Should people be legally protected from discrimination based on physical beauty?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

That is what I am starting to hear people calling for.

In other words, it would be against federal law and laws at other levels of government for, say, an employer to discriminate based on sex, race, etc., etc. and a person's "looks" in hiring, promotions, etc.

I have not thought much about it and do not really have an opinion. I am just wondering how such legislation could be worded so that people clearly know what is legal and what is illegal. Maybe it would say that with respect to a person's physical appearance only things that are recognized by everybody in a particular industry as necessary for a "professional" appearance can be taken into account.

What about industries where a person's physical beauty is part of the product that they are selling? For example, I do not think that TV news anchors are hired simply to read the news. I believe that they are hired to present a certain personality and, yes, a certain degree of physical beauty/attractiveness. Imagine being in that industry and suddenly being required by law to ignore how physically beautiful/attractive a candidate for an on-air job is.

 

[kevlite2020]

Such a bad idea. The real problem is that legislation won't put out in a legal sense that physical attractiveness can be a job skill/quality that increases performances, thereby making attractive people more effective as hires in some companies. That isn't just strip clubs and bars either... If you are looking to hire a secretary at a doctor's office, for example, a pretty woman with a nice smile can help to keep things calm in the lobby. If somebody appears unfriendly (regardless if they are or aren't), it may encourage patients to be rude and demanding.

People are too sensitive.

 

[Tamara224]

First of all, it'll never happen. What a litigation nightmare that would be.

Second, where are you hearing this supposed call for this law? This is the first I've ever heard of such a thing.

Third, I think we should pass a law that no new laws can be passed for a period of 10 years and that the legislature has to spend the time getting rid of or amending and improving existing laws.

That'll never happen either. But Americans are addicted to legislation and it's getting beyond absurd.

 

[kevlite2020]

First of all, it'll never happen. What a litigation nightmare that would be.

Second, where are you hearing this supposed call for this law? This is the first I've ever heard of such a thing.

Third, I think we should pass a law that no new laws can be passed for a period of 10 years and that the legislature has to spend the time getting rid of or amending and improving existing laws.

That'll never happen either. But Americans are addicted to legislation and it's getting beyond absurd.

America: where you can go to work hard and achieve your dreams, or at least find the right person to sue!

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

First of all, it'll never happen. What a litigation nightmare that would be.

Second, where are you hearing this supposed call for this law? This is the first I've ever heard of such a thing.

Third, I think we should pass a law that no new laws can be passed for a period of 10 years and that the legislature has to spend the time getting rid of or amending and improving existing laws.

That'll never happen either. But Americans are addicted to legislation and it's getting beyond absurd.

. Best idea of the century.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

And my answer to the OP is a big no. If anything we need to get rid of most of the regulation and legislation that exists, not add to it.

 

[Ukrainia]

First of all, it'll never happen. What a litigation nightmare that would be.

I wouldn't be so sure. In the new jobs act that Obama wants to pass, it bars discrimination against the unemployed. So if you're unemployed, and do not get a job you applied for, you now can sue the company that did not hire you. I imagine if this gets passed, you'll see a huge increase in the number of frivolous lawsuits, from people looking for work trying to take advantage of the new law. It'll also probably cost businesses a fortune when they face such lawsuits. And it all results from government thinking it knows better than businesses who the business should and shouldn't hire. I'm thinking this will be just as much of a nightmare. So your premise that this will never happen rests on the idea that the government is at least somewhat competant. And there, unfortunately, is where I think you're wrong.

You're the lawyer, what do you think?

 

[Verve]

It's the Hooters lawsuit all over again...

 

[Tamara224]

I wouldn't be so sure. In the new jobs act that Obama wants to pass, it bars discrimination against the unemployed. So if you're unemployed, and do not get a job you applied for, you now can sue the company that did not hire you. I imagine if this gets passed, you'll see a huge increase in the number of frivolous lawsuits, from people looking for work trying to take advantage of the new law. It'll also probably cost businesses a fortune when they face such lawsuits. And it all results from government thinking it knows better than businesses who the business should and shouldn't hire. I'm thinking this will be just as much of a nightmare.

That portion of the bill won't pass. IMHO.

So your premise that this will never happen rests on the idea that the government is at least somewhat competant. And there, unfortunately, is where I think you're wrong.

You're the lawyer, what do you think?

Nonsense, there's no such premise in my thinking. I think a law prohibiting discrimination based on physical attractiveness will never pass because Hollywood and the fashion industry would never stand for it. And also because the congressmen don't want to have to hire ugly interns.

 

[elenore]

I think the idea is moronic.

 

[elenore]

PS. Although that being said - they can be given a pretty hard time.

I knew this guy growing up who was literally, the most handsome man I have ever seen in real life to this point. He had that from as long as I knew him - and I even remember a time when he walked into the room at church one time and every female in the place just sort of stopped and looked, and he was only in his teens.

He spent his whole life on the run from attention. I mean the guy rarely stopped moving, and that was largely because of the way people treated him. He was at my brothers wedding a while back, and even then, he couldn't really dally or he'd risk being grabbed hold of. It was kind of odd, when you think about it - to spend a life constantly being polite and transitory as a survival tactic. But then he was really nice.

So yeah. I wouldn't want his existance. But he was gorgeous. I think it has it's pros and it's cons.

I imagine he would have had to watch out for joseph experiences in life in general. (potiphers wife) and I don't know how it affected his employment.

Unfair, but you can't legislate against human nature. It's not realistic. Especially when you bring damages and money into it. I think he did alright.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Second, where are you hearing this supposed call for this law? This is the first I've ever heard of such a thing...

I guess I need to start writing down reference information for everything that I read.

I can't say exactly where I read or heard it--I do a lot of reading and I read a lot of different sources. And I have watched a lot of TV, listened to a lot of radio...

It seems like I saw a TV news report many years ago about how New York City was considering such a law.

More recently I came across a web site where a woman was saying that it is natural for such protection to follow protection from other forms of discrimination and that it is inevitable. I can't say who she was or what the web site was.

 

[Sketcher]

Looks are subjective and determining whether there was discrimination is highly invasive, especially when you consider the various fetishes.

 

[acropolis]

This law would be impossible to write, let alone enforce, without a standard definition of 'beauty,' which would be problematic to create, to say the least.

 

[jason taylor]

Not another Oppressed Group Of The Month!

 

[LoneSheep]

Is beauty the last taboo in hiring? I think I've heard it mentioned here and there, but the law would be very subjective. I can only imagine the complaints: Mr/Mrs so-and-so claims the employer discriminated against them because they were not good looking. Mr/Mrs. so-and-so seeks damages of $500,000. Plus all the wasted time in discovery and litigation holds

 

[jason taylor]

What if someone said,"They discriminated against me because I looked like Helen of Troy!"