07-26-2003, 07:30 PM
For me, the issue is "Businesses should not be allowed to reject an otherwise qualified applicant because of trivial or social factors." Hence, you can't not hire a gay person, a black person, a native person, a woman, a republican, or a crossdresser, _presuming they are otherwise qualified to do the job_.
Now, for a children's bookstore, or some equally cutesy profession? Not being scary is part of the job, seriously. That does not, however, exclude all transvestites and transsexuals. Only ones whose demeanor is, well, creepy. You don't have to hire Hell's Angels, and so you don't have to hire transvestites who equally don't meet the criteria.
So, to me, the law is unjust on a purely philosophical grounds. Whether affirmative action legislation should apply... jury's still out on that one. Surely a 150 000 dollar fine is going a bit far.
But allowing discrimination simply because you (or anyone else) doesn't like their lifestyle? Not in a just society. Only if their lifestyle affects their job to a tangible detriment can you justify not hiring them.
Jester
Now, for a children's bookstore, or some equally cutesy profession? Not being scary is part of the job, seriously. That does not, however, exclude all transvestites and transsexuals. Only ones whose demeanor is, well, creepy. You don't have to hire Hell's Angels, and so you don't have to hire transvestites who equally don't meet the criteria.
So, to me, the law is unjust on a purely philosophical grounds. Whether affirmative action legislation should apply... jury's still out on that one. Surely a 150 000 dollar fine is going a bit far.
But allowing discrimination simply because you (or anyone else) doesn't like their lifestyle? Not in a just society. Only if their lifestyle affects their job to a tangible detriment can you justify not hiring them.
Jester