CNN breathlessly reported a few days ago that California has become the first state to ban discrimination based on hair styles. Oh, California, I have so many questions!

See, apparently California has solved all its other problems and now has turned its attention to what it calls “natural hair.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Crown Act into law, making it illegal to enforce dress code or grooming policies against hairstyles such as afros, braids, twists, and locks.

Los Angeles Democrat Sen. Holly Mitchell, who introduced the bill earlier this year, said the law is about “inclusion, pride and choice.”

“This law protects the right of Black Californians to choose to wear their hair in its natural form, without pressure to conform to Eurocentric norms,” Mitchell said in a statement Wednesday. “I am so excited to see the culture change that will ensue from the law.”

Now, I’ve seen both white and black people wearing these hairstyles, and for the life of me, I cannot comprehend how twisting, back-combing, and otherwise taking extensive steps to style one’s hair in those particular fashions can be considered “natural hair.” Natural hair for African-American individuals is curly, and the level of curl for each individual varies.

So what California Democrats are really talking about is banning alleged “discrimination” against African-American individuals for the hairstyle choices they make.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for banning discrimination, and the United States already has vast anti-discrimination laws on the books to prevent individuals from being targeted based on race, religion, national origin, etc.  We have anti-age discrimination laws, we can’t discriminate based on disability, we have the Equal Pay Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (yes, females – you are protected, so stop whining). We also have the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, because with medical and technological advances, employers can find out way more about your family history of illness or mental defect.

But hair?

Has California really solved all its other problems, and is now turning all its attention to a nonexistent issue that arose from an incident in New Jersey in which a wrestling referee told a black varsity wrestler to cut his dreadlocks or forfeit the match, prompting the New Jersey Attorney General office’s civil rights division to open an investigation into the incident as part of an agreement with the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association “to address potential bias in high school sports.”

The school district superintendent in that case said the wrestler chose to cut his hair, because he was informed that both the style and the headgear were against league regulations. The referee, identified as Alan Maloney, was banned from refereeing matches until the investigation concluded, and was accused of making a “racist” remark two years before this incident, which of course fanned the flames in the December incident.

According to the report, Maloney, who is white, used the slur in an argument over homemade wine in a shore condominium after many of the officials gathered following a youth tournament in Wildwood in late March. Another official, Preston Hamilton, who is black, then slammed Maloney to the ground over the remark.

The guy appears to have used the N-bomb against a black colleague and was physically assaulted for it. The incident resulted in corrective action for both men, and they have since mended their fences, according to the report.

There seem to have been some other issues involved in the incident in New Jersey. Maloney was apparently late for the pre-match weigh-ins and did inspect the wrestler prior to the match’s start. He did not raise any issues about his hair then. However, later Maloney apparently took issue with both the wrestler’s and his brother’s (and teammate) hair and instructed both to wear a head covering.

“As Andrew took to the mat to start his match, the referee examined and rejected the head covering he was wearing. In prior matches at a tournament the weekend before, Andrew was permitted to wrestle without issue, a fact that his coaches conveyed to the referee when pleading on his behalf. Andrew then requested he be allowed to push his hair back as he did the weekend prior, but the referee again refused because ‘it wasn’t in its natural state,’ referring to the dreadlocks as ‘braids.’”

The young man in this incident – Andrew Johnson – had been competing with his dreadlocks for several years with no issue, and acted with class and grace as he allowed his hair to be cut rather than let the team down.

The referee should never referee again. This was blatant discrimination. Kids wrestle every year with dreadlocks. He’s had them practically his whole wrestling career and now it’s a problem. This is a problem. https://t.co/uQI8mNocvS

— Michael Langford✈ (@mikeylangford33) December 21, 2018

But because of this incident on the other side of the country, California decided this was a problem it needed to address.

It certainly appears that Andrew Johnson was targeted in the New Jersey incident, but I haven’t seen any reports of similar outrage in California and apparently Gavin Newsom and his band of merry statists have decided to nip the issue in the bud to signal their virtue and opposition to what seems like an isolated incident 3000 miles away.

Meanwhile, California has a homeless crisis that has resulted in human excrement in the streets, stench, filth, and drugs.

It has a reputation as the worst state in which to do business.

California is the 12th worst state for working moms.

It ranks among the worst states in which to grow old.

And California was ranked dead last for quality of life last year.

In other words, I would think that given the very real, serious problems California faces, that Newsom and the dimwit legislators that infest the Golden State would focus on the state’s economic environment, its homeless problems, and problematic cost of living, rather than a problem that does not actually seem to exist in the state – allowing black people to choose to wear their hair in its “natural state” without having to conform to Eurocentric norms.

No word yet on whether white people will be prevented from appropriating the dreadlocks by law or whether this is just the first step in banning discrimination. What’s next? Allowing pubic lice to vote? Preventing employers from discriminating against a biological male who identifies as a floor mop on alternate Tuesdays and refuses to use a toilet, preferring instead to carry his load in his pants the rest of the week?

Just think about how many California residents will flee if that happens!

Featured photo: MinistaJazz; Pixabay License, cropped