U.S. Court Rules Dreadlock Ban During Hiring Process Is Legal

[Mistame]

It's not a black thing, while very much being a black thing.

A specific race doing something doesn't make it "their thing", just a thing they do. That may be what you mean, but some people seem to confuse the two ideas. Dreadlocks, like so many other things that get attributed to a specific race, are cultural, not racial. Culture is not race and should not be treated as such. Which is why people that whine about "cultural appropriation" are imbeciles. Likewise, people that complain about feathered headresses, etc, for Halloween costumes or football team logos are imbeciles. No group or race owns any culture.

Let's not pretend like religion is just any old choice.

It's no different than believing in ghosts, voodoo or alien butt probes.

[tumppu]

Seems fine. Protected status should only go to things that people have no control over, and religion.

Superstition should not be protected. Also, long hair can be a major hazard in quite a lot of jobs. Dunno what she appied for, but if company rules state short hair, then they have all the right to deny someone who can't meet the standard.

[Sunseeker]

Belief is not a choice though, as much as some people want it to be. But anyway, the post you're replying to stated "things that people have no control over, and religion."

How is it not? Are you suggesting that there is biological programming that forces someone to believe in a certain religion?

Because there is biological programming that determines your skin, hair and eye color.

You might not have a choice in the sense that "your parents raised you to believe in XYZ" since you were a child, but unless your parents are running your entire life from death to birth, you will gain the ability to choose for yourself.

So perhaps you should clarify, in what way is belief not a choice?

[Garnier Fructis]

Superstition should not be protected. Also, long hair can be a major hazard in quite a lot of jobs. Dunno what she appied for, but if company rules state short hair, then they have all the right to deny someone who can't meet the standard.

It's no different than believing in ghosts, voodoo or alien butt probes.

On a fundamental level, this is true. But religion holds a much higher status in society and in individuals' minds, which is a very real and practical difference.

- - - Updated - - -

So perhaps you should clarify, in what way is belief not a choice?

Lots of people have a strong aversion to questioning their own beliefs. Some people are not mentally capable of actually sitting down and choosing.

[Mistame]

On a fundamental level, this is true. But religion holds a much higher status in society and in individuals' minds, which is a very real and practical difference.

I don't disagree. But it doesn't make it any less batshit.

[dextersmith]

Here's some specifics for you armchair lawyers in here:

Says the armchair news reporter.

[THE Bigzoman]

Says the armchair news reporter.

Posting an article in a forum is hardly "reporting".

[Theinquisition]

Meh, I don't think its a racial issue. white people can grow dreads too if they want.

I feel that workplaces should be free to create a dress code and personal grooming standards that work for them. for the same reason, this is why I don't have facial, neck, or hand tattoos.

[Sunseeker]

Lots of people have a strong aversion to questioning their own beliefs. Some people are not mentally capable of actually sitting down and choosing.

Are you suggesting that religious people are mentally handicapped?

[Garnier Fructis]

Are you suggesting that religious people are mentally handicapped?

No, I'm suggesting that people in general don't like to question what they already believe to be true, and as such aren't really able to choose what they accept or not. What they accept and what they don't accept is a function of what they already believe. Religion falls into that framework.

And by 'don't like,' I mean get angry, ignore, or change the subject when someone challenges a particular idea they hold to be true and important. In particular, this is why a mountain of evidence and coherent arguments are generally not very effective against someone who thinks climate change is a hoax.

[dextersmith]

Posting an article in a forum is hardly "reporting".

Talking about the law is hardly "practicing" it.

[THE Bigzoman]

Talking about the law is hardly "practicing" it.

I don't think you understand what armchair lawyer describes. Armchair Lawyer describes people that think their knowledge or interpretation of laws is absolute whilst not being lawyers themselves.

But either way, way to rain on harmless banter. Sorry if it fucked your day up.

[Garnier Fructis]

No one needs to pretend. What else would it be?

You and I both know that religion comes with a lot of social, psychological and even economic baggage, more-so than any other choice people make. If you're going to keep playing dumb I'll just stop responding.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Thoughts?

Black privilege means not having to adhere to a dress code.

Dreads are nappy and often nasty, you know most that have them don't wash it because they don't know how to wash it right?

[Paranoid Android]

Should have hired me as the lawyer (no experience). I would have sued on terms of religion. Rastafarian.

[Sunseeker]

No, I'm suggesting that people in general don't like to question what they already believe to be true, and as such aren't really able to choose what they accept or not.

Choosing not to question your choices is not an inability to question your choices. Your decisions shouldn't be legally protected because you find questioning them "icky".

What they accept and what they don't accept is a function of what they already believe. Religion falls into that framework.

Tough. Refusing to question what you believe is itself a choice. Self-imposed handicaps are exactly that. They don't entitle you to federal protection.

And by 'don't like,' I mean get angry, ignore, or change the subject when someone challenges a particular idea they hold to be true and important. In particular, this is why a mountain of evidence and coherent arguments are generally not very effective against someone who thinks climate change is a hoax.

That's still an effect of choosing. It's not a biological limitation. Yeah, you can tear off your own arm, but the world shouldn't bend to your now lack of full physical functionality just because you made a choice to alter your designs. It's a stupid choice. Stupid choices shouldn't be protected.

[dextersmith]

I don't think you understand what armchair lawyer describes. Armchair Lawyer describes people that think their knowledge or interpretation of laws is absolute whilst not being lawyers themselves.

But either way, way to rain on harmless banter. Sorry if it fucked your day up.

I absolutely understand what it means and it didn't mess with my day. People discussing interpretations doesn't assert their authority. Don't apologize, I'm just saying pot/kettle.

[THE Bigzoman]

I absolutely understand what it means and it didn't mess with my day. People discussing interpretations doesn't assert their authority. Don't apologize, I'm just saying pot/kettle.

No worries.

[Garnier Fructis]

Choosing not to question your choices is not an inability to question your choices. Your decisions shouldn't be legally protected because you find questioning them "icky".

I'm questioning that it's much of a choice in the first place.

[Sunseeker]

I'm questioning that it's much of a choice in the first place.

You have no evidence suggesting otherwise. All you've stated is that at some point they've made a choice. Regardless of it is choosing what to believe in, choosing to question what they believe in, or choosing to choose to question their choices. "Not much of a choice" is still a choice regardless of how minor or difficult that choice may be. One can never choose to alter their genetics and people are not born with specific beliefs already in mind.