Many people who support anti-discrimination laws do so not because they can work, but because it will make a “strong statement” that “discrimination will not be tolerated”.
Here are some of the cases which will go to court. Good luck to you trying to get a “strong statement” out of them.
A temple administrator justifies his decision to hire only Brahmins as priests. He is not bigoted, he says, but most devotees will boycott the temple if he hires someone from other castes. So the temple has a compelling “business reason” to hire only brahmin priests.
An HR manager defends her decision not to promote a woman to Works Manager of the factory. The reason is not that she is a bigot (she is a woman herself), but it is her considered business decision that the factory workers being a rowdy bunch, will get even more encouraged when they see that the management has put a woman in charge. It is not that the woman is weak, mind you. It is just that the factory workers will perceive her as weak.
A software company executive openly admits to preferring married women over single men while hiring. The ostensible reason is that single men are more likely to jump ship and he wants someone who will stick to the company. The rumour is that he simply has a fetish for married women.
“You are sacking me because I am a muslim”
“No you are sacked because you are refusing to fit into company culture”
“You are sacking me because I refused to join in the morning prayers and singing to the company Goddess”
“Yes, the owner of the company believes strongly that morning prayers and group singing is an integral part of the company culture.”
“But I told you that I cannot do those things because my faith does not permit me to bow to any idol, much less to that of a woman.“
“That’s your business. As far as I am concerned, that is the official reason to sack you.”
“You are just a bigot.”
“You are the bigot for refusing to blend into company culture.”
“You are discriminating against me because I am a catholic”
“No. We are not letting you contest the elections because you have more than two children”
“That’s because we don’t believe in contraception. The pope has forbidden it”
“Thats your business.”
[See above]
“We don’t hire women”
“Why not? That’s discrimination!”
“No. We have sound business reasons not to hire women.”
“Which are?”
“Insurance costs will go up if we hire women.”
“What insurance?”
“Anti-discrimination lawsuit insurance.”
“Huh?”
“Our insurance company told us that statistically, women are more likely to sue claiming discrimination on questions of promotion, facilities etc. Perhaps they have good reason. Perhaps not. I don’t want to get judgemental about it. But we took a decision not to hire women so as to save costs.”
“But by not hiring women, aren’t you laying yourself open to anti-discrimination lawsuits from people like me?”
“Not really. Our lawyers told us that if we can show compelling business reasons, we are safe. Insurance costs are a compelling business decision.”
“Look… I really want to work with you people. You seem such an interesting bunch. I don’t like this, but could you deduct your extra insurance costs from my salary and pay me a lower salary?”
“That’s an interesting proposal. Paying you less would be discrimination of course, so our insurance costs would go up even further to offset the risk that you will sue us. That will mean that your salary will have to be further reduced and that will push up insurance premia even further. I’ll check with our mathematicians. If the function converges, you have a job. And a salary.”
Ok, except the last example which is a self-indulgent “joke”, the others are realistic examples of the kind of cases that will come up under anti-discrimination laws. Now every law has grey areas and there are some extreme cases where implementing any law will result in a travesty of justice. But with vague laws like anti-discrimination law, every case will be a grey area. No one will be able to figure out how the law will apply in a particular case without going through the entire case law. Which side a particular case will go will depend on the mood of the judge.
Nice statement the law will make.
Stay tuned for Part III.
the last one was by far the best 🙂
you should be more self-indulgent.
OffTopic > why not accompany Monsieur Yazad on his trip down south?
Isn’t it discrimination when a club or pub refuses to let in single men, while they don’t have any issues with single women?
And yeah, last one was funny. (for a change)
I agree that the anti-discrimination laws have some costs in that there might be some legitimate reasons for ‘discrimination’. But where the legitimate reasons ARE other peoples’ bigotry (examples 1,2 above), then the law is justified in that while in the short term such a law might seem unoptimal, but in the long term the benefits shall overwhelm the costs (in that markets become more efficient)
Also, such a law is not required for a very long time, so the costs are finite too.
hich side a particular case will go will depend on the mood of the judge. — i think most of the cases in real life are like that (unless ofcourse, money has exchaned hands).
Not true anya. In a murder case, there might be insufficient evidence and in borderline cases some judges might convict where others acquit. But cases like anti-discrimination cases are ultimately thought crimes. The same action may be a crime or not a crime depending on what the judge thinks was in the mind of the accused.
Appreciate your effort
I think that people who discriminate women and religions are pigs because whats the differnce in their work ability?????? yes some men are physically superior to women but only 5% of women discriminated have a reasonable reason.