Quote:
Originally Posted by Doku  I disagree with the "equal opportunity employment act" on principal. Nobody should be to force me to hire someone for any reason.
Some examples: If I were running a gay strip club... Should I be forced to put a chick on stage? One could easily argue that she is just as capable at taking her clothes off. There is equal opportunity for the sexes, you know.
How about "Doku's Japanese Massage Parlor" Should I be forced to hire the 6'4" 320lb black guy that just retired from the Cowboys football team? He's perfectly capable of giving someone a massage. There is equal opportunity for race.
How about Father Bob's Catholic traveling minestry? Should he be forced to hire a Hare Krishna? There is protection for religion as well. |
There's a difference between not hiring someone based on realistic business principals and not hiring someone JUST because of their race, sex, or religion. The gay strip club (assuming you mean a gay MALE strip club) would not make money from hiring a female stripper, and any woman wanting to be hired to strip for gay men should seek psychiatric help, IMO.
Father Bob's Catholic Traveling Ministry is not a business, but a church, and is therefore exempt from the Equal Opportunity Employment Act.
As for the Japanese massage parlor--my boyfriend is currently finishing up his degree in massotherapy. He is a White Jewish male, 5'11" and roughly 300 lbs.--fat, not muscle. And yet he, as well as men larger than him, can be trained in the alternative medicine of massage therapy, including all its unique practices--which includes the technique of standing and applying pressure on the client's back (I'll have to ask him what the name of that specific technique is again)--just as easily as a petite 4'9" 85-lb. Japanese woman. As long as your retired football player has proper training in the practices the Japanese massage parlor commonly employs and meets all other business-specific criteria (such as, potentially, the requirement to speak Japanese as a second language, in case enough clientele speak exclusively Japanese to warrant such a requirement), then he should be considered for the job.
Your examples include reasons outside of sex, religion, or race as to why an employer would not want to hire a prospective employee. The EOEA was established so an employer couldn't say "I'm not hiring you JUST because of your race/religion/sex/other qualifying factor." And it is my belief that sexual orientation and gender identity should be included in that. The EOEA wasn't created to say that business HAVE to hire so many men, women, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, etc....you're confusing the EOEA with Affirmative Action, which is an ideal I personally feel is archaic and no longer needed. Hopefully, soon, the EOEA won't be needed, either.