Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
So if its based on race is discrimination but if its based on attractiveness is preference?
Both are based on characteristics which are for most people unchangable.
One guy says, I don't like Indians, the other says I don't like ugly boring people. Both should be equally good at doing the job, and both of the people hiring discriminated.
The issue to me is not which is being discriminatory, they both are and for the 'victim' both will be out of a job. The issue is what are we still allowed to discriminate against.
|
If attractiveness was the only quality in dispute, then it would also be discrimination. But as far as I know, the courts so far have refused to state that employers have no right to consider professional "chemistry" in hiring practices. In the example I gave, the attractiveness factor in my mind was secondary; perhaps instead of cute/plain I should have worded it in terms of attentive to appearance or not. In other words, trying to describe someone who is energetic and fun to be with versus someone who isn't. If the decision to hire someone comes down to two people of equal ability and experience, as far as I know, the employer is permitted, under the current understanding of anti-discrimination laws, to make the decision based on who he feels will contribute best to a positive working environment.
In any situation where two people compete, one will win and one won't. That doesn't have to mean that the loser is discriminated against, it can also just mean that the employer didn't think that the potential employee was a good fit.
Discrimination can sometimes be a fine line, nobody's saying otherwise.