Not at all.
As i suggested in the previous post, on principle i would include those groups in my argument as well. I simply recognize that some social conventions are much more widely held than others, and also that there are far fewer people even interested in challenging them. Holding principles, but also recognizing that some battles are easier than others to win, is in no way the type of contradiction you are suggesting. No point letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
It doesn’t have anything to do with anyone’s ability to do the job.
They probably would like to bar all long-haired men, period, but religious discrimination is illegal.
And be ready to remind yourself of why it was such a hot idea when they assign you to work on Christmas while they let everybody else go home for their religious thing.
Or you are not as statistically significant as you thought.
[quote=“Valgard, post:37, topic:538293”]
This has been posted for 27 minutes and not one person has said that they are in favor of topless female lifeguards?
I’ll do the honors then :D[\quote]
Seconded!
Apparently, it comes down to what is considered “appropriate and decent” by a judge, which is a far more conservative standard I would say.
I remember a few years ago a Harrah’s(casino) employee was fired for not wearing lipstick. She in turned sued for discrimination as male employees did not have the same requirement. The courts found in favor of the casino.
Not if my religion celebrates the Saturnalia. I’d object too.
Why do you think social custom isn’t important? It’s very important – in every society. It’s what makes civilization run smoothly.
Instead of discrimination why not require all the employees to cut heir hair, including females?
I would imagine that many employers would not allow female employees to wear crew cuts or shave their heads, so its not about sexual discrimination but about cultural norms.
I myself would have no problem with being served by a long haired male, but unfortunately there are a large enough number of customers who do.
When it comes down to it, its all about pleasing as many punters as possible so as to relieve them of their money.
The computer programming school I attended refused to give me a diploma unless I cut my hair even though I had the highest grades in the class; they said I didn’t present a professional image.
I wasn’t very concerned because I had already been offered a job when a teacher showed a recruiter (for a very conservative blue suit white shirt company) one of my projects. I was literally taken in the back door by the recruiter and set to work in a little out of the way office.
And then … one day in the elevator on the way to the cafeteria a very conservatively dressed man said to me “I’ve been seeing you around here. Do you mind if I ask what company you work for?” When I told him, he said “Is that so. I happen to be their Personnel Director and I am sure I never interviewed you. Be in my office at 2:00 PM.”
So began the battle. My department head wanted me, the Personnel Director didn’t. Offers of a raise, a bigger better office, a company car, a secretary, continuing education, etc., if I would only cut my hair (and wear the blue suit white shirt striped tie.) I began to understand why I had literally been taken in the back door … I had thought it was just a short-cut to my office.
So, figuring my civil liberties were being messed with, I called and made an appointment with the ACLU. The lawyer I met with had a medical condition; he did not have a single hair on his body, not so much as an eyelash. He was not sympathetic to my case and advised me to either get a haircut or get a different job; I changed jobs.
This took place in 1968 - 1969.
Fast forward several years, my hair was short (by personal choice) and I started working in casinos. I passed on a few job offers because I had a moustache; they are not permitted in a lot of casinos (and only one place in Vegas allows beards.) Eventually, I shaved the moustache (personal choice, not job pressure) and did work at some of the places where they are not permitted.
A short aside On Suing a Casino and Winning: At one time a certain casino decided that female dealers should wear short denim skirts; the male dealers wore jeans. Some of the females sued and won; a small fine was imposed and the casino continued to enforce the rule. The casino paid the fine repeatedly.
As for me, I’m retired now … haven’t had a haircut in four or five years. There is neither message nor moral here, only a story.
Several years ago the courts ruled in Canada that it was discrimination that a woman could be charged for baring her chest in public while a man was not. (provided it was not done for sexual display purposes??!!) Oddly enough, the feminist organization that was planning a victory march after this judgement cancelled it when they found that the male spectators seriously outnumbered the female participants. However, that is the law of the land here now.
I suppose you have the misfortune of picking an issue where case law was settled a long time ago when there were bigger issues and activist judges were not so bold. The social norm about male hair length in the workplace in 1971 or 1976 would be much more strict than today. Try to imagine any school today that would try to limit a student’s hair choice by withholding their diploma.
OTOH, there is a certain amount of “discrimination” that is perfectly acceptable. Technically male/female washrooms are just as discriminatory as black/white facilities; but there is no long lineup of women demanduing the right to drop their trousers or hike skirts in the same room as men using urinals (are those discrimnatory?).
Different dress and grooming requirements for men and women are probably going to be acceptable as long as they are “reasonable” or not too demanding. Thus women can be asked to wear skirts, as long as they are not too revealing; men can be asked to groom in ways women are not. (“Hmmm, who’s going to enforce the moustache and beard rules against Mrs. Kowalski this month?”)
You also have the advantage of most likely working in an “at will” state, which means they can find some excuse to let you go with no obligation if they get annoyed. Unless you can prove they fired you specifically for that discriminatory reason, you’re SOL and you’ll spend way too much on a lawyer just to be told so…
Have you been to a sporting event lately? 
Discrimintory? Yes
Legal? Yes.
Note in Rostker v. Goldberg, discrimination against a protected class is permissible if the two classes are “not similarly situated”. I’ve used this in defense of the legality of having students with severe cognitive disabilities in segregated SpEd classes when an extreme LRE advocate claims such segregation is unconstitutional.
As for the OP, Rostker did deal with 1981 social norms as it accepted as a tacit assumption that it is ok for women to not serve in combat.*
I find this hilarious because my school specifically mentioned a law that forbade them from regulating hairstyles. Funny that a school in a Hick town in Arkansas can be more enlightened than the federal judiciary.
As far as the rest of this: It basically boils down to not enough people getting mad enough to force the issue. The idea that some discrimination is moral while others are not is bullshit. It just proves that discrimination is not really the reason certain things were allowed. Like I said: it boils down to how many people get upset about it. Ultimately it’s all about making society run smoothly. The rest is just rationalized bullshit.
Oh, and finally, the whole religious thing: It still proves that the whole long hair thing doesn’t actually detract from the job. Because, if the person were actually less productive, that would be a perfectly legal reason to fire them.
And, no, it doesn’t surprise me that the businesses formerly run by career criminals would take advantage of any discrimination that is still legal. Even food places, which arguably have a legitimate reason to forbid types of hair, can accomplish doing it on a non-discriminatory level.
Hey, I’m actually fine with the OP wanting to have his hair long. I grew mine out at a couple points. I think the employer has a recognizable right to project a certain image,though, and if we can agree that the law firm doesn’t have to hire you as a lawyer with your face tatoos (some might but Stuckup, Haughty and Noselifter won’t), then we agree that there is some line out there that companies can stick to in the presentation of their employees.
I like to surprise my students with, “Yes, I am discriminating. Let it go forth through the land! I have noticed the differences between things and made a decision based on those differences! You may spread the word.”
My point is that pounding on the word “discrimination” doesn’t make anything illegal or even annoying. Do you discriminate in your choices of restaurants, friends, religions, cars? I hope so.
So your argument seems to be that we all discriminate, and that this is a good thing, because discriminating simply involves choices between different options. But you also argue that using the word discrimination to apply to this particular choice is inappropriate, because it doesn’t make something “illegal or even annoying.”
Seems to me you’re making my argument for me.
I’ve stated numerous times in this thread that i completely understand that discriminating over this particular issue is not illegal. Never once even suggested otherwise.
And your use of the word “annoying” completely elides the fact that different people find different things annoying. The fact that you don’t find it annoying for employers to make choices (i.e., discriminate) on the basis of different hair length for different sexes doesn’t mean that everyone shares your opinion.
So, thanks for contributing precisely nothing to what has already been said in this thread.
More on the “social norm” idea - in training I noticed some of the things that would have been acceptable to discriminate against not very long ago (and maybe still are in some places and cases) - males with earings, for example, stood out (and the handbook specifically allows men to have one earing) as well as prominent tattoos.
One person in training to be a poker dealer actually has a tattoo on his prominent hand right on top, meaning that anyone watching him deal cards will see (and read) his ink. The same person also had a rather long and bushy goatee.
There is even another person with long hair in class taking blackjack or roulette. I have yet to speak to him to confirm it but the scuttlebutt is that he is a member of a religion that prohibits men cutting their hair (he appears Native American but could be a Sikh, which is not uncommon in the area). It’s funny since the casino cannot legally discriminate based on religion, that means that even though no guests would ever know he was of a certain religion unless they asked - all they would see is long hair, the same I have - but because his is grown for a different reason, that means he can keep his.
Funny inconsistancies all around…
As for those who suggested that I cut it, I still might, but I found a
[quote online]
(http://www.nativecircle.com/longhairpage.htm) that I enjoyed:
“Long hair is much more than just a thing of vanity for me. It is tradition… identity… and even spirituality. When I feel my hair on my back, I am reminded of the years it has taken to grow, and how I too have grown.”
Or I can just move to England which is apparently more tolerant:
No. Maybe I could have been more clear, but you’re wrong. I mean that using the word “discrimination” doesn’t make the described act be illegal or even in many cases, annoying. I never said that the described case wasn’t discrimination; it clearly is. My point is that people use the word to mean “unfair treatment” when in many cases in fact it’s not. I have high school students who stare blankly when I try to explain that in Adult World, not having discrimination is an insult: you have no ability to make decisions between things and just accept whatever’s put to you.
Wow, nearly three years since the last reply. There’s a lot to read here but some of the ignorant comments really sting.
The nerds, weirdos, and the different have always outnumbered the “norm” in total. The problem is that too many people try to fit into the “norm” thus why so many men have bent over and cut their hair for work or simply to not stand out from the crowd.
What about the intersexed people? So women with vaginas are allowed to have long hair but those that can only find acceptance in the gay community cannot?
And be forewarned, the trend in business is to make women have shorter hair.
THIS IS MADNESS AND IT NEEDS TO STOP!!!
I’m 43 and I refuse to cut my hair on principle that it is insanity that I should have to when I don’t want to! It is part of who I am and makes up my individuality. If I lost it in an accident or due to illness then it would be my character to grow it right back. I honestly feel deep down that if I were to choose to cut it then I would compromise my soul. If that’s not a religion then what is?