2012-09-07, 02:30 AM
SaptaZapta Wrote:How I envy those of you whose lives are so sheltered that you can get so outraged at a haircut rule.
As for the $60 haircut: the mother should demand the hair stylist return the money.
Since the rules for boys' hair are state-wide, every person in the country who professionally cuts children's hair should be familiar with them. When the boy went in for his $60 haircut, the stylist should have cut it in accordance with the rules: not touching the ears, etc. As we can see from the pictures, it's not that big of a difference. Not like the boy had truly long hair and told the stylist "don't touch it". There's no excuse for charging money and leaving the boy's hair in a condition he wouldn't be allowed to take the state exam in.
I don't know about that actually. While it's written state-wide, but that's only in schools, and not written in the constitution. The hairstylist doesn't have to obey school rules, but what I might imagine is that the hairstylist would ask how the customer would like the hair to be done; if he/mom says "don't touch the ears" what's he to do? But then again, we don't know what went through the hairstylist's head. My guess is that the length was a bad judgement on the hairstylist's side, possibly something like "cut enough to not touch the ears" but was actually too long... maybe?
/edit: need to qualify something: school dropouts are on the uncommon side, and they obviously don't need to have short haircuts when they go for a haircut... customer = king afterall.
Hadriel