I disagree about there being clear racist intent, seems more like basic greed to me. There was recently a similar issue about kids who mow lawns for money during the summer being required to get business licence. That's not to say that there won't be more blacks negatively affected by it, just that race isn't the obvious motivator for the policy. It's mostly likely the result of licenses hair stylist complaining because there's a lot of unlicensed people cutting into their potential profits.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Last I checked all 50 states require a hairstylist to be licensed, what's the problem?
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
yup. lawmakers were probably butthurt that they weren't able to stick their dicks in the braiding business. in the context of barbers and other grooming professions, the case can be argued for regulation because of safety requirements. but in the context of braiding hair, they truly expose themselves as bottomfeeding parasites forcing people to buy worthless licenses at inflated costs.
__________________
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
Re: So you need a license to braid hair in Tennessee...
If this can be proven to have a disparate impact on a specific race demographic (black), it can be struck down as a violation of the American Civil Rights Act of 1964. As far as legal repercussions of this, since it is a state law, based on the section 601, this may not be directly enforceable but the Federal Government could remove funding as a penalty to states who have enacted laws that violate the ACRA.
I am not a lawyer nor am I aware of enough legal precedence regarding this and how it can apply to state laws. But that's my best guess.
I digress: Surely the law makers and legislative assistants in TN are aware of ACRA and how it is applied. I could be wrong about everything and we just have to suck it up when certain laws have a demonstrably provable disparate impact that would violate Articles VI and VII.
Satisfactory completion of a course of instruction of not less than 300 hours in the practice and theory of natural hair styling at a school of cosmetology.
Lol @ Tennessee. 300+ hours of schooling one must pay for to be licensed to braid hair.
Re: Re: So you need a license to braid hair in Tennessee...
I don't know for sure, but it's probably a very safe bet that the vast majority of people doing these "natural hairstyle" hair-braiding are both Black and women. So it could it very well be a double violation as it's making a law that predominately impacts women as well.
I do understand this. If they are getting paid for it, then it does fall under the umbrella of cosmetology, it is a business, and you must be licensed.
It is hair styling.
These same rules/laws would be true in Oklahoma where I am, as well. The money changing hands is the thing that presents the problem. And if you have any record of getting paid (such as taking pay though Four Square), you can get fined by the OK Cosmetology Board and also be reported to the IRS for tax fraud.
I'm not changing my opinion on my previous post. Just remembering shit about cosmetology and licensing that may change how we view this situation.
I'm fine with "naturalist hairstylist" having to be licensed, just making them do the same level/hours of schooling is silly. You don't need 300+ hours to use a comb and braid hair, the schooling requirements should scale with the intensity level of the cosmetology involved.
eg Knowing how to safely color/treat hair probably requires 300+ hours and that makes sense, as you're dealing with potentially dangerous chemicals.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Kek my lifeguard certification only took 40 hours, and I had to know CPR and how to rescue someone from drowning in various scenarios. Wtf is this 300 hour bullshit for something so trivial in comparison.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Female Location: Poppin Pills on the Rainbow Bridge
i went to school for cosmetology and tbh this new law is not racist its just another govt cash grab. it affects low income people moreso than anything. u can also see this sorta "crack down" in the asian communities with unliscensed massage parlors amd nail technicians
Here's what you and I missed on our first go-around:
Paid vs. not Paid
If any of these "naturalist braiders" are taking money, it's illegal. It's unlicensed professional services being exchanged for money. Doing any sort of hair styling, for money, falls under the regulatory umbrella of Licensed Cosmetology practices. Any state that requires cosmetology licensing for hairstylists would be beholden to this regulation.
We may be upset about having to go to Cosmetology school to obtain a license to be in business but this is just how it is. Also under cosmetology:
If you wish to style hair and be paid, in any form, you must obtain the license. It does not matter that you wish to only braid hair. If you want to be a professional, you must follow the regulatory laws that govern your discipline.
Obviously, the libertarian part of my political beliefs says that this regulation is absolutely stupid. The only way the government should interfere with this client-business relationship is to tax it.
"If two or more parties, under sound-mind, seek to undertake a private contract, whether complex or simple, whereupon all parties agree in the exchange of goods, services, or currency, the government shall not infringe upon said relationship. The greatest extent that the government - hereafter defined as all aspects of the Federal, State, and Municipal governments that are best fit to tax the heretofore mentioned "private contract" - is taxation that is assessed and levied at the current date of signature of the 'private contract.' All signatories, unless otherwise specified in the 'private contract', are responsible for taxation."
Addendums and clarifications to the above would include things such as "doesn't matter if one or more of the parties are not US Citizens, Permnanet bla bla bla".
KMC Community Forums
Mar 30th, 2018 04:35 AM
