NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1730150,00.html

Do people deserve legal protection against weight discrimination?

My first instinct is to say 'no', but considering the dangers of eating disorders and how susceptible many people are to the demands of appearance, I don't think discrimination against the obese is particularly healthy to those who aren't obese but susceptioble to fear of becoming so.

I'm torn. What do you think?

Seeing as that survey had 1,100 people, that's not alot of people. But i suppose it highlights a trend in discrimination.
Then again, if more people become fat, does it not follow that more people will feel more insecure because they are fat?

But i think the butler did it, it's always the butler. with the candlestick.

The best and only form of discrimination against the obese should be in insurance costs. Obese people have, on average, more health issues than non-obese people, their health care costs should reflect this.

Obesity carries a lot of health and productivity costs as well as the appearance issues; from a business perspective, it simply doesn't make sense to hire an obese person who clearly carries all of the associated problems of obesity as opposed to a healthy-weight person, whose health and productivity costs will be corresponding less.

That's a liability I would simply not be willing to incur unless the benefits of that obese person's skills and abilities outweigh the potential costs.

Nah. There are many circumstances where it would be perfectly reasonable not to hire a morbidly obese person on that basis.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1730150,00.html

Do people deserve legal protection against weight discrimination?

My first instinct is to say 'no', but considering the dangers of eating disorders and how susceptible many people are to the demands of appearance, I don't think discrimination against the obese is particularly healthy to those who aren't obese but susceptioble to fear of becoming so.

I'm torn. What do you think?

Yes, they need some protection, Discrimination in all form is wrong. (i am against affirmative action/positive discrimination as i feel it discrimination). If they are more capable of doing the job then any other aplincunt then it should be there. Of there weight make them incapable of doing then job then this is not discrimination as there more capable people there.
hope i am making sense as i had a few to drink:D

Should a fat person not get a job they are otherwise qualified for just because they are fat? No, there should be protection against that sort of discrimination just like there is protection against being gay or black or a woman. It may be a controllable circumstance unlike most others, but it should still be protected against hiring discrimination.

Should they be forced to face the reality of their situation through things like higher health insurance rates? Yes. In this sense, it does matter that their situation is a controllable circumstance. A black person shouldn't have higher insurance rates just because they're black because that is beyond their ability to affect. But a fat person is capable of reducing their weight and by proxy reducing their likelihood of certain illnesses. It's not discrimination to say that a fat person ought to pay more for insurance because they are a greater liability to the insurer.

Now, how to determine rates based on weight is an entirely different animal.

Should a fat person not get a job they are otherwise qualified for just because they are fat? No, there should be protection against that sort of discrimination just like there is protection against being gay or black or a woman. It may be a controllable circumstance unlike most others, but it should still be protected against hiring discrimination.


Race, gender, sexuality, weight: one of these things doesn't belong, as they say. :p

If we're going to give legal protection to people on the basis of their body fat percentage, we might as well continue with hair color, fingernail length, having a noticable mole on one's face, etc.

Race, gender, sexuality, weight: one of these things doesn't belong, as they say. :p

If we're going to give legal protection to people on the basis of their body fat percentage, we might as well continue with hair color, fingernail length, having a noticable mole on one's face, etc.

Why not? sorry but if i want long nails and it dose not inpare my capability to do the job, why should it stop me doing it. Discrimination is discrimination, no mater what it against.

As long as something doesn't impair a person's ability to do a job, it should not be discriminated against. So no morbidly obese firemen, police officers, or lifeguards...

Yes, there should be legal protection. Fat people are often treated like they are lazy, so they have to overcompensate for their perceived laziness. That's not fair.

I hate it when people pretend weight discrimination is for their own good, because being fat is so unhealthy. If they cared about health, they wouldn't be such jerks, because excessive weight often stems from insecurity, and when people act like jerks that makes the fat people even more insecure.

Has anyone ever noticed how often the mainstream news cuts off the heads of obese people in the news? FAT PEOPLE DESERVE HEADS. Kind of ironic (or just stupid) how they used this picture in an article about discrimination.

Why not? sorry but if i want long nails and it dose not inpare my capability to do the job, why should it stop me doing it. Discrimination is discrimination, no mater what it against.

The word is "impair," and the topic is legal protective status. Ideally, no one would be discriminated against for any reason, including wearing an ugly shirt, or white socks with black pants. Making the obese a protected class remains ridiculous, however.

Obesity problems probably stem more from the food choices of Americans than some widespread insecure feeling. A food pyramid built on white bread might as well be built on skittles.

The word is "impair," and the topic is legal protective status. Ideally, no one would be discriminated against for any reason, including wearing an ugly shirt, or white socks with black pants. Making the obese a protected class remains ridiculous, however.Why is that discrimination? Your socks aren't a health condition, they're something you buy and put on your feet. Most places have some dress code and there's nothing immoral about that.

Obesity problems probably stem more from the food choices of Americans than some widespread insecure feeling. A food pyramid built on white bread might as well be built on skittles.Well, I said often. I know many times it's just ignorance or unwillingness to give up fast food.

The word is "impair,"

Sorry, i am dyslexic and slightly drunk. hence bad spelling

Ideally, no one would be discriminated against for any reason, including wearing an ugly shirt, or white socks with black pants. Making the obese a protected class remains ridiculous, however
All discrimination should be (is?) illegal. The only time a fat person should be stop from hiring is if there a more suitable canadict. You can discriminate against men who want to work in a women refuge, (at least in Britain) and making it a particular class will put in place where you can discriminate (police etc) and where you can't (computer programer)

Why is that discrimination? Your socks aren't a health condition, they're something you buy and put on your feet. Most places have some dress code and there's nothing immoral about that.


Discriminaion simply means treating someone as a member of a group or class, either favorably OR unfavorably, rather than as an individual. You're bringing morality into the equation when it needn't be there. I used arbitrary examples to illustrate the point that you can't simply give protected status to anything that might turn someone off.

All discrimination should be (is?) illegal. The only time a fat person should be stop from hiring is if there a more suitable canadict. You can discriminate against men who want to work in a women refuge, (at least in Britain) and making it a particular class will put in place where you can discriminate (police etc) and where you can't (computer programer)

Yes, but where does proper discrimination end and improper discrimination begin? I would not hire an obese person unless I knew their skill advantage over other candidates outweighed potential health and PR costs that stem from their unhealthy behavior choices. When given two equally qualified candidates, I would hire the one with the healthier weight and appearance every time.

The word is "impair," and the topic is legal protective status. Ideally, no one would be discriminated against for any reason, including wearing an ugly shirt, or white socks with black pants. Making the obese a protected class remains ridiculous, however.

If you could substantially prove that fat people are discriminated against for nothing other than their weight, then you could easily make the case that it should be a protected class. I doubt that it could be proven, however.

If you're hiring for a job where the applicant's weight has no bearing on their ability to do the job (say, an accounting position), and you reject an otherwise qualified applicant because they are fat, that's discrimination in it's most easily definable form. If you hire an otherwise unqualified applicant for the job because they are fit and in shape, that's discrimination. If it is a widespread phenomenon, then it should be a protected class. Controllable though it may be, it is still a medical condition, and people with medical conditions cannot be discriminated against.

Yes, but where does proper discrimination end and improper discrimination begin? I would not hire an obese person unless I knew their skill advantage over other candidates outweighed potential health and PR costs that stem from their unhealthy behavior choices. When given two equally qualified candidates, I would hire the one with the healthier weight and appearance every time.

If you have two equally qualified candidates, then it wouldn't be discrimination in a technical sense. The other applicant was just as qualified for the job. It become discrimination when less qualified applicants get jobs over more qualified applicants just because of their respective weights. If the position you're hiring for doesn't require any sort of work that a person's weight might be a liability, then their weight should not enter into the hiring equation.

I fully agree that a person with an easily identifiable health risk such as obesity should be required to pay increased medical insurance premiums. But to not get a job in the first place just because they're fat? That's discriminatory. We could easily replace "obesity" with "smoking" and have this exact same debate.

Yes, but where does proper discrimination end and improper discrimination begin?
That why you define it within law, then you have guidance, if something fall outside the law then it a go to court and it be defined.
I would not hire an obese person unless I knew their skill advantage over other candidates outweighed potential health and PR costs that stem from their unhealthy behavior choices. When given two equally qualified candidates, I would hire the one with the healthier weight and appearance every time.
Notwo people is ever equally qualified, one is always better then the other.
PR cost with having a fat person? What PR cost?

If you could substantially prove that fat people are discriminated against for nothing other than their weight, then you could easily make the case that it should be a protected class. I doubt that it could be proven, however.

That's among the more practical reasons, I would imagine.

If you're hiring for a job where the applicant's weight has no bearing on their ability to do the job (say, an accounting position), and you reject an otherwise qualified applicant because they are fat, that's discrimination in it's most easily definable form. If you hire an otherwise unqualified applicant for the job because they are fit and in shape, that's discrimination. If it is a widespread phenomenon, then it should be a protected class. Controllable though it may be, it is still a medical condition, and people with medical conditions cannot be discriminated against.

People with disabilities are already a protected class. If a person is obese to the point that they are disabled, they may already be protected. What the Time article is concerned with is essentially discrimination based on looks.

For some people, being obese is not a result of lifestyle choices but genetics. Others have glandular disorders that causes them to gain weight uncontrollably even with a healthy diet and exercise.

I know many overweight people use the above as an excuse to hide that they don't take care of themselves, but the fact remains that an obese person should not be judged as having made bad lifestyle decisions until the person doing the judging has all the information.

For some people, being obese is not a result of lifestyle choices but genetics. Others have glandular disorders that causes them to gain weight uncontrollably even with a healthy diet and exercise.

I know many overweight people use the above as an excuse to hide that they don't take care of themselves, but the fact remains that an obese person should not be judged as having made bad lifestyle decisions until the person doing the judging has all the information.

Well, I suppose we could outlaw the use of the representativeness heuristic. That'd do it. :p

Meh, first test them to see if they have Hypothyroidism, if they do, then they can't help that they're fat, however if they do not have Hypothyroidism, then they can help it, and all bets are off.

I'd say it's a problem. But a persons weight does somewhat indicate some of the choices that they make in life, or (and I don't totally agree with this, but some people could see it this way) their work ethic. It's probably the most visible sign of these.

lol, no

If someone in morbidly obese their doing the same damage to their liver as an alcoholic. Would you discriminate against an alcoholic? I would, therefore I discriminate against morbidly obese people who got that way from bad habits. If their obese from a genuine medical problem then I would not discriminate.

Notwo people is ever equally qualified, one is always better then the other.
PR cost with having a fat person? What PR cost?

It's been shown time and again that physical attractiveness plays a role in the attitudes of other people towards you. An obese person will on average simply not make as good an impression on others as a healthy person, and that can cost the company money if they are in a position to be dealing with potential customers.

Discriminaion simply means treating someone as a member of a group or class, either favorably OR unfavorably, rather than as an individual. You're bringing morality into the equation when it needn't be there. I used arbitrary examples to illustrate the point that you can't simply give protected status to anything that might turn someone off.

What if I were to treat the person as a fat individual, causing me to not give him/her the job? I don't see 'fat people' as a class or group, I just see a number of individuals who are obese, seperately.

Should a fat person not get a job they are otherwise qualified for just because they are fat? No, there should be protection against that sort of discrimination just like there is protection against being gay or black or a woman. It may be a controllable circumstance unlike most others, but it should still be protected against hiring discrimination.

Should they be forced to face the reality of their situation through things like higher health insurance rates? Yes. In this sense, it does matter that their situation is a controllable circumstance. A black person shouldn't have higher insurance rates just because they're black because that is beyond their ability to affect. But a fat person is capable of reducing their weight and by proxy reducing their likelihood of certain illnesses. It's not discrimination to say that a fat person ought to pay more for insurance because they are a greater liability to the insurer.

Now, how to determine rates based on weight is an entirely different animal.

But often health benefits are included with a job. Also, a fat person is more likely to have to take time off for health reasons. In extreme cases they may slow down productivity if they are too fat to move quickly at a physically demanding job.

Whether or not obese people are legally protected from discrimination, I don't think it's really going to affect the rest of the population. People aren't going to be less susceptible to eating disorders because the stigma attached to obesity will persist in society. It's hard, because we live in a culture that pushes so many views at us simultaneously---being stick thin is beautiful, but buy buy buy consume consume consume, obesity is unhealthy, but love your curves---it's confusing. I think sometimes the whole embrace-your-obesity campaigns going on now are the wrong answer. While you should not judge yourself on appearance and DEFINITELY not by numbers, some people who are at risk for or who have health problems because of weight take in the message that it's okay to be obese, when it's actually causing them a lot of issues.

Question: what's wrong with discrimination? If a business owner refuses to hire a qualified person based on appearance or any other factor, he handicaps himself. As long as the discrimination isn't institutionalized across a given industry, other competitors who are not handicapped by prejudice will be more competitive by hiring the individual previously discriminated against and the prejudiced business owner will slowly choke his own company. Justice will be served through market forces. If there is no market penalty, then the prejudiced owner will be shown to have been justified in his prejudice. At least, that's a good theory and it requires no new legislation, so let's run with it.

But often health benefits are included with a job. Also, a fat person is more likely to have to take time off for health reasons. In extreme cases they may slow down productivity if they are too fat to move quickly at a physically demanding job.

Companies already include smoking surcharges in their provided group health insurance where smokers are charged an additional premium on top of the normal rates. This could easily be extended to obese people, once an acceptable definition of obese for health insurance purposes can be agreed upon.

In a physically demanding job, it would not be discriminatory to refuse to hire a fat person, as they would not be able to meet the qualifications of the job, any more than it would be discriminatory to refuse to hire a blind person to be a bus driver. It only becomes discriminatory when their weight has no bearing on their ability to do their job, such as with most desk jobs.

Obesity carries a lot of health and productivity costs as well as the appearance issues; from a business perspective, it simply doesn't make sense to hire an obese person who clearly carries all of the associated problems of obesity as opposed to a healthy-weight person, whose health and productivity costs will be corresponding less.

That's a liability I would simply not be willing to incur unless the benefits of that obese person's skills and abilities outweigh the potential costs.

That's bollocks. I'm obese myself, I've had 2 sick days so far this year due to migraine.
A colleague of mine whose weight is normal has been off for a good 2 weeks so far this year as she keeps having problems with her back.

Obesity doesn't mean more sick days or less productivity, and normal weight does not mean health.

That's bollocks. I'm obese myself, I've had 2 sick days so far this year due to migraine.
A colleague of mine whose weight is normal has been off for a good 2 weeks so far this year as she keeps having problems with her back.

Obesity doesn't mean more sick days or less productivity, and normal weight does not mean health.
An anecdote also means nothing. Statistically obese people have more sick leave. That is what is relevant.

It's been shown time and again that physical attractiveness plays a role in the attitudes of other people towards you. An obese person will on average simply not make as good an impression on others as a healthy person, and that can cost the company money if they are in a position to be dealing with potential customers.

And if you live in certain areas a black/ugly/female etc... person will not make as good an impression. They will cost the company money by not being what the customer wants. Will you discriminate against these? As they will cost the company money by not being what the customer wants.

An anecdote also means nothing. Statistically obese people have more sick leave. That is what is relevant.

Statistically, women tend to be better with languages and less good with maths. Does that mean you wouldn't employ a female engineer?
Statistics mean fuck all for personal performance.

Meh, first test them to see if they have Hypothyroidism, if they do, then they can't help that they're fat, however if they do not have Hypothyroidism, then they can help it, and all bets are off.

that is not the only medical condition or situation that can cause a person to carry weight.

People should not be discriminated against due to their health status.

But often health benefits are included with a job. Also, a fat person is more likely to have to take time off for health reasons. In extreme cases they may slow down productivity if they are too fat to move quickly at a physically demanding job.

I live in England, so we have the N.H.S. (i.e very little health benefits) so can't really talk about that as it outside my experance.
In my experance extreme cases will not be able to do a physically demanding job so there should be more capable people applying for the job so should not be a problem. The important word here is capable, if an obese person is more capable why should'nt they get the job.

Statistically, women tend to be better with languages and less good with maths. Does that mean you wouldn't employ a female engineer?
Statistics mean fuck all for personal performance.

Tell that to my car insurance company. :upyours:

Companies already include smoking surcharges in their provided group health insurance where smokers are charged an additional premium on top of the normal rates. This could easily be extended to obese people, once an acceptable definition of obese for health insurance purposes can be agreed upon.

In a physically demanding job, it would not be discriminatory to refuse to hire a fat person, as they would not be able to meet the qualifications of the job, any more than it would be discriminatory to refuse to hire a blind person to be a bus driver. It only becomes discriminatory when their weight has no bearing on their ability to do their job, such as with most desk jobs.

They can't type and unwrap twinkies at the same time. No, Im kidding.

Tell that to my car insurance company. :upyours:

What, were you looking for a job there or what?

What, were you looking for a job there or what?

No he just works for an advertising company, he needs the money you know?
It's a cruel world.

The critical question is "Is it discrimation?".

An examples: In some area hiring something of a certain ethnicity Will harm sales. It's not the fault of the ethnic salesperson, but as sales is relevant towards performance, they are clearly not the best person for the job.

Same with weight. There are certain jobs that being overweight will mean you are not the best candidate. That would not be discrimination.

Should a fat person not get a job they are otherwise qualified for just because they are fat? No, there should be protection against that sort of discrimination just like there is protection against being gay or black or a woman. It may be a controllable circumstance unlike most others, but it should still be protected against hiring discrimination.

Should they be forced to face the reality of their situation through things like higher health insurance rates? Yes. In this sense, it does matter that their situation is a controllable circumstance. A black person shouldn't have higher insurance rates just because they're black because that is beyond their ability to affect. But a fat person is capable of reducing their weight and by proxy reducing their likelihood of certain illnesses. It's not discrimination to say that a fat person ought to pay more for insurance because they are a greater liability to the insurer.

Now, how to determine rates based on weight is an entirely different animal.

"It may be a controllable circumstance unlike most others...a fat person is capable of reducing their weight..."

Ah, if that were only true! A very small percentage of fat people are successful in losing weight and keeping it off. A smaller success rate than alcoholics that successfully quit drinking, smokers who successfully quit smoking, heroin abusers who successfully quit heroin. Probably has something to do with the fact that we just can't quit food! The closest we can get to that is those stomach stapling operations, but there are all sorts of negative side effects related to them ~ be interesting to see the insurance statistics on people who have had those operations.

There is also strong evidence to support the theory that some people are genetically programmed to get fat very easily while others can't get fat no matter what they consume.

I'm afraid we all think we have more control over ourselves than we do. We definitely think other people do!

The critical question is "Is it discrimation?".

An examples: In some area hiring something of a certain ethnicity Will harm sales. It's not the fault of the ethnic salesperson, but as sales is relevant towards performance, they are clearly not the best person for the job.

Same with weight. There are certain jobs that being overweight will mean you are not the best candidate. That would not be discrimination.

But if the ethnic person did not get the job due to his ethnicity it would be discrimination (in a legal sense) so what you saying dose not work.

People who are alive and within the confines of our borders, particularly but not exclusively citizens, deserve equal protection under our law.

So, yes, there must be protection against weight discrimination so long as there are people with weight problems. The extent of these protections is determined by the letter of the law and the legal process.

People classified as obese can claim the same rights afforded to other people, even when accommodations are necessary to ensure those rights.

Obesity itself is a major health issue and I'm in favor of treating it as a pandemic. Forcing people to lose weight isn't the solution I'd want, of course not. Education and health initiatives are the answers I prefer, the "how can we help you" attitude, not the "do what we say" attitude.

It does follow, as Mad Hatter points out, that people who feel insecure may believe they are discriminated against more often than is technically the case. No one has the inherent right to make other people make them feel good. Sensitivity is appropriate, but cannot be easily legislated or enforced. Protection from discrimination only pertains to the denial of specific, established legal rights -- a person classified as obese is free to bring suit claiming that a movie, for example, discriminates against his or her rights by not having a sufficiently large person in it (or by portraying a large person unfavorably) but that suit is not going to make it very far. The film may make people feel bad, but that's not a denial of rights yet, where censorship would be a denial of the filmmakers free speech rights.