3 ms·
None of these are discrimination in the narrower sense that it's usually understood as. 1 and 4 don't actually ban those people, they simply don't provide any
by myrion 6y ago
None of these are discrimination in the narrower sense that it's usually understood as.
1 and 4 don't actually ban those people, they simply don't provide any services that those groups of people would want.
3 is choosing not to hire people who don't actually fit the requirements of the job.
5 is paying for usage - obviously a reasonable concept, though specific policies may turn into discrimination.
2 is a reactive policy to something you have complete control over: your own behaviour. They don't care about any characteristic of you, except that you follow the rule of being polite to their staff. If the rule to follow becomes discriminatory then you'd have an argument - but that's not the example you brought up.
- CydeWeys 6y agoYes, these are all arguments you might be able to use to varying degrees of success to defend yourself against a discrimination lawsuit, but that's a lot more hassle to deal with than if said lawsuits are already just invalid on their face because discrimination is legal generally except for a few specific kinds. Also I'm not as optimistic as you are that some of these defenses would work.