New York Bans "Discrimination" Based on Ugly Hair

"the right to keep hair in an uncut or untrimmed state.”

The only thing in the universe that travels faster than tachyons is the speed at which leftists overtake any possible parodies of their insanity. Humbly speaking, I'm pretty good at mocking the Left. But New York's insane failed regime overtakes me every time.

Take this New York Times piece and the policy it entails.

New York City to Ban Discrimination Based on Hair - New guidelines out this week give legal recourse to individuals who have been harassed, punished or fired because of the style of their hair.

Lefties are really running out of imaginary discriminations to fight against.

What's next? Fingernail prejudice?

Under new guidelines to be released this week by the New York City Commission on Human Rights, the targeting of people based on their hair or hairstyle, at work, school or in public spaces, will now be considered racial discrimination.

What if they're Rachel Dolezal?

The change in law applies to anyone in New York City but is aimed at remedying the disparate treatment of black people; the guidelines specifically mention the right of New Yorkers to maintain their “natural hair, treated or untreated hairstyles such as locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, fades, Afros, and/or the right to keep hair in an uncut or untrimmed state.”

I'm not clear on when hairstyles became a right.

But, just to recap, the Left is abolishing Freedom of Religion and replacing it with Freedom of Ugly Hair.

There are however white people with cornrows and dreadlocks? Is refusing to hire white people with hair that hasn't been cut in 5 years to work food service jobs or in hospitals considered discrimination? Is basic hygiene the new bigotry?

The city commission can levy penalties up to $250,000 on defendants that are found in violation of the guidelines and there is no cap on damages.

Congrats Amazon, you made the right decision.

The guidelines, obtained by The New York Times before their public release, are believed to be the first of their kind in the country. They are based on the argument that hair is inherent to one’s race

Hairstyles are inherent to one's race? The new lefty racial science is starting to make phrenology look good.

To date, there is no legal precedent in federal court for the protection of hair. 

Or anything quite as stupid as that. But there will be. Can't think of a better campaign issue for President Alexandria Ocasio Cortez

Indeed, last spring the United States Supreme Court refused an NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund request to review a case in which a black woman, Chastity Jones, had her job offer rescinded in 2010 at an Alabama insurance company after she refused to cut off her dreadlocks.

Dreadlocks are not a civil right. People don't choose their race. They choose their hairstyle.

But New York City’s human rights commission is one of the most progressive in the nation

If you replace every media instance of "progressive" with "insane", clarity is immensely enhanced. 

Its legal enforcement bureau can conduct investigations, and has the ability to subpoena witnesses and prosecute violations.

There really is a fashion police. And they work for New York City's human rights commission.

“There’s nothing keeping us from calling out these policies prohibiting natural hair or hairstyles most closely associated with black people,” said Carmelyn P. Malalis, the commissioner and chairwoman of the New York City Commission on Human Rights.

Aside from the law.

Share