Posted by cav on June 06, 2005 at 01:17:09:
In Reply to: ridiculousness indeed posted by give on June 05, 2005 at 16:59:16:
The good news is that the US federal government does actually recognize the ridiculousness of that fact. Case law shows that the courts do not support the legality of a dress code that requires the person to make changes to themselves that can not be undone as soon as the person is off duty. Therefore, rules about long hair, tattoos, and beards, are not enforcable if one chooses to actually take it far enough.
Further, no dress code is valid unless it is enforced 100% unilaterally, thus if women must wear stockings and everyone must cover tattoos, but no one asks the woman to put on stockings, then you can't be asked to cover your tattoo.
But interestingly, case law does support dress codes with different standards for men and women, provided they meet the conditions above, and are within reason.
So in the case of politicians it's a matter of spin doctors and image consultants, not any kind of rule.
As an aside, the Tampa City Attorney has two full sleeves of tattoos and a bushy mustache...and lawyers are some of the most mainline dressers around. It just goes to show that the masses aren't as absolute as they like to appear. For all the mindless clones out there, there are still alot of real people doing their thing in all areas of society.
: : i guess that is what irritates me is ho much little things matter. you hit it on the head likening facial hair to breasts. suppose corporate society deemed breasts inapropriate, forcing women to wear something that kept them flat looking? it's that rediculous to me.
: totally IS ridiculous! you rock timo!