Appeal to Nature Fallacy?

This is a good one because it seems reasonable on the surface. Yes. Technically fallacious (appeal to nature ) as the fact that something is natural doesn't make it good/acceptable.

Honestly, I am not familiar with any of the arguments that black people cannot wear their hair in a certain way. I have heard that the arguments exist, but not aware. As a white guy, I am totally clueless on this issue. I will say that the double standard can be tricky because with some word play, you can make the problem go away. For example:

"Not allowing gays to marry is a double standard since straight people can marry their desired gender but gays can't."

"No. All people, regardless of gender preference, are allowed to marry a person of the opposite gender. This is not a double standard."

This is difficult to argue logically. It is more of an empathetic argument for what should be done.

If the hair style is restricted because of some company-related policy, then the argument that certain hair-styles should be allowed because they are natural is a non sequitur .

If on the on the other hand you have Bob Ross working there but they restrict blacks from having afros, then its double standard .

If the company equally restricts certain hair-styles (afros, cornrows, etc.) both to white and black people then the initial argument is cherry picking .