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

To: highimpact
"If that's their policy, then it was legal discrimination since smokers don't fall into a protected class. "

Okay, let's follow that logic...non-protected "classes"...how about if I refuse to hire anyone who DOESN'T smoke? You think that stands a snowball's chance in hell of standing up in court????

71 posted on 11/29/2006 4:45:38 PM PST by traditional1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]


To: traditional1
Okay, let's follow that logic...non-protected "classes"...how about if I refuse to hire anyone who DOESN'T smoke? You think that stands a snowball's chance in hell of standing up in court????

Yes, that will stand up in court. Show me the legislation or the common law that prevents me from making that decision, and I'll admit I'm wrong. I can choose to hire ONLY redheads. That's my perrogative and my right. I can choose to hire people who admit to smoking pot within the last 10 years, and reject applicants who have never smoked pot. That's my right and my perrogative. I can choose to hire people who speak in a falsetto voice, and I can reject people who speak in a baritone voice. That's my right and my perrogative. You might not like it, but that's the way it is. If you don't like it, start your own company and make your own rules.

78 posted on 11/29/2006 4:53:03 PM PST by highimpact
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | 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