It's a two step process. In that case, the rule has a disparate impact on people who are protected by certain laws (the ADA), but the basis behind the rule isn't to discriminate against people who are protected by the ADA, it's meant to increase on-the-job safety as well as productivity.
I agree, though, that the rules have become somewhat byzantine. My wife represents employers in employment law issues, so I hear some great stories.
You're speaking the eulogy for the funeral of property rights. In order for my use of my own private property to be legal, I have to convince somebody else to be satisfied with my reasons. The fact is, it's my property. In order to ban my use of my property, you have to convince (somebody) that it constitutes a violation of someone else's property rights.
Refusing to hire ugly people isn't a violation of property rights, because nobody has a right to a job at my company. It's a privilege I grant, and I'm free to grant it selectively.
I agree, though, that the rules have become somewhat byzantine. My wife represents employers in employment law issues, so I hear some great stories.
I can only imagine. It must be interesting--and frustrating.