaU/200.gif

[Jeril]

Uh huh, so it's pointless and useless but of the 189 who voted against it in the House, they what, don't what it passed out due to symbolism? They feel it's pointless to offer protections which in your opinion aren't needed, so why codify it?

You keep trying to paint your support of discrimination as being practical, but you're failing miserably.

It is very practical to say NO to leftist stupidity whenever it occurs, yes. And of course you wouldn't understand that.

[Seran]

It is very practical to say NO to leftist stupidity whenever it occurs, yes. And of course you wouldn't understand that.

Reducing discrimination and inequality are prime tenants of Democrats
Protecting white nationalism and reducing Americans to serfdom are prime tenants of Republicans.

Noted.

[Gelston]

Reducing discrimination and equality are prime tenants of Democrats
Protecting white nationalism and reducing Americans to serfdom are prime tenants of Republicans.

Noted.

The leader of the Democrat Party literally just used race as a prequalifier for a job.

[Seran]

The leader of the Democrat Party literally just used race as a prequalifier for a job.

The de facto leader of the Republican party has raised more money in his SPAC promoting elections falsification and Russian propaganda than the Republican and Democratic national committees combined. In his literature he still claims to be President.

[Neveragain]

The de facto leader of the Republican party has raised more money in his SPAC promoting elections falsification and Russian propaganda than the Republican and Democratic national committees combined. In his literature he still claims to be President.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SnappyRelievedKagu-max-1mb.gif

[Gelston]

The de facto leader of the Republican party has raised more money in his SPAC promoting elections falsification and Russian propaganda than the Republican and Democratic national committees combined. In his literature he still claims to be President.

He literally isn’t in any leadership position in the Republican party, but nice deflection.

[Jeril]

Reducing discrimination and inequality are prime tenants of Democrats
Protecting white nationalism and reducing Americans to serfdom are prime tenants of Republicans.

Noted.

You mean appearing to do those things without actually doing anything meaningful so people will continue to vote for them because they can continue to make those claims? Just like this bill, so they can make the claim they've done something without actually having done anything to make a real impact on the problem.

[Parkbandit]

Reducing discrimination and inequality are prime tenants of Democrats
Protecting white nationalism and reducing Americans to serfdom are prime tenants of Republicans.

Noted.

What? No it's not. Democrats were opposed to the Civil Rights Bill and Woman's sufferage.

Now they just dress it up in a different package... but to the core, they are still racist fucks like you.

They just find a different target for their racism.

[Parkbandit]

You mean appearing to do those things without actually doing anything meaningful so people will continue to vote for them because they can continue to make those claims? Just like this bill, so they can make the claim they've done something without actually having done anything to make a real impact on the problem.

The alt-left is too dumb to understand such a thing. These people still believe that:

1) Politifact is an unbiased fact based site because it has "FACT" in the name.
2) That Antifa isn't a violent group.. that it's just about Anti-facism because that's what the name means.
3) The Affordable Care Act made healthcare less expensive.

[Bhaalizmo]

He literally isn’t in any leadership position in the Republican party, but nice deflection.

I mean, this is factually true on paper.

But demonstrably false in reality.

[Gelston]

I mean, this is factually true on paper.

But demonstrably false in reality.

How is Trump running the GOP in reality? There are a couple batshit congress(wo)men sure, looking at Greene there, but most of them couldn't care less what Trump says. Trump didn't even run the GOP when he was President.

[Parkbandit]

How is Trump running the GOP in reality? There are a couple batshit congress(wo)men sure, looking at Greene there, but most of them couldn't care less what Trump says. Trump didn't even run the GOP when he was President.

You can't talk facts and logic to those like Bhaalizmo who has a major TDS infection.

They aren't normal or sane.

[Bhaalizmo]

How is Trump running the GOP in reality? There are a couple batshit congress(wo)men sure, looking at Greene there, but most of them couldn't care less what Trump says. Trump didn't even run the GOP when he was President.

Campaign ads with his endorsement as a foundational / cornerstone element. They hardly even need to talk about their position on anything besides vague mentions of values and life. The most important thing about the republican campaign ads in 2022 so far has been Trump endorsement / mentions, as if he is king.

[Methais]

Reducing discrimination and inequality are prime tenants of Democrats
Protecting white nationalism and reducing Americans to serfdom are prime tenants of Republicans.

Noted.

Do you by any chance own, then lease, then manage, then just work at a restaurant in New York?

[Gelston]

Campaign ads with his endorsement as a foundational / cornerstone element. They hardly even need to talk about their position on anything besides vague mentions of values and life. The most important thing about the republican campaign ads in 2022 so far has been Trump endorsement / mentions, as if he is king.

Trump might "think" he is the king, but campaign ads do not equal being that. He has almost no clout with anyone that matters in the GOP.

[Parkbandit]

Campaign ads with his endorsement as a foundational / cornerstone element. They hardly even need to talk about their position on anything besides vague mentions of values and life. The most important thing about the republican campaign ads in 2022 so far has been Trump endorsement / mentions, as if he is king.

That's using the same retarded logic that when candidates talk about Ronald Reagan, then that must mean he's the leader of the GOP even though he has been dead for almost 20 years.

Stop being so disease ridden all the time.

Orange man gone. He can't hurt you anymore.

[Seran]

You mean appearing to do those things without actually doing anything meaningful so people will continue to vote for them because they can continue to make those claims? Just like this bill, so they can make the claim they've done something without actually having done anything to make a real impact on the problem.

That's your incorrect opinion.

[Parkbandit]

That's your incorrect opinion.

You are literally an unfunny version of Ron Burgandy.

https://c.tenor.com/a6jO71lkMmkAAAAC/ronburgundy-agree.gif

[Stolis]

And in those situations where it is found that a less qualified candidate is given preference, then legislation such as the CROWN Act either at the state or federal level allows for the judicial system, whether administrative by the local EOC or by civil suit. Again, this bill allows for action against creative discriminatory practices.

An employer has the right and ability to hire anyone for whatever reason they so choose. They gave a better interview. They had better upswing potential. They would work for less. The fact you think an act like this is going to do a single thing is hilarious. If you don't get hired, what are you gonna do, go back in there and see who they hired and ask why?

"They were a better fit" and you can't argue that they weren't. You weren't there in the interview, you have no idea why they were selected and you weren't.

[Tgo01]

You weren't there in the interview, you have no idea why they were selected and you weren't.

I'm sure we're quickly moving in the direction where every interview has to be live streamed to a government office to ensure the government determines who the best candidate really was.

[Seran]

An employer has the right and ability to hire anyone for whatever reason they so choose. They gave a better interview. They had better upswing potential. They would work for less. The fact you think an act like this is going to do a single thing is hilarious. If you don't get hired, what are you gonna do, go back in there and see who they hired and ask why?

"They were a better fit" and you can't argue that they weren't. You weren't there in the interview, you have no idea why they were selected and you weren't.

They can hire for any way they choose and ISN'T A VIOLATION OF DISCRIMINATION LAWS. Let's make this clear, you're saying they will just find different ways to continue discrimination and I'm pointing out that identifying and eliminating disgusting ways of discrimination gives employees or those interested in being hired a way of obtaining remuneration if it was discovered they were discriminated against.

[Parkbandit]

They can hire for any way they choose and ISN'T A VIOLATION OF DISCRIMINATION LAWS. Let's make this clear, you're saying they will just find different ways to continue discrimination and I'm pointing out that identifying and eliminating disgusting ways of discrimination gives employees or those interested in being hired a way of obtaining remuneration if it was discovered they were discriminated against.

You live in a fantasy world.

Do you even have a job? I picture you as like a janitor in a college and when you talk to your friends, you explain that you are "with the University"

[Tgo01]

It's funny how Seran can both say this: "I'm pointing out that identifying and eliminating disgusting ways of discrimination"

And support a president who flat out said non-black women wouldn't even be considered for his nomination to the supreme court.

How does it feel supporting an open racist while at the same time you claim to be against racism?

[Methais]

You live in a fantasy world.

Do you even have a job? I picture you as like a janitor in a college and when you talk to your friends, you explain that you are "with the University"

"I work in education."

[Methais]

They can hire for any way they choose and ISN'T A VIOLATION OF DISCRIMINATION LAWS. Let's make this clear, you're saying they will just find different ways to continue discrimination and I'm pointing out that identifying and eliminating disgusting ways of discrimination gives employees or those interested in being hired a way of obtaining remuneration if it was discovered they were discriminated against.

Give us an example scenario of this playing out. Mainly the how part of "it was discovered they were discriminated against."

Let me emphasize....

Especially the "how" part

[Stolis]

They can hire for any way they choose and ISN'T A VIOLATION OF DISCRIMINATION LAWS. Let's make this clear, you're saying they will just find different ways to continue discrimination and I'm pointing out that identifying and eliminating disgusting ways of discrimination gives employees or those interested in being hired a way of obtaining remuneration if it was discovered they were discriminated against.

Okay cool, so if I just don't like this person.. I just hire who I want. I didn't discriminate, I just liked someone more. That's not always discrimination (although I agree it could be) it could just be.. I like this person more. I like this Asian man more than the Hispanic female. I like this Black woman more than the White male. You can go down the ethnicity as you want. How would you prove what was discrimination and what was just.. Yeah no, I liked person B more. That's all I have to say. They had the qualifications, and they felt a better fit. End of discussion. The only person who is going to bitch that they were discriminated against was the person who didn't get the job. If they're trying to make this a race thing when it wasn't, then I absolutely know I made the right hire.

[Parkbandit]

I like this Asian man more than the Hispanic female. I like this Black woman more than the White male.

The first example is sexism.

The second example is absolutely perfect.

Make sure you never hire a white male though, over any POC.. because that's the new definition of racism.

Thank you.

[Stolis]

The first example is sexism.

The second example is absolutely perfect.

Make sure you never hire a white male though, over any POC.. because that's the new definition of racism.

Thank you.


DAMN IT. Canceling myself.

[Seran]

Okay cool, so if I just don't like this person.. I just hire who I want. I didn't discriminate, I just liked someone more. That's not always discrimination (although I agree it could be) it could just be.. I like this person more. I like this Asian man more than the Hispanic female. I like this Black woman more than the White male. You can go down the ethnicity as you want. How would you prove what was discrimination and what was just.. Yeah no, I liked person B more. That's all I have to say. They had the qualifications, and they felt a better fit. End of discussion. The only person who is going to bitch that they were discriminated against was the person who didn't get the job. If they're trying to make this a race thing when it wasn't, then I absolutely know I made the right hire.

That's up to the litigant to prove. Whether it's a history of promoting less qualified candidates, a stupid comment made that another panel interviewer took offense too (it happens ridiculously often), an inquire from the EDD reviewing stats on a ready to work program, etc. There's discrimination lawsuits everyday, so adding a culture discrimination based upon someone's hairstyle wouldn't result in LESS lawsuits.

And you're right, it's not always discrimination and in fact it's usually -not- discrimination, but that doesn't mean it's not a practical protection to have in place. No more reason than adding that super cheap earthquake rider on your homeowners policy isn't a bad thing to have when you live in a geographically active area.

You need a reason to take away discrimination protections, not to add them when there's been plenty of recent examples in the news.

[Parkbandit]

That's up to the litigant to prove. Whether it's a history of promoting less qualified candidates, a stupid comment made that another panel interviewer took offense too (it happens ridiculously often), an inquire from the EDD reviewing stats on a ready to work program, etc. There's discrimination lawsuits everyday, so adding a culture discrimination based upon someone's hairstyle wouldn't result in LESS lawsuits.

And you're right, it's not always discrimination and in fact it's usually -not- discrimination, but that doesn't mean it's not a practical protection to have in place. No more reason than adding that super cheap earthquake rider on your homeowners policy isn't a bad thing to have when you live in a geographically active area.

You need a reason to take away discrimination protections, not to add them when there's been plenty of recent examples in the news.

There is nothing "practical" about the Crown Act... then again, there's nothing practical about most legislation that goes through Congress anymore.