Woman Fired For Not Wearing Makeup To Work

[Hatchett]

Hi Ally,

Is this a spelling test? Or are we at the stage when decisions are made by the notice of typo's?

Best wishes

[Ally]

Integrity. Argument.

See what happens when you lower standards? You're your own worst argument. Or is that arguement?

[Hatchett]

Hello Ally,

Much as I appreciate you thinking me cute and adorable, I do have to say that trying to belittle and question someone's motives in replying to a post is hardly a mature and serious exercise.

In fact, it also borders on the serious questioning of someone's integrety.

If that is the best you can do when you are obviously losing an arguement maybe it is time for you to rethink, or just give up.

Best wishes.

[The Good Michael]

How did naked people get to work at Harrod's? That's kind of cool. They wear make-up I presume? Naked people without make-up would scare customers away.

Mike

[Ally]

[QUOTE=babybird67;183073]O

k I will try to explain it slowly. There are implications for allowing people to wander around naked that don't arise by allowing people to wander around without make up.

What implications?

you would appear to want men and women wandering around naked in front of impressionable youngsters but it takes all sorts and that's your opinion.

What precisely would the youngsters be "impressioned" with? What is the logical reason you wouldn't want naked people in society?

Besides, I don't think that is fair either.

Gosh it must suck to be the constant victim of people who have high standards. I love how equality has come to mean not raising everyone up to their best, but lowering everyone down to the absolute filth of the masses.

[The Good Michael]

Hatchett,

Do I study what? Tedium? Yes I do. Today and right on this thread. Thanks for the contribution to my study. You win a free makeover!

Mike

[babybird67]

Is English your first language? Because that made absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

Ok I will try to explain it slowly. There are implications for allowing people to wander around naked that don't arise by allowing people to wander around without make up. This can be seen by looking at every western culture around and seeing if there are laws relating to the covering of one's body in public...then have a look and see if you can find any that relate to the regulation of covering one's face in make up. See what results you come up with.

And if I had asked "is it the law" the answer would make sense. Since I didn't, you are just babbling incoherently.

No. You accused me of imposing my own arbitrary preference for wearing clothing on people. My answer to this is that you are wrong. It is not my arbitrary preference or an opinion. It is the law. Whether you specifically asked a question or not is irrelevant. You stated I was doing something which I am not, which is untrue.

I asked what the LOGICAL and RATIONAL basis for the law was. There is no "logical" basis for such a law.

If you want to do some research into law then fine but don't expect me to do it for you, I am far too busy! Nor am I at your beck and call when it comes for justifying what laws are made and why.

It is all based on emotional concepts of what is "offensive" and those are all based on arbitrary and emotion bases responses to decency. It has nothing to do with logic or rationality. It's all about emotional and irrational people such as yourself, who like to say "this is good" "this is bad" we support this, not this, without a single factual basis to support your argument.

That's strange. I tend to think of law as less than emotional. Certainly based on logic. Laws are made by a consensus of politicians representing the people who elected them. That should take the personal and emotional element out of them I would think. I must say I find it very strange that you don't seem to see a logical reason either from the health and safety aspect of wearing clothes, or from the public safety aspect, and you would appear to want men and women wandering around naked in front of impressionable youngsters but it takes all sorts and that's your opinion.

Except they aren't breaking the law because they have a similar dress code for men, including manicures and facial trimming. I suppose they can't regulate beards either, because women don't grow beards, and they can't apply their beard rules equally. Therefore it would be sexually discriminatory to try to regulate beard growth. Hmm..

Men have faces. Why aren't they required to wear full make up on them? Excusing them from this requirement is sexist.

Women don't have beards (well, mostly, I couldn't vouch for them all ) therefore that is not discriminatory. Besides, I don't think that is fair either. A beard doesn't stop a man doing his job either.

As I have said, rules that employers wish to impose on their workforce should be fair and reasonable and equitable. And comply with employment regulation.

And for now, au revoir, I have other things to do today.

[Hatchett]

Hello Michael,

It may have escaped your notice, but we are not living in China! Neither did the lady in question work in the China Branch of Harrods.

Try and keep to the point please.

Best wishes.

[Hatchett]

Hello Michael,

Do you specialise in making tedius remarks, when you cannot respond sensibly?

I mean do you study, or does it come naturally to you?


Best wishes.

[The Good Michael]

In China, many teachers (ESL) are not allowed to wear beards for a few reasons: first, we are freaky enough to the locals by virtue of being white, and second, no one wears them there. It is a matter of what's comfortable for them. What the hell is the problem, really? Like little children, people don't want to do what they're asked to do. "I don't like that." "I hate skirts." "Ties choke me." Screw that. Here are the rules of employment. Do you understand them? Good. Case closed.

Mike

[Hatchett]

Hi Ally,

Of course beard length would be discriminatory.

That is obvious.

Best wishes.

[Ally]

Hello Ally,

Are you sure that you shouldn't be contributing to the God thread, because that last remark seems to assume that you have replaced him.

You have put yourself above the law, above the courts, made a sweeping statement that cannot be substantiated or even taken seriously.

Best wishes.

Aww....it's so cute the way you jump in like that. I bet it earns you major points. I am assuming you just knee jerk felt the need to respond, and are taking a cue and babbling nonsense.

I put myself above the law? You are the people arguing that you are above and too good for basic employee dictates and you think I place myself too high? It's adorable. Really.

[Ally]

The rationale and logical premise is because there are implication for people wandering around naked that are not applicable to people wandering around without make up.

Is English your first language? Because that made absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW. I am sorry you find this distinction too difficult to comprehend.

And if I had asked "is it the law" the answer would make sense. Since I didn't, you are just babbling incoherently. I asked what the LOGICAL and RATIONAL basis for the law was. There is no "logical" basis for such a law. It is all based on emotional concepts of what is "offensive" and those are all based on arbitrary and emotion based responses to "decency". It has nothing to do with logic or rationality. It's all about emotional and irrational people such as yourself, who like to say "this is good" "this is bad" we support this, not this, without a single factual basis to support your argument.

Yep, except it's not quite the end is it because the employer has to abide by the law as much as everyone else, and if in defining what is presentable he is breaking the law, then no, it's not the end.

Except they aren't breaking the law because they have a similar dress code for men, including manicures and facial trimming. I suppose they can't regulate beards either, because women don't grow beards, and they can't apply their beard rules equally. Therefore it would be sexually discriminatory to try to regulate beard growth. Hmm..

This woman was not a victim of anything but her own excessive ego.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ally,

Are you sure that you shouldn't be contributing to the God thread, because that last remark seems to assume that you have replaced him.

You have put yourself above the law, above the courts, made a sweeping statement that cannot be substantiated or even taken seriously.

Best wishes.

[babybird67]

Yawn. I love people who cop out of arguments. "The law defines decency". Heights of educated discourse. Don't trouble your brain with an actual rationale or logical premise, just fall back on "because".

Lol. The rationale and logical premise is because there are implication for people wandering around naked that are not applicable to people wandering around without make up. That's why one is subject to law and the other is not. And I am saying 'because the law says so' because you are accusing me of imposing my arbitrary preferences on something when that is clearly not true, BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW. I am sorry you find this distinction too difficult to comprehend.

Fine. The law defines decent.

Yep.

The employer defines presentable. The end.

Yep, except it's not quite the end is it because the employer has to abide by the law as much as everyone else, and if in defining what is presentable he is breaking the law, then no, it's not the end.

Hence this thread.

Have a nice day.