Comments on: EEOC: “gentleman’s club” broke law by refusing to hire male barkeep

By: ras

ras — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 23:47:19 +0000

In reply to mx. ... and if the clientele voted on which candidate(s) they preferred, and preferred women?

By: Canvasback

Canvasback — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 01:54:40 +0000

mx, I think this is more than consumer preference. Attractive women are fundamental to the business model. The guy lacks the entertainment value Sammy’s provides.
To extend the argument, if prostitution were normalized, would the EEOC take this same position?

By: mx

mx — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:18:41 +0000

In reply to ras. That question has been tested in court a number of times, particularly when airlines refused to hire male flight attendants. Consumer preference on its own doesn't normally give you an exemption from anti-discrimination law.

By: ras

ras — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:48:07 +0000

And if the business let its clientele express their preferences … analogous to Hollywood getting audience reaction during pre-screenings … and the clientele consistently preferred female bartenders, what then?

By: bob

bob — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:55:25 +0000

What if they hired women who agreed to identify as men?

By: wfjag

wfjag — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:01:59 +0000

In reply to Graham Palmer. No. But, I'm just glad to see you.

By: Graham Palmer

Graham Palmer — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:22:14 +0000

Is that a “D” cup in your pants or
are you applying for a job?
(with apologies to Mae West)