Job discrimination vs. Appeal, image, and tradition

Kura said:

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.

Click to expand...

TRIFORCE89 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Scarf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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