Anti discrimination laws need to be updated nationally to forbid discrimination based on hair style. Civilization hasn’t melted here in Minnesota, it’s not going to melt in Texas either.
They did pass a law prohibiting race based hair discrimination in Texas. The school is arguing that the law does not apply to them because it does not specifically mention hair length, and they’re suspending him on the basis that his hair would be too long if he didn’t have it styled.
Using logic any practices including hairdsyles that are commonly used by members of a race are covered under racial discrimination, but then what seems obvious to me gets argued against by conservatives with word vomit.
This. Their goal isn’t logical consistency. It’s to confuse every individual issue to such a degree that there will be conflicting court cases, at which point the supreme Court can step in and rule in the least democratic judgement possible.
Anti discrimination laws need to be updated nationally to forbid discrimination based on hair style. Civilization hasn’t melted here in Minnesota, it’s not going to melt in Texas either.
They did pass a law prohibiting race based hair discrimination in Texas. The school is arguing that the law does not apply to them because it does not specifically mention hair length, and they’re suspending him on the basis that his hair would be too long if he didn’t have it styled.
Which is sexist since it only applies to boys.
Using logic any practices including hairdsyles that are commonly used by members of a race are covered under racial discrimination, but then what seems obvious to me gets argued against by conservatives with word vomit.
This. Their goal isn’t logical consistency. It’s to confuse every individual issue to such a degree that there will be conflicting court cases, at which point the supreme Court can step in and rule in the least democratic judgement possible.