ReimTime said:
Teeqoz said:
ReimTime said:
Welllllllllllllll yes it's still discrimination (exclusion based on personal preference) because that is the definition:
"Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."
In relation to how I said I would hire based solely on capability etc, being a customer when I go into a store/restaraunt etc I judge based on service, not race/gender etc.
|
Then, by the way he explained it, it wouldn't be descrimination. He would be declining to hire that person because he thinks it might hurt his business, not because of that persons gender, group, class or "category". He might be wrong in his assumption that it would hurt business, but it wouldn't be discrimination, by the very definition you provided.
As for me, I'd hire her/him, but I would keep a close track of business, and if I saw signs of the business doing worse after she/he started, I do my best to move her/him to a less visible position, because after all, I'd want my business to thrive.
|
He thinks it might hurt his business because of the person's gender/group/class/category which is the entire basis for the declination. 6 of one, a half dozen the other.
|
Once again, the reason he is treating the person differently is not because of the person's gender/group/class/category. It is because he thinks it might hurt business. Even though the reason he thinks that it might hurt business is the person's gender/group/class/category, he wouldn't decline if he thought it would have no effect on sales. So he isn't doing it based on gender, he is doing it based on what effect it will have on sales, which is the reason you hire any person. You hire the one you think will be best for your business.
