It is a well-known perception that casinos are places that have perfected the art of created and improved upon reality. A casino has a mission to sell the ideas of ‘dreams come true’ and ‘get rich quick’ wrapped in an alluring package of styro-foam and plaster opulence. The choice to attract players with this warped dream world based on superficial desires is completely the right of the casino, but is it the right of the casino to force its employees to maintain the same standard of superficial reality with their own physical appearance?
Apparently a court in San Francisco says that the right is the casino’s; after ruling in favor of Harrah’s Entertainment in context to a suit brought against them from a employee who was suing the casino for firing her for not wearing make-up. The absurdity of this ruling is clear from practically every angle that one looks at the case. The casino is forcing female employees to wear foundation, concealer, powder, lipstick, blush, and mascara. Not to mention the added burden of forcing to women to “have their hair teased, curled, or styled at all times” while also wearing stockings and nail polish.
The most absurd accept of the case is that the casino worn on the argument that they were being equaling oppressive to the male employees as they were to the women, by not allowing men to wear makeup and making them wear their hair short. Only a casino with a completely warped sense of reality would think that the two were equal burdens. Financially, it is clearly more taxing for a women to apply a long list of expensive products to her face hair and body every day. It should also be the right of any person to have the freedom of being perceived as presentable in what ever their natural state may be, minus the sex role compliant alterations that the casino may feel is necessary of players to get a sense of unnaturally perfected reality.