The CROWN Act

[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:



Also Seran at any given time:

These are both correct. Also Seran:

c419afb63cc219c692653839e38b4168cd8dee234703bb9c3b430e5a902e0e88.jpg

[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.