Originally Posted by A.Nonymous
Is it a ridiculous law? I'm not sure it is. At the other end is a world where employers need "'good" reasons to fire people and you have judges who have to decide which reasons are "good" and which ones aren't.
We live in a world where inferior teachers are next to impossible to fire. If you do a little research, you might find that bad union employees can be hard to fire as well. Tenured professors cannot be easily terminated.
We are forced to hire people we might not want to hire and if some supervisor comments on how a woman looks, chances are, there will be a lawsuit, if the woman takes offence. I about know someone who was called on the carpet to answer why he would not hire a large woman who came in for an interview. The job required being in a light aircraft and she was simply too big to fit in the seat.
Companies are no longer private concerns in that forces on the outside influences who you must, by law, be required to hire and who you cannot easily fire. I think you should be able to fire or hire anyone you want without a law that mandates you must hire specific people. Let an outraged public voice their displeasure with their pocketbooks.
I do not know about the case that prompted the law. For all we know, this dental assistant was a tease or a problem. Again, all we have is a story about the new law or ruling tat lets you fire a hot assistant. As a man, I am all for hiring hot people.
In thinking about this, I am left wondering what the difference is between firing someone for being too hot and not hiring a woman because she is too fat, flat chested or ugly? Is there any real difference? If you cant fire someone because he is too hot, can you then start hiring woman only if they are hot?
I think the person that fired this woman is crazy. We need more hot people in the workplace, not fewer.