Gov. signs executive order banning hair discrimination
Capitol Media Services,
by
Howard Fischer
Original Article
Posted By: konocti95,
3/20/2023 12:40:53 PM
PHOENIX — Gov. Katie Hobbs on Friday forbade all state agencies under her control from discriminating against workers based on their hair texture and style.
In signing the executive order on Friday, Hobbs said she wants to make sure that Black state employees as well as workers for companies that contract with the state "will be able to wear their natural hair without fear of discrimination."
"More importantly is the message this sends to all Black women, men and children that you deserve to be comfortable wearing your natural hair at school and in the workplace without being perceived as unprofessional or suffering other negative consequences," she said.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
konocti95 3/20/2023 12:45:07 PM (No. 1429495)
When reached for comment, the White House said the President was waiting to be sure it passed the sniff test.
19 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
pensom2 3/20/2023 12:54:30 PM (No. 1429503)
"By their fruits you shall know them." Once these lying dems are elected, they begin to reveal who they really are. This is the fruit of this nutcase--more meaningless and unnecessary laws and regulations to distract us from what is really important in our government.
12 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
seamusm 3/20/2023 12:57:43 PM (No. 1429506)
What's next? Protection for watermelon, fried chicken, and chitlins?
17 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
sunshinehorses 3/20/2023 12:59:03 PM (No. 1429508)
Funny, I hadn't heard that there was an issue with this in AZ considering the number of American Indian's that wear long hair, I wouldn't think allow blacks to wear their hair as they wish would be a problems. Sounds more like she is creating an issue where one does not exist.
19 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
ByteGuru 3/20/2023 1:10:06 PM (No. 1429517)
I wonder if the term 'natural hair' is part of the legal crapola in the law's text. If so that would seem to exclude 'weaves' and/or other strange stuff one occasionally sees on women of color. And what about a hair-piece on a guy?
Inquiring minds ...
8 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
kono 3/20/2023 1:40:16 PM (No. 1429545)
If anybody doubts that our constitutional republic has been overthrown, just notice how all this stupid societal stuff keeps getting rammed through in distinctly nondemocratic ways. Both sides of the aisle are complicit in abandoning our Constitution's division of powers. With the Executive Branch frequently exercising the Legislative Branch's spending authority, while the Legislative conducts a J6 witch hunt that acts judicial and executive, and the Judicial Branch continues to find unwritten "rights" that beget laws while directing the actions and policies of the "justice" department.
Goodbye, USA. I didn't notice your death until it was too late. buck foe jiden, ock fairy bobama, and double-guck so gioros.
7 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
udanja99 3/20/2023 1:45:29 PM (No. 1429551)
So, if you didn’t hire the guy with the dreads because you found another candidate for a job who was more qualified, the guy with the dreads can now sue you for hair discrimination? Why do I get the feeling that that’s what this is all about?
19 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
mc squared 3/20/2023 1:56:27 PM (No. 1429561)
Thank God. That issue has been resolved.
5 people like this.
I see some of these 'dos, and my first impulse is to take a match to them.
11 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Subsuburban 3/20/2023 3:04:14 PM (No. 1429606)
So Farina and Alfalfa can both wear their famous 'do's and not suffer for it? Well, maybe Farina, anyway.
3 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
velirotta 3/20/2023 3:07:20 PM (No. 1429611)
All night long I was weeping for joy after hearing this long-awaited, blessed news. Finally, a governor with the moral stature and political fortitude to tackle this black mark . . . erase that, I mean this national disgrace . . . that has been a blight on our collective character since the birth of our nation, etc., etc. Now at last we can face the future with the bright sun of divine approval on us, etc., etc. Ye cats!
6 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
MickTurn 3/20/2023 3:09:47 PM (No. 1429612)
That means she needs to Shave Her Head...with a very dull Rusty Razor!
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
stablemoney 3/20/2023 3:31:01 PM (No. 1429627)
I think frightening your customers and fellow employees away is adequate reason not to associate or employee such a person. Just like I would not employ a person with tattooes on their face, or anyone that had filed down their teeth.
8 people like this.
Okey donkey then. I won’t hire you because there are many more qualifiers and our AA quota has to have been mat.
1 person likes this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
skacmar 3/20/2023 7:24:08 PM (No. 1429736)
A law in search of a problem. The problem here will be: is it your natural hair only (afro) or a trendy ethnic hairstyle that you choose like dreads, a weave, really long braids, or some bizarre other hairstyle that your stylist just made up and you now claim is a protected "Black" hairstyle. Will this now be covered? Sure it's not a natural hairstyle, but you want to make a statement and you're Black so it is a Black hairstyle. Hobbs opened a pandoras box with this. Also, if I choose to keep my natural blonde hair long, unbrushed, unwashed, and greasy; am I covered as a White man? It is my natural hair after all...
3 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
DVC 3/20/2023 8:27:55 PM (No. 1429780)
"Hair discrimination"? Are they talking about some of the gross dreadlocks sort of nasty, dirty messes?
3 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "konocti95"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)