patrick.net

Any copy of the actual law? The news article didn’t include any of the language.
If it truly does single out black peoples hairstyles for unequal protection, that would violate the civil rights act. What if a white person wanted to have dreadlocks? Protected or not under this law? After all, it’s just a hairstyle, similar to a Mohawk or cornrows which anyone can wear of any race.

https://www.employmentlawworldview.com/california-passes-crown-act-becomes-first-state-to-ban-natural-hairstyle-discrimination-us/

Looks like it’s not race specific. Once this goes into law you can wear your hair any way at all you choose. Pretty easy to claim historical styles for about any type of hairstyle including jungle lord and Celtic knots. If you want to go full Pigpen you can

Official text is all about race, "Eurocentrism", etc:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The history of our nation is riddled with laws and societal norms that equated “blackness,” and the associated physical traits, for example, dark skin, kinky and curly hair to a badge of inferiority, sometimes subject to separate and unequal treatment.
(b) This idea also permeated societal understanding of professionalism. Professionalism was, and still is, closely linked to European features and mannerisms, which entails that those who do not naturally fall into Eurocentric norms must alter their appearances, sometimes drastically and permanently, in order to be deemed professional.
(c) Despite the great strides American society and laws have made to reverse the racist ideology that Black traits are inferior, hair remains a rampant source of racial discrimination with serious economic and health consequences, especially for Black individuals.
(d) Workplace dress code and grooming policies that prohibit natural hair, including afros, braids, twists, and locks, have a disparate impact on Black individuals as these policies are more likely to deter Black applicants and burden or punish Black employees than any other group.
(e) Federal courts accept that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, and therefore protects against discrimination against afros. However, the courts do not understand that afros are not the only natural presentation of Black hair. Black hair can also be naturally presented in braids, twists, and locks.
(f) In a society in which hair has historically been one of many determining factors of a person’s race, and whether they were a second class citizen, hair today remains a proxy for race. Therefore, hair discrimination targeting hairstyles associated with race is racial discrimination.
(g) Acting in accordance with the constitutional values of fairness, equity, and opportunity for all, the Legislature recognizes that continuing to enforce a Eurocentric image of professionalism through purportedly race-neutral grooming policies that disparately impact Black individuals and exclude them from some workplaces is in direct opposition to equity and opportunity for all.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB188

The rest is a repeat of boilerplate discrimination law.

Just California Dems taking action on "real problems"

Quigley says

Looks like it’s not race specific. Once this goes into law you can wear your hair any way at all you choose. Pretty easy to claim historical styles for about any type of hairstyle including jungle lord and Celtic knots. If you want to go full Pigpen you can

The last thing California needs is more crazy hair. hahaha

I like the last one. Might even go with it! Looks badass and historically relevant!
Sort of says: I can hang out here and chill or I could go pillage a small fishing community.

Will the law protect unshaved arm pits?
What about bald men? Still legal to discriminate against those?

Is this above the waist or below the waist? Shooting beavers to provoke sexual harassment lawsuits and reparations are important job skills these days.