Back to the old problem are people merely productivity machines that you discard when the market for their services is below the cost to maintain or compensate them or is there another, non-monetary value that we hire and retain people. Are people the 'means' or the 'ends' for an employer? If means, then attractiveness to the customer, if that is a requirement dictated by the market, matters in hiring and firing. If 'means', then laissez-faire is the answer. If 'ends', then regulation and compulsory actions may be required. Or like the US, some mix of both.
I think there are more important issues to discuss first. Like getting property rights and corporate personhood under democratic and government control and amendable to the common good
This is part of that very issue and the securing of such rights. If you are excluded based on age or appearance, it is an injustice. Thus, to debate about it and try and combat it only helps the battle for the common good. It is battling corporate behaviors, such as ageism and sexism. It is part of the good you seek. :)
These kids could hardly tell the truth because that would mean they have to go against their virtue signalling status quo, actually grow a pair and talk about reality not ideals. Business is competition and if you are not, doing everything you possibly can to maximize your edge, you will eventually go bankrupt on ideals.
lookism is a type of prejudice. it should be illegal if you're applying for a job.
california rulez
But ok if applying for marriage.
Back to the old problem are people merely productivity machines that you discard when the market for their services is below the cost to maintain or compensate them or is there another, non-monetary value that we hire and retain people. Are people the 'means' or the 'ends' for an employer? If means, then attractiveness to the customer, if that is a requirement dictated by the market, matters in hiring and firing.
If 'means', then laissez-faire is the answer. If 'ends', then regulation and compulsory actions may be required. Or like the US, some mix of both.
Purely means, the government does nothing to help small business.
We are able to? I think the fact you're even asking if people should be allowed basic freedoms shouldn't' be allowed.
Basic freedom to discriminate against people? What about the freedom of those being discriminated against? You have a privileged perspective.
I think there are more important issues to discuss first. Like getting property rights and corporate personhood under democratic and government control and amendable to the common good
This is part of that very issue and the securing of such rights. If you are excluded based on age or appearance, it is an injustice. Thus, to debate about it and try and combat it only helps the battle for the common good. It is battling corporate behaviors, such as ageism and sexism. It is part of the good you seek. :)
These kids could hardly tell the truth because that would mean they have to go against their virtue signalling status quo, actually grow a pair and talk about reality not ideals. Business is competition and if you are not, doing everything you possibly can to maximize your edge, you will eventually go bankrupt on ideals.