Makeup is used to enhance a person’s natural look. Every person has a perspective on their own look. That perspective determines if that individual will choose to wear makeup

American corporations are choosing to force women to wear makeup and are being supported by the American Court system. The issue here is the power of American corporations in the American courts. The human rights issue has been totally ignored. The purpose of makeup is not truly what the court reviewed.

The Court, except for one court justice, considered no more than the sexual discrimination issue and not very thoughtfully. The court allowed corporate interests to guide its decisions rather than considering the further ramifications of controlling the use of cosmetics by individuals.

How much farther can corporate control of individual attire go? Can corporations go so far as to control the jewerly that employees wear? Will it soon be acceptable for employers to tell employees that wedding rings cannot be worn on the job?

The unfortunate aspect of the case was that it was based upon sexual discrimination, but the real issue is when do corporations cross the line of human rights? This case should have been about the human rights violation committed against every working man or woman.

The company in this case decided to use personal preferences to the company’s believed advantage without considering the human beings that are forced to conform to those preferences.

The Men’s Fashion Freedom Movement is struggling for men to have total fashion freedom. The human rights violation committed by forcing makeup on women was equally abusive to men in the reverse. The movement is pushing for men to be free to use makeup as they choose. You can read more about the movement at Men’s Fashion Freedom.