[Discussion] Job discrimination vs. Appeal, image, and tradition

[FreakyLocz14]

For this discussion, I will be using the restaurant chain Hooters as an example.

Hooters is known for its attractive waitresses that wear revealing outfits. Hooters argues that female sex appeal is central to its "appeal, image, and tradition". Hooters had been sued in the past for discrimination in hiring. In 1997, three men from the Chicago area sued Hooters after being denied employment at an Orland Park, Illinois, restaurant. Each of them was awarded $19,100. Four men who filed a similar lawsuit in Maryland received $10,350 each. The settlement allows Hooters to continue luring customers with a female staff of Hooters Girls. But the chain also agreed to create a few other support jobs, like bartenders and hosts, that must be filled without regard to sex (Source).

Wikipedia summarizes current exceptions to United States nondiscrimination laws nicely:
In employment discrimination law in the United States, employers are generally allowed to consider characteristics that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). For example, a manufacturer of men's clothing may lawfully advertise for male models. Hooters has argued a BFOQ defense, which applies when the "essence of the business operation would be undermined if the business eliminated its discriminatory policy"

Is Hooters justified in limiting its waiting staff to women-only? If so, does this show a flaw in the reasoning behind government regulation of employment, and that so-called "nondiscrimination" laws should be repealed? If not, then what limits, if any, should be placed on nondiscrimination laws to be sure that commerce is not harmed?

[Mr. X]

Job qualifications is not job discrimination.

Hooters has one simple qualification. Breasts. Preferably, big ones. Sexism? Yes. Discrimination? No.

If the men want to be a waiter there, then they need to have the proper qualifications.

Imo, they should just make their own restaurant. They could call it Bowling Balls. Or Snakes. Or the Hard Wood Cafe. Or any euphism they want to. (The list of euphemisms they could use is very long. Its so long, that it would be very hard for them to choose one to use.)

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

Job qualifications is not job discrimination.

Hooters has one simple qualification. Breasts. Preferably, big ones. Sexism? Yes. Discrimination? No.

If the men want to be a waiter there, then they need to have the proper qualifications.

Imo, they should just make their own restaurant. They could call it Bowling Balls. Or Snakes. Or the Hard Wood Cafe. Or whatever euphemism they want to use.

So, if I own a business, and I require qualifications that essentially bar black or LGBT applicants, that's not discrimination?

[Mr. X]

I highly doubt that you could have a qualification that would fit the business.

Hooters can get away with this, because their entire practice is based on one thing. Luring in people (Mainly men) with well endowed waitresses.

In their case, breasts being a requirement is no more discriminatory then Generic Company #1 requiring a person to have a Generic Diploma 1 and 2.

Edit - The key part is business being undermined. That is why they would fall under the BFOQ. For them, this requirement is genuine and not rasist or homophobic. I'll agree, however, that is is sexist to the core, but as long as women are willing to work there they can get away with it.

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

I highly doubt that you could have a qualification that would fit the business.

Hooters can get away with this, because their entire practice is based on one thing. Luring in people (Mainly men) with well endowed waitresses.

In their case, breasts being a requirement is no more discriminatory then Generic Company #1 requiring a person to have a Generic Diploma 1 and 2.

Say I own a restaurant that serves ethnic food, and I want my patrons to feel that is authentic ethnic cuisine, so I only employ people with the same ethnic background as my food. What then?

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

Say I own a restaurant that serves ethnic food, and I want my patrons to feel that is authentic ethnic cuisine, so I only employ people with the same ethnic background as my food. What then?

A ethnic background is not a noticable feature. A person isn't going to look at one person and automatically know that the person is of Generic Ethnicity #1. In your case, what matters is the food.

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

A ethnic background is not a noticable feature. A person isn't going to look at one person and automatically know that the person is of Generic Ethnicity #1. In your case, what matters is the food.

So, how does having a female-only waiting staff make the food or booze that Hooters serves any different? It doesn't change the fact that a man is enjoying his favorite hot wings and beer while he watches the big game.

[Mr. X]

That is unknown.

The article you provided didn't state what jobs they applied for.

However, as the jobs Hooters said they would create (Bartenders and hosts) are both jobs where the job holder is regularly seen, they the odds are that these people applied to be waiters.

The waiting staff are not the ones cooking the food, so they don't effect it at all. Still, the company isn't built on the food. It's built on having, most often, well endowed waitresses serve the food. For this company, the food isn't what makes it. Its the serving staff.

[Kura]

I just think it's ridiculous when other companies turn people away not for their qualifications, but for "not being a visible minority" because they need to fill that "equality quota" BS. "LOOK GUYS WE ARE AN EQUAL EMPLOYER LOL." That's discrimination in itself and I always find it to be appalling.

And meh, Hooters. They're trying to sell sex appeal. If someone is hiring for a female strip club and a male walks in.. they're not going to sue for discrimination.. because the market is about selling the girls. If it was for a job that physically could be preformed by anyone, (like a consultant or secretary) then that's discrimination. You have to have the qualifications. Would you hire a personal stylist who didn't look after themselves? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how they preformed at their jobs- but if you are trying to sell something, being presentable is a key thing, and for Hooters, people can be turned away just because it is not the image they are particularly looking for.
Metaphor: Hooters girls are sort of like models.. if you are looking to photograph a female model, it is kind of dumb for the model or photographer to go for a lawsuit over the fact that a guy wants his pic taken instead.

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

That is unknown.

The article you provided didn't state what jobs they applied for.

However, as the jobs Hooters said they would create (Bartenders and hosts) are both jobs where the job holder is regularly seen, they the odds are that these people applied to be waiters.

The waiting staff are not the ones cooking the food, so they don't effect it at all. Still, the company isn't built on the food. It's built on having, most often, well endowed waitresses serve the food. For this company, the food isn't what makes it. Its the serving staff.

In my restaurant example, I would want my waiting staff to be visibly of the same ethnicity of the food. That doesn't mean that other jobs aren't available for others.

Let's move on to another issue. Let's say that I run a business that prides itself on its Christian image, and it sells religious merchandise, but is not a church. Should I be able to refuse employment to LGBT applicants?

[Kura]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

In my restaurant example, I would want my waiting staff to be visibly of the same ethnicity of the food. That doesn't mean that other jobs aren't available for others.

Let's move on to another issue. Let's say that I run a business that prides itself on its Christian image, and it sells religious merchandise, but is not a church. Should I be able to refuse employment to LGBT applicants?

Sexual orientation is confidential in any interview or job position. You have the right to refuse stating that. If you want to state it, yes you may jepordize your personal appeal because they may question your passion to the Christian community or how other Christians may view you, etc, and may turn you away based on that rather than based on a personal vendetta, but IMO it's pretty unlikely. But no. If you are qualified then no, they technically shouldn't refuse you employment.. but an employer can usually fire you or not hire you based on no criteria within a certain timeframe (1-3 months.) They legally don't even need to give a reason even if their discrimination was the case.

[Mr. X]

I wanted to say this before, but not all Mexicans are brown and not all Africans are Black. If you think that Ethnicity is determined by your skin color, or that Ethnicity determines skin color, then you are a bona fide racist.

Hatred/Discrimination isn't a religious value. If you are trying to pride it on a Christian image, then you wouldn't allow discrimination in it. Afterall, we are all equal under God right? (Sad to say, but most 'Christians' today pick and choose what to follow.)

Can't find the picture I was thinking of, but this this is the next best one I have.

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

I wanted to say this before, but not all Mexicans are brown and not all Africans are Black. If you think that Ethnicity is determined by your skin color, or that Ethnicity determines skin color, then you are a bona fide racist.

Hatred/Discrimination isn't a religious value. If you are trying to pride it on a Christian image, then you wouldn't allow discrimination in it. Afterall, we are all equal under God right?

I have almost pale white skin, yet I have no white blood in me. I am almost completely Mexican, with just a dash of Native-American. I know what you are talking about. Having the image of being an authentic Mexican restaurant doesn't necessarily mean brown-skinned. Hispanic surnames can also apply.

What is or allowed in any given religion varies greatly, by the way.

Originally Posted by Kura

Sexual orientation is confidential in any interview or job position. You have the right to refuse stating that. If you want to state it, yes you may jepordize your personal appeal because they may question your passion to the Christian community or how other Christians may view you, etc, and may turn you away based on that rather than based on a personal vendetta, but IMO it's pretty unlikely. But no. If you are qualified then no, they technically shouldn't refuse you employment.. but an employer can usually fire you or not hire you based on no criteria within a certain timeframe (1-3 months.) They legally don't even need to give a reason even if their discrimination was the case.

You just pointed out a big flaw in nondiscrimination laws: they are very hard to enforce. Since most employment is at-will, employers don't have to give a reason for why they choose not to hire someone, or why they choose to let employees go. How can we justify spending tax dollars on administering agencies that enforce nondiscrimination laws, when our laws also make it easy to discriminate discreetly?

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

What is or allowed in any given religion varies greatly, by the way.

While that is true, my earlier statement still stands. Christianity is not a religion that preaches hatred and discrimination. Actually, now that I think about it, The Old Testament, if interpreted to, speaks hatred against gays but then the New Testament retcons that to love each other, no matter our diffriences. (Christianity follows, mainly, The New Testament though, so I am applying NT values to this.)

Unrelated, but he Old Testament says that No one has seen, or will ever see, the face of God. The New Testament retcons that too, can't remember the specific book, but one of the apostles said I have seen the face of God. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can follow a religion based on a book that contradicts itself so much, and on (what are, supposed to be) many important points.

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

While that is true, my earlier statement still stands. Christianity is not a religion that preaches hatred and discrimination. Actually, now that I think about it, The Old Testament, if interpreted to, speaks hatred against gays but then the New Testament retcons that to love each other, no matter our diffriences. (Christianity follows, mainly, The New Testament though, so I am applying NT values to this.)

Unrelated, but he Old Testament says that No one has seen, or will ever see, the face of God. The New Testament retcons that too, can't remember the specific book, but one of the apostles said I have seen the face of God. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can follow a religion based on a book that contradicts itself so much, and on (what are, supposed to be) many important points.

Many Christian denominations actually hold that Christians are bound by both the Old and New Testaments, but the New Testament trumps the Old in the case of a conflict.

Regarding Jewish dietary laws, which are common examples that are used to criticize this view, the apostle Paul had a divine vision in which he was very hungry, and he was presented with all kinds of food that was against Jewish dietary laws. God told him to eat, but he replied that he will not eat that, because of the prohibition against it. God responded, "Do not call that which I have created unclean". Christians interpret this as meaning that Christians are not bound by Jewish dietary laws.

Regarding on whether people can see God, the New Testament changes that. Before Jesus' sacrifice, people were separated from God by sin. No one was allowed within the holiest area of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, with the exception that the High Priest was to enter one a year to make a sacrifice, and even he was to take precautions to not see God. Jesus' death on the cross literally bridged the gap between people and God, so that people could have personal relationships with God, through Christ Our Lord.

That's a bit off-topic, but I thought that I should explain the contradictions.

[TRIFORCE89]

Chinese restaurants generally have Chinese servers. I don't see an issue.

There's more too it then just being "qualified". You are also playing a part. In that customer-facing role, you are the face of the company. You are are what the company wants customers to see to build and reinforce the brand. Hooters relies on cleavage as part of their brand.

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89

Chinese restaurants generally have Chinese servers. I don't see an issue.

There's more too it then just being "qualified". You are also playing a part. In that customer-facing role, you are the face of the company. You are are what the company wants customers to see to build and reinforce the brand. Hooters relies on cleavage as part of their brand.

My questions for you are:

1) Are nondiscrimination laws appropriate, when it is so easy to discreetly, or justifiably, discriminate?

2) If they still are appropriate, then what limits, if any, should be placed on them so that commerce is not harmed?

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

My questions for you are:

1) Are nondiscrimination laws appropriate, when it is so easy to discreetly, or justifiably, discriminate?

2) If they still are appropriate, then what limits, if any, should be placed on them so that commerce is not harmed?

I think job discrimination comes into play when you're not hired because the employer doesn't agree with (which is different than saying what is desired for the job) your race, creed, or orientation for instance (and probably other things I can't think of at the moment). And, more likely, explicitly says so.

Similarly if you're fired for such reasons. Or are treated unfairly by your employer for the same reasons.

And the law and proper channels should be pursued in such situations.

[Kura]

There are workplace rights already set in place for this sort of thing. If you feel you have been unfairly turned away or suspect that a company is discriminating you can contact the government for this and you can file complaints and etc.
It would be a waste of government funds if they had to set aside a lump of money just to make sure everyone being turned away from a job is being turned away for the right reasons. I rather that money be put into healthcare; sorry.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Kura

There are workplace rights already set in place for this sort of thing. If you feel you have been unfairly turned away or suspect that a company is discriminating you can contact the government for this and you can file complaints and etc.
It would be a waste of government funds if they had to set aside a lump of money just to make sure everyone being turned away from a job is being turned away for the right reasons. I rather that money be put into healthcare; sorry.

However it is now, is more what I was implying. Nothing additional. Wrongdoers get in trouble, but Hooters and Chinese restaurants seem to be fine

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Kura

There are workplace rights already set in place for this sort of thing. If you feel you have been unfairly turned away or suspect that a company is discriminating you can contact the government for this and you can file complaints and etc.
It would be a waste of government funds if they had to set aside a lump of money just to make sure everyone being turned away from a job is being turned away for the right reasons. I rather that money be put into healthcare; sorry.

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89

However it is now, is more what I was implying. Nothing additional. Wrongdoers get in trouble, but Hooters and Chinese restaurants seem to be fine

The things is, most wrongdoers don't get in trouble. The large majority of employment in the United States is at-will. This means that the employer can turn down or terminate any prospective or current employee for whatever reasons they want. They don't even have to give a reason; however, whenever an employer wants to terminate an employee via discrimination, they still usually wait for the first excuse to have cause to terminate, as a way to cover their behinds. The employee can also quit for whatever reason, and also does not have to give a reason. Employee handbooks that deal with discipline, which are usually held to be binding contracts, employment contracts, and union contracts between a labor union and the employer are the most common exceptions to the at-will rule. This makes it almost impossible to prove discrimination, even when it exists.

[droomph]

honestly Hooters is known for its...bleh so i can see why men waiters aren't really needed.

However, that isn't discrimination, as they could have other jobs, such as bartender or cook. If they just said "f you go home" then that's employment discrimination.

[Scarf]

Did I read someone saying that because discrimination is hard to prove we shouldn't bother making anti-discrimination laws?

Hooters' "image" is young, buxom women? Why do they get to say what their image is when it's something like that? Shouldn't their be limits on what your "image" is. 'Cuz if not then, hey, I want to start a business that has an image of "whiteness." Sorry, dark skinned people don't fit into that image so I'm not hiring any. I'm not actually starting a business. That was sarcasm.

[Archer]

Originally Posted by Scarf

Did I read someone saying that because discrimination is hard to prove we shouldn't bother making anti-discrimination laws?

Hooters' "image" is young, buxom women? Why do they get to say what their image is when it's something like that? Shouldn't their be limits on what your "image" is. 'Cuz if not then, hey, I want to start a business that has an image of "whiteness." Sorry, dark skinned people don't fit into that image so I'm not hiring any. I'm not actually starting a business. That was sarcasm.

You seem to be under the impression that the image is just arbitrary. In fact, it's designed that way because they are A. Part of the product and B. required to appeal to the target audience. This is not discrimination, as its something that men are, by and large, attracted to. The same would not apply for your white/black example, because there is no reasonable reasoning for it.

Shouldn't a sports store or gym be allow to turn people down based on their weight? It directly impacts the image of the business in a way that will make customers less confident in the product(s). Now there is an image that needs to be retained in order to keep business. This is in parallel with the thread topic.

[Livewire]

Yay! Let's ignore sexism and discrimination just to make more money!