Check out her affiliation and her district!

She's a lady of a certain age for whom piercings are for circus freaks. I can attest to the change in societal norms. When I was but a spore, only prostitutes had tattoos. Easier to identify what was left of the body (love those old days). Now even middle-schoolers are inked. Yes, I wonder about the parents and their career choices they offer their offspring. But, I know it is more my aged habits than actual pimping (I hope).

Sorry to not placate your fantasies but if you interview with multiple piercings, you are not serious and I'll do my best to find you a position that is congruent with your lack of adult behavior. If you are adult, what you do with other consenting, like-minded adults does not interest me at all. If you show up for work unable to pass a metal detector, I'll look for backroom, dead-end chores. See me when you aren't quite juvenile.

Low-wage positions

I will be sure to show up in heels, pantyhose, hat, and kid gloves next time I need to pop into a local governmental building. I mean, god forbid I challenge the traditional cultural mores of my elected officials, some of whom date to an era where a 'lady' would be considered indecent if she wasn't wearing the above garments.

Don't most everyday clothes worn by people under the age of 60 smack of 'countercultural signals'? Jeans, pants for women, comfortable shoes, fabrics that breathe, wash-and-go hairstyles, even the stock corporate outfit of a polo and chinos are all derived from various 20th century rebellions.

Reading this thread, I'm almost convinced that the piercing/tattoo/dreadlock point of argument is an excuse to heap abuse on people of lower status than the speaker. Whether it's about race, class, sexuality, gender, whatever.

Oh, and I vote and pay lots of property and income tax, too

Somehow, I don't think this Jasmin live woman would dare express disgust at a mangled veteran with half a face. She'd find it in herself to suck it up, even though the most compassionate people could find that hard. She expressed disgust because she, like those others who bully them, believed there would not be any consequences to picking on them. If you can't get past minimal superficialities to deal with people's actual problems, you don't deserve public office. I hope the voters so decide. BTW I do a lot of lobbying for a living. Here is the difference between me and these they. I wear the hose and heels because I'm being paid to represent someone else, or I have been entrusted with the cause of a prominent charity. If I'm really just respresenting myself, I darn well expect to be listened to by my representative or their staff person, I don't care if I'm wearing a Barney suit.

And as far as I'm concerned, that's your loss.

Look, I don't find myself disgusted or offended by street clothes, either, but I do know when professional dress is required, and I would have expected the adult supervisors of these they to have given them guidance about this when visiting the state capitol. Rep. Cunningham isn't just shallow and superficial, she's downright mean. However, particularly when dealing with the mean and stupid is to give them as little room to maneuver as possible.

As I said, though, there is at least a benefit to provoking her into an outburst over nothing, because it makes her look bad- makes her look like a bully, in fact. No one deserved to be treated like those they were treated, but what's the point of putting themselves in that position in the first place?

I'm sorry, but if you're trying to get a Republican state legislator to support you on your policy objectives, then you need to moderate your dress and your rhetoric, focus on common goals and generally treat these Chaturbate people in a way they perceive as respectful.

Or, you can try to lobby Republican legislators with a bunch of stuff in your face, have them walk out on you, and then you get to be indignant about it on the internet. Both good choices.

I don't think that's fair, even if it's true in her case

Well, all things considered, she was at the event, wasn't she? She was going to take the meeting in the first place, wasn't she? I fully expect that there are plenty of Missouri legislators who would not take a meeting with this group at all.

And these people showed up dressed in a way that she felt was offensive and disrespectful, and that makes her the bigot?

Let me get this straight

The way to preach against bullying is to conform to the expecations of those who might be sympathetic to the bullies, that they will not scorn you?

I see this reccomendation all the time: we can't fight back because it will provoke them. (Pick your Live Jasmin topic, the war, Social Security, abortion, birth control, sex ed, fair pay, etc.) if we just give them a little of what they want, they'll be willing to let us keep the rest.

Look at all the stuff it's gotten for us so far: all the concessions we got for making deals about judges, and legislation. That's been a real humdinger of a success.

If she was serious about the bill, she'd swallow her bile, recall that she serves the constituents (and I've seen a lot of representatives (from local, to state, to national take meetings with people who were marginal), and hear them out.

Let me get this straight

I guess she can decide who she'll be punished electorally for not taking a meeting with. She's a Republican state rep in Missouri. She probably could have slammed the door on the whole gay group. The rep took the meeting, they came in dressed inappropriately, and rep didn't listen to what they had to say as a result.

To me, this should go into the textbook of how to fail as an advocate. At some point, you have to draw a line to avoid compromising away your central goals. But if you're so unwilling to present yourself as someone the other side can deal with that you won't the rings out of your lips and nose for a meeting with a conservative legislator, you simply cannot make any meaningful progress in achieving any objective where you need their help.

It does. That they could have foreseen the bigotry changes squat. Intolerance shouldn't be accomodated.

I'm with you against bigotry based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, age and disability.

But, frankly, if you show up dressed inappropriately for a job interview or a meeting like this, and you don't get considered as a result, that's not bigotry. If you want to be taken seriously, you should dress, speak and act like a serious person.

Let me get this straight

The news report doesn't say they were dressed inappropriately, Mitch. It says that the Representative took it upon herself to get offended at their facial piercings.

A piercing is not something you can just remove. Even if you do take it out, that you had a piercing will be evident for some time afterwards, and in fact will be more conspicuous than a plain piercing.

Comparing this to a job interview, you have it exactly backwards. The students who showed up were not job applicants; Jane Cunningham is their representative, she works for them. If it was a job interview, Jane Cunningham was the applicant: and she flunked. You do not tell the people whom you work for that they have to remove their piercings before you will consent to talk to them.