posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by tothetenthpower
And the EMPLOYEE has rights not the employer. You can't say NO to a person because of his gender, race, religion etc. Those are rights
protected under law.
This is VERY wrong and if you don't see that well...wow. That's really all I can say.
How would sexual orientation affect that persons performance at the work place? Other than making your uncomfortable, which is your problem, not
I do not condone the manager's behavior
(i.e., belittling communication), but his decision
1st, an "applicant" is not an "employee."
2nd, every employer has rights, as many as any applicant or employee.
3rd, a "service" position requires customer contact and presents the employer's "first impression" to the public. If it was obvious to the
employer that the applicant was "transgender," it would be obvious to the customer base. If that was not the image he wanted to present, he
doesn't have to.
4th, you assume the decision was based on "gender" ( or the indeterminability or lack of it) when it could easily have been based on behavior
What would you say if the applicant was covered in tattoos and piercings, with swastikas and foul language prominently displayed? Or interviewed in
drag with 3-days growth of beard? Or if he could only speak in some unintelligible gibberish or laced with vulgarity ("Yo, yo, wassup, gurrl, you
need some MickeyD grub?" "Welcome to f*****g McDonald's, dude, what can I do for your ass?" "You married, bitch, you sure look hot?")
You seem to think that everyone applying is "equally qualified" without regard to the underlying business.
If the location was South Beach or Haight Ashbury, the kid may have been an asset, in other places he's a liability.