Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hudobna
So far yours is the only strongly dissenting opinion I've received.


No it isn't:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355423/posts?page=46#46

So, when you would deny the freedom of a business to have attractive waitresses, would you criminalize policies that required non-discrimination? And which bureaucrat or judge would you let decide what was a reasonable appearance standard, and what was unreasonable?

Or do you think that businesses should be forced to hire people with bright colored hair, prominent tattoos, gals with exposed shaggy armpit hair, and a tackle-box face full of piercings?

Or shall we just appoint you (and not the businesses who know their customers' preferences) to decide what standards to apply?

Freedom isn't always perfectly pleasant, but that is not its point.
62 posted on 03/04/2005 8:11:40 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: Beelzebubba

Ciao Beelzebub,

Thank you for your response. Who's to judge when a look is a political / social statement or when it's just a natural outcome of life? Both require a modicum of good sense, which is something that cannot - yet in the end - must be legislated.

We were talking about waitresses that were already hired who cross a weight line.

As I said, I draw a line, between entertainers who are necessarily cast for a part and workers.

If I'm a movie producer / Director who needs an actress I am well within my right to pick and choose and be demanding. If I need a front office receptionist, good sense dictates that I be less so.

Good sense says that for option A, I can choose an Oriental bombshell, (girls of Lithuanian heritage needn't apply), whereas in option B, race considerations would indeed be racist. Something that a society might wish to avoid.

The Borgata business is borderline. Are the sexy serving girls part of the show? Yes and no. More importantly, will the demands being placed on them be allowed to cross over to all commerce and industry?

If so then you allow an employer to run people's lives completely. He can hire and fire at his total aesthetic / racist / sexist whim. Something which I doubt is very close to the spirit of America.

Why just the Borgata and not a hardware store, diner, desntist's office? Are you happy with normal working jobs becoming beauty contests?

Better for the borderline Borgata case to take the hit than set a precedent for all of society.

One can be just as blinded by lack of ideals as with them. The object of the excercise is not to satisfy the extreme cases that come about by following logic to absurd conclusions, but to set broad guidelines suitable for most parties in most instances.

Probably the key of interpretation of the issue is the nature of the work. At the Borgata, there admittedly IS an argument for the girls being considered "entertainers" (entreneuses), despite the fact that a chubby Plain Jane can serve tables just as well if not better (seeing as she's less likely to be hassled by the customers and lose time) than a bombshell.

It would be a shame for brutally sexist rules being set for all working girls because of a ruling in favor of La Borgata.

That wouldn't be pretty at all. A concession in favor of Borgata with a crossover effect to societies' hiring / firing practices at large would generate far more abuse against women than vice versa.

Ciao


64 posted on 03/04/2005 11:09:38 AM PST by Hudobna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson