Petition to include "size discrimination" in Human Rights Act

[whiteout]

Guess the HAES and FA nonsense wasn't enough, now people want their poor choices to be protected by law.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3264137/edmonton-woman-wants-size-discrimination-included-in-alberta-human-rights-act/

[bjstare]

Looooool.

Girl gets told her depression, anxiety, and ADHD will go away if she loses weight is crying because she doesn't like hearing the truth. What a world we live in. It disgusts me on multiple levels that obese people want to celebrate their unhealthiness.

There aren't enough facepalms to describe how I feel about this.




edit: I don't recall seeing how old that doughnut monster is, but I bet she's a millenial.

[theken]

I hate this world, I am excited for it to be over, counting the days.

[schocker]

Outside of having a medical condition, it sucks there is nothing that can be done about maintaining an unhealthy weight and/or losing weight to prevent/mitigate health issues. :banghead:

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by cjblair
Looooool.

Girl gets told her depression, anxiety, and ADHD will go away if she loses weight is crying because she doesn't like hearing the truth. What a world we live in. It disgusts me on multiple levels that obese people want to celebrate their unhealthiness.

There aren't enough facepalms to describe how I feel about this.




edit: I don't recall seeing how old that doughnut monster is, but I bet she's a millenial.

Could not agree more. There is always an excuse to help with the justification.

To add to this, I was recently in Disney World and the people absolutely disgusted me. There were rides we went on and we weren't even restrained because the lap bars were 8" off our laps due to the sheer size of the people besides us. I've never seen so many fat scooters in my life, all with a 2L pop and a turkey leg on board. The worst one I saw was a guy in a 'wheel chair', had his wife pushing him around, then he got to the ride, jumped out of his chair, grabbed the lineup fence on either side so it was like a pair of gymnastics parallel bars, and started fooling around like a little kid. After the ride (which he easily boarded under his own power) it was back to the chair.

[suntan]

Oh I thought this was about penis size.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[jwslam]

Does this mean I can ride the kiddy roller coaster now? They said I was too tall :cry:

[HomespunLobster]

http://i.imgur.com/ZuuBjaM.jpg

Can't wait for the future to be like this. No need to worry about hip or knee replacements if you never have to walk!

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by schocker
Outside of having a medical condition, it sucks there is nothing that can be done about maintaining an unhealthy weight and/or losing weight to prevent/mitigate health issues. :banghead:

There's no medical conditions that violates calories in > calories out = fat. Ain't no magical fat people when there is a famine or in a concentration camp.

Only valid thing that would come out of this would be height disrimination both for the tall and the short which is something that people simply cannot change.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


Could not agree more. There is always an excuse to help with the justification.

To add to this, I was recently in Disney World and the people absolutely disgusted me. There were rides we went on and we weren't even restrained because the lap bars were 8" off our laps due to the sheer size of the people besides us. I've never seen so many fat scooters in my life, all with a 2L pop and a turkey leg on board. The worst one I saw was a guy in a 'wheel chair', had his wife pushing him around, then he got to the ride, jumped out of his chair, grabbed the lineup fence on either side so it was like a pair of gymnastics parallel bars, and started fooling around like a little kid. After the ride (which he easily boarded under his own power) it was back to the chair.

I was just thinking about this. I can see all the news articles about stores, amusement parks, airlines, restaurants etc "violating someone's human rights" because they did not make their facilities accessible to the 500lb lady with her scooter.....

Sorry we should never promote or protect unhealthy lifestyles.(obviously I'm not referring to people with medical conditions)

[Seth1968]

Last fall, she created a social media campaign with the obesity network called the Weight of Living, inspired by Humans of New York. Photos of overweight and obese Canadians were posted on the obesity network’s Facebook page, along with their personal story. However, the photos were not shared in the context of “I want to lose weight” or “this is the before picture.” Instead, the posts celebrated the individuals for exactly who they are.

A network to celebrate obesity. The fuck.

What about the physical requirements for cops, firefighters, ems, etc ?

[Cody D]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


There's no medical conditions that violates calories in > calories out = fat. Ain't no magical fat people when there is a famine or in a concentration camp.

Only valid thing that would come out of this would be height disrimination both for the tall and the short which is something that people simply cannot change.

This is what I assumed this thread would be about, short guys get the worst end of the stick.

The doctor who says it may be impossible for someone to lose weight as their joints don't allow them to exercise just doesn't understand how weight loss works.

Intermittent fasting is the easiest thing to do and you can lose weight without watching calories. Still not losing weight just change your hour spread.

[HiTempguy1]

There are similar petitions in Ontario, B.C. and Manitoba. It’s all part of a national #SizeismSUCKS campaign created by Toronto activist Jill Andrew.

Hahahahahahaha

Ya, sizeism does suck... those that face it are usually sucking down too much junk :rofl:

[jwslam]

Size-is-M sucks. I want all size-is-XXXL. Fries, and coke... and then pants. Also my quad-quad timmy's coffee is very important.

:barf: :barf:

[Swank]

My one trip through the Texas airport was a real eye-opener, and when I bought a chocolate chip muffin half the size of my head for $1 it made sense :nut:

[J-hop]

Originally posted by jwslam
Size-is-M sucks. I want all size-is-XXXL. Fries, and coke... and then pants. Also my quad-quad timmy's coffee is very important.

:barf: :barf:

It's all about the Gretzky bro

[asp integra]

hahaha fu*k off. What is this world coming to???????????

[whiteout]

Originally posted by Swank
My one trip through the Texas airport was a real eye-opener, and when I bought a chocolate chip muffin half the size of my head for $1 it made sense :nut:

Especially when you consider the fact that a chocolate chip muffin from Tim Hortons is like 420 calories.

[max_boost]

Can't wait to see an obese person working at Joeys

[J-hop]

Originally posted by max_boost
Can't wait to see an obese person working at Joeys

Joey's is sacred, that would be a violation of my rights :rofl:

[JRSC00LUDE]

Good grief. What a loser.

[msommers]

Originally posted by max_boost
Can't wait to see an obese person working at Joeys

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Will-Ferrell-As-Ron-Burgandy-Smells-Something-Funny-Snarls-In-Anchorman_408x408.jpg

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/3840974/nicholas-cage-flipping-out-o.gif

[Gestalt]

Airlines already bend over backwards for the Obese. If you are a fat slob, it's general only your fault.

You have 3 options. Get off your ass, eat less. Buy 2 seats. Don't fly.

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Doesn't CPS require that applicants be a minimum weight and height... so would this work the other way, and open the flood gate for skinny wimps to get into the force?

Not for many years now, they dramatically dropped standards when women started applying in bigger numbers, as well as physical requirements of performance, how much you can drag or carry were all reduced from what my friend told me.

[Feruk]

I was worried this was about midgets... Good thing it's some other stupid shit, cuz discriminating against midgets is awesome!

[Dumbass17]

Originally posted by cjblair
Looooool.

Girl gets told her depression, anxiety, and ADHD will go away if she loses weight is crying because she doesn't like hearing the truth. What a world we live in. It disgusts me on multiple levels that obese people want to celebrate their unhealthiness.

There aren't enough facepalms to describe how I feel about this.




edit: I don't recall seeing how old that doughnut monster is, but I bet she's a millenial.

+1.

Coles Notes: Pig complains about being a pig.


I highly recommend watching Bill Burr's new netflix standup.
He goes on about fat shaming. It's solid.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Feruk
I was worried this was about midgets... Good thing it's some other stupid shit, cuz discriminating against midgets is awesome!
I was raised by a midget, so I take offense to that.

[Power_Of_Rotary]

we should ban fat people and not race/religion. get them their own country :)

[suntan]

Might fuck up the rotation of the Earth then.

[bjstare]

Originally posted by suntan
Might fuck up the rotation of the Earth then.

:rofl:

[Power_Of_Rotary]

Originally posted by suntan
Might fuck up the rotation of the Earth then.

dayum

[jwslam]

Originally posted by suntan
Might fuck up the rotation of the Earth then.
Plus side: Might prevent rising sea levels and tsunamis?

[HiTempguy1]

Save the whales... By giving them rights? :Rofl:

[gretz]

Originally posted by jwslam

Plus size: Might prevent rising sea levels and tsunamis?

fixed?

[jwslam]

Originally posted by jwslam

Plus size: Might prevent rising sea levels and tsunamis?

Originally posted by gretz


fixed?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[codetrap]

This thread is a perfect example of why this is needed.

Not that many years ago you could substitute in the word nigger for fat and have the same type of conversation.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by codetrap
This thread is a perfect example of why this is needed.

Not that many years ago you could substitute in the word nigger for fat and have the same type of conversation.

Completely different, you can't choose your race, but you choose to be fat. One is a serious health issue and one is just skin pigmentation.

This isn't about people wanting equal rights, it's about people wanting special consideration for poor life choices.

[Seth1968]

"It's not my fault I'm fat. I have a gland problem.

Well quit eating 'em!

In all seriousness, yes, it's as technically simple as calories in VS calories out. In reality though, I can imagine it being very difficult to go from fat to slim. Especially in a society of fast, cheap, unhealthy, but damn tasty food. It's one problem I'm glad I don't have to deal with.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by FraserB
Completely different, you can't choose your race, but you choose to be fat. One is a serious health issue and one is just skin pigmentation.

This isn't about people wanting equal rights, it's about people wanting special consideration for poor life choices. Whatever lets you sleep at night. Because you know, those fat people (niggers/jews/insert people here) don't really deserve to be treated with respect, because of their poor life choices. It's their fault.. poor life choices... whatever.. all reasons that it's ok to bully, shame, and generally disrespect them. After all.. they're inferior, or it's good for them, or there's a huge social cost... or it's acceptable to make fun of them because you're doing them some sort of service, or it's ok to punish them for being fat....

You can just ignore the fact that they're people, and continue to treat them as sub-human.. mocking and berating them in their attempts to enshrine in law their right to be treated as equal human beings.

Yeah.. totally different..... :thumbsdow

[Gman.45]

Being morbidly obese is a greater threat to our health system and people than drugs and cigarettes/drinking are combined. Giving fat people - or anyone - special rights, is the wrong approach, and I don't want to live in a country that does it.

Being fat is a choice, I can speak from past experience, and I know how fattties claim that "it's a gland/thyroid/metabolic problem and blame that on not being able to lose weight. That feels, and IS somewhat real for them, as when you become morbidly obese, you can eat what every normal size person eats, and maintain, or even gain weight, as once you are morbidly obese your body's mechanics can and do change and slow down, causing this effect. So there is some legitimacy to a fatty's claim with the metabolic/etc excuse, but it doesn't change the fact that it's THEIR fault for getting fat in the first place, and causing their body to slow down how it processes energy.

I was a typical teenager, played hockey, football, ran track, etc. I got married pretty young, 22, and was not very happy with life. Wife made me sell my things that made me happy, new Stealth Turbo, new Firebird Ram Air, etc, to get the things she wanted, like a house, and so forth. I turned to food, and went from 6'1 210 to 375 lbs at my max. I stayed this way for 5 years, until I finally left her.

Fast forward 10 months later, and due to a very disciplined diet, and weight/cardio training 6 days am/pms a week with a pro trainer who worked with celebs and new what he was doing, I lost 40lbs in one month, and kept on dropping 20lbs a month after that, while building muscle. I had to starve, as my metabolics/etc had changed, and eating a normal diet that a person training as much as I was, I wouldn't have lost much fat. So, boo hoo to those who claim they can't lose weight - you can, anyone can, it's just a matter of finding that caloric number for YOUR body in its current state, that'll make you drop the fat. Also taking that number of calories and breaking into 6 small meals helps a lot too, combined with massive h20 intake.

Next time I saw my xwife 10 months later, she walked right by me and didn't recognize me even when I tapped her on shoulder and said hi. I was 230, and had a 35" waist and 19" biceps at that time, blown up, no longer fat, a power lifter type body.

As years went by, my metabolic/etc stuff returned to normal, and for the last 9 years I have eaten like a normal person, and have never gone above 220 except for one bulking stretch to 240 when I was power lifting and did that intentionally prior to a big cut. I don't lift much these days, cardio/flexibility training mostly, but am 214 this morning.

It can be done, I did it, I had to endure the feelings of starvation, and that's the big barrier, as fatties don't have the balls to put themselves through that month of "hell" to start getting on the right track - once you're on that track, it's more addictive than eating crap food and gaining weight, and the fat flies off quickly. It's similar to drug addiction and that initial withdrawal period addicts fear so much IMO - once through that initial "hell" period, addicts seem to normalize pretty quick with the right help. Fat people can too, it's just getting them to that point where they will actually do it.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by codetrap
Whatever lets you sleep at night. Because you know, those fat people (niggers/jews/insert people here) don't really deserve to be treated with respect, because of their poor life choices. It's their fault.. poor life choices... whatever.. all reasons that it's ok to bully, shame, and generally disrespect them. After all.. they're inferior, or it's good for them, or there's a huge social cost... or it's acceptable to make fun of them because you're doing them some sort of service, or it's ok to punish them for being fat....

You can just ignore the fact that they're people, and continue to treat them as sub-human.. mocking and berating them in their attempts to enshrine in law their right to be treated as equal human beings.

Yeah.. totally different..... :thumbsdow

The problem is not people who are overweight/obese. It is the people who are trying to suppress science and facts by spreading their Fat Acceptance and Healthy At Every Size nonsense.

If they had their way, doctors would not be allowed to use scales in their offices, tell them their diabetes was caused by overeating, they'd have BMI and BMR removed as diagnostic tools and not allow doctors to refuse to operate on people who it's not safe to operate on.

The cost of physical inactivity and excess weight was $34 billion in 2013, compared to $19 billion for smoking. Excess weight is being normalized and celebrated in North America, when steps should be being taken to show the impact of it and curb the rising numbers. Instead, we're raising generations of people with no concept of health, portion sizes or what a healthy weight actually looks like.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by FraserB
The problem is not people who are overweight/obese. It is the people who are trying to suppress science and facts by spreading their Fat Acceptance and Healthy At Every Size nonsense.

If they had their way, doctors would not be allowed to use scales in their offices, tell them their diabetes was caused by overeating, they'd have BMI and BMR removed as diagnostic tools and not allow doctors to refuse to operate on people who it's not safe to operate on.

The cost of physical inactivity and excess weight was $34 billion in 2013, compared to $19 billion for smoking. Excess weight is being normalized and celebrated in North America, when steps should be being taken to show the impact of it and curb the rising numbers. Instead, we're raising generations of people with no concept of health, portion sizes or what a healthy weight actually looks like. LOL.. Nice strawman argument. "They're trying to suppress science"..."If they had their way"... And then making up numbers to try to drive your point home.... unless you're using American numbers?

None of which is true, nor does it matter in one bit...... I see people who are struggling to not be discriminated against. Or made fun of, or mocked. Fat discrimination is real, and this thread only goes to prove that legal protection for discrimination against how a person looks is required.

Edit, Thanks for reminding me why I took a little vacation from beyond. Talking with you people is such a waste of time. Bye.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[JRSC00LUDE]

More rules, more laws, it'll make the world better. Just you wait Jimmy, you'll see!!!!! :rofl: :facepalm:

If you think this needs to be a LAW, you're part of what's wrong with the world.....we don't need a law for every single fucking thing in society.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by codetrap
LOL.. Nice strawman argument. "They're trying to suppress science"..."If they had their way"... And then making up numbers to try to drive your point home.... unless you're using American numbers?

None of which is true, nor does it matter in one bit...... I see people who are struggling to not be discriminated against. Or made fun of, or mocked. Fat discrimination is real, and this thread only goes to prove that legal protection for discrimination against how a person looks is required.

Edit, Thanks for reminding me why I took a little vacation from beyond. Talking with you people is such a waste of time. Bye.

You're going to call out a strawman after you're the one that's guilty of false equivalency? Nice hypocritical argument there...

Here's a refresher since you clearly don't have a clue as to logical fallacies.



False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by codetrap
Edit, Thanks for reminding me why I took a little vacation from beyond. Talking with you people is such a waste of time. Bye.

Coming from one of THE most intolerant, close-minded, "my view or the highway" kind of posters on here. YOU'RE the reason you needed to take a break from here, don't blame others.

L.
O.
L.

I used to think I misunderstood your posts, till it became apparent that you're so blinded by your own self-righteous train of thought that you couldn't even see it. There's not even anything wrong with that, or being that way, people should be true to their opinions. It's just hilarious how you deride everyone else who doesn't tow your line, you just try to clean your insults up with a few more passive aggressive nicety's than most. :rofl:

[killramos]

haha, fat people :rofl:

[FraserB]

Originally posted by codetrap
LOL.. Nice strawman argument. "They're trying to suppress science"..."If they had their way"... And then making up numbers to try to drive your point home.... unless you're using American numbers?

None of which is true, nor does it matter in one bit...... I see people who are struggling to not be discriminated against. Or made fun of, or mocked. Fat discrimination is real, and this thread only goes to prove that legal protection for discrimination against how a person looks is required.

Edit, Thanks for reminding me why I took a little vacation from beyond. Talking with you people is such a waste of time. Bye.

Here is the source for my made up numbers.


The Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) is the national, independent, not-for-profit, voluntary association representing public health in Canada. CPHA’s members believe in universal and equitable access to the basic conditions which are necessary to achieve health for all Canadians.

Seems like a shady organization and the references included in the paper are probably full of lies too.

http://www.cpha.ca/uploads/e-mail/cjph/v106i4/Volume_106_4_e171-e177.pdf

[JfuckinC]

:
“Unfortunately, appearance-based discrimination is not a protected ground under the Act. Adding appearance-based discrimination to the Alberta Human Rights Act is not just about protecting those who are fat. Protection against physical appearance discrimination means no one can lose their job or be denied housing because of body modifications, because of alopecia, scars, height, and many other differences that make us unique.”


I dunno, this is a weird argument, people choose to eat what they eat, exercise or not, take care of themselves, everyday choices that affect their physical/mental well being... They choose to modify their bodies, get tattoo's piercings etc(this is what they mean by body modification no?). They don't choose to have alopecia/scars/be tall and freaky lol... I mean, I don't think anyone should be discriminated against/shamed. But why Lump natural differences in with chosen differences? Very confusing approach in my opinion. :dunno:

(I have nothing against "big" people or people with Body Mods, Just pointing this out lol)

[FraserB]

And FWIW, the US cost estimate is somewhere north of $300 billion, if this Bloomberg article from 2015 is correct.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-05/american-economy-has-a-weight-problem-as-costs-of-obesity-mount

[Antonito]

You guys are arguing past each other.

-Obesity is a major problem that can and should be fixed. Correct

-We shouldn't treat people as sub humans. Correct

Here's what you guys are setting up in your minds as straw men:

-Obese people are human garbage

-We should completely enable obesity and celebrate it

Gman.45 gave an excellent example of the main problem with obesity but missed the most important aspect. Obviously willpower is the key to losing weight, but how does an obese person build up that willpower? And why is it so hard to do it when so many others have no problem abstaining from overeating? His own story provided the clues. He used food to deal with his depression/unhappiness and once he got rid of the main contributor to that negativity (his miserable marriage) he was able to power through the misery of losing weight. So why do people act as if the only component to losing weight is willpower? Why not address the underlying mental issues first (or at least at the same time) and then have a much higher rate of success?

Note that I'm talking about serious obesity, not putting on 30lbs because you're 30 and you like cheeseburgers until one day you decided to take up jogging and subbed in a green salad for cheese fries. I'm talking so fat that it impacts every aspect of a persons life but eating is the only thing that makes them happy

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by JfuckinC
But why Lump natural differences in with chosen differences? Very confusing approach in my opinion. :dunno:

Because lack of accountability for choices and decisions.

Everything is someone else's fault (much like Code's justification for his "vacation" :rofl: ). This person is just using additional wording to justify her own issues, which are all she really cares about.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by codetrap
Whatever lets you sleep at night. Because you know, those fat people (****) don't really deserve to be treated with respect, because of their poor life choices. It's their fault.. poor life choices... whatever.. all reasons that it's ok to bully, shame, and generally disrespect them. After all.. they're inferior, or it's good for them, or there's a huge social cost... or it's acceptable to make fun of them because you're doing them some sort of service, or it's ok to punish them for being fat....

You can just ignore the fact that they're people, and continue to treat them as sub-human.. mocking and berating them in their attempts to enshrine in law their right to be treated as equal human beings.

Yeah.. totally different..... :thumbsdow

There is a huge difference between violating someone's rights and being insensitive or even "discriminating" with legitimate cause. You should not be allowed to refuse to hire someone for a manual labor job because an applicants skin is brown. But you should absolutely be able to refuse to hire someone who is overweight and will not be able to perform the job properly (I'm sure you will agree discrimination is completely warranted in that case and should not have laws that prevent peopl/employers from doing so). There absolutely is a difference....

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by J-hop


There is a huge difference between violating someone's rights and being insensitive or even "discriminating" with legitimate cause. You should not be allowed to refuse to hire someone for a manual labor job because an applicants skin is brown.

If I own a business, aren't my rights being violated by making it a crime to only hire whoever the heck I want?

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968


If I own a business, aren't my rights being violated by making it a crime to only hire whoever the heck I want?

No because you don't have right to discriminate based on skin colour. Is that what you are getting at? There is no right being violated there by forcing you to remove skin colour from the equation.

What I'm getting at is there are a mountain of cases in which discrimination against obese people is actually warranted. There are zero cases where skin colour discrimination is warranted. They are not even close to comparable.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by J-hop


No because you don't have right to discriminate based on skin colour.

I understand that, but my question is, "Why is that not my right, or anyone else's for that matter"?

It's my life, my opinion, and my personal business. Why should anyone else have the right to incriminate me in this regard? It should be my right / prerogative to only hire Asians for example.

[JfuckinC]

Originally posted by Seth1968


I understand that, but my question is, "Why is that not my right, or anyone else's for that matter"?

It's my life, my opinion, and my personal business. Why should anyone else have the right to incriminate me in this regard? It should be my right / prerogative to only hire Asians for example.

Well I mean, you just don't tell anyone that's what you're doing an act like its a coincidence if anyone notices, or make up some BS excuse... As if that doesn't happen every day anyway haha :poosie:

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by JfuckinC


Well I mean, you just don't tell anyone that's what you're doing an act like its a coincidence if anyone notices, or make up some BS excuse... As if that doesn't happen every day anyway haha :poosie:

National post recently had an article on how the federal gov can't "mandate" everyone like islam/muslims. And they are right.

I have the right to dislike (even hate) whatever I want. :dunno: Some of these laws are bullshit, well, actually the entire Charter is and should never have been put into law :banghead:

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968


I understand that, but my question is, "Why is that not my right, or anyone else's for that matter"?

It's my life, my opinion, and my personal business. Why should anyone else have the right to incriminate me in this regard? It should be my right / prerogative to only hire Asians for example.

Yea I guess I was getting at a more fundemental question of what right of yours is being violated at that point?

You can have the opinion that everyone with a certain skin colour should be punched in the face but creating laws that make it illegal to act on your opinion doesn't violate your rights. Stupid example I know. But I fail to see how I'm either case your rights are being violated?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by J-hop


Yea I guess I was getting at a more fundemental question of what right of yours is being violated at that point?

You can have the opinion that everyone with a certain skin colour should be punched in the face but creating laws that make it illegal to act on your opinion doesn't violate your rights. Stupid example I know. But I fail to see how I'm either case your rights are being violated?

Because as HT said, I have the right to hate whoever I want. But, it doesn't even need to go that far. For example, I could claim that I don't hate any particular race, but I prefer Asian workers for my business, so I only hire Asians. That would be a criminal act, and that's BS.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Because as HT said, I have the right to hate whoever I want. But, it doesn't even need to go that far. For example, I could claim that I don't hate any particular race, but I prefer Asian workers for my business, so I only hire Asians. That would be a criminal act, and that's BS.

But making it illegal to discriminate against someone you hate doesn't remove any right from you. You are allowed to hate whoever you want but you are not allowed to take action.

It's not really BS when you think about the big picture and why these laws are in place. We are just barely getting to what I'd consider an enlightened culture. In our parents generation these like discrimination based on skin colour was perfectly acceptable and exercised on a mass scale.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by J-hop


You are allowed to hate whoever you want but you are not allowed to take action

Not hiring someone is the exact opposite of taking action. Wherein lies the problem, its basically thought policing.

Your logic, is the exact kind of logic that eventually gets us to "accept" pedophiles as normal, decent human beings who should be welcomed in society. :dunno:

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by J-hop


But making it illegal to discriminate against someone you hate doesn't remove any right from you. You are allowed to hate whoever you want but you are not allowed to take action.

It's not really BS when you think about the big picture and why these laws are in place. We are just barely getting to what I'd consider an enlightened culture. In our parents generation these like discrimination based on skin colour was perfectly acceptable and exercised on a mass scale.


It removes my right to think the way I want. I'm not talking about going out and shooting people because I hate their race. I'm saying it shouldn't be illegal for a personal business owner to discriminate based on their opinion (whatever that may be). In other words, I don't think a business owner should be criminalized just because someone else claims their feelings were hurt.

I understand the big picture, but I'm not talking about the public sector. I'm talking about the private individual who should be allowed to discriminate all they want, and for any reason (provided they're not physically hurting another). On the surface that may seem harsh, but it's also real freedom.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Not hiring someone is the exact opposite of taking action. Wherein lies the problem, its basically thought policing.

Your logic, is the exact kind of logic that eventually gets us to "accept" pedophiles as normal, decent human beings who should be welcomed in society. :dunno:

Not really, I was talking skin colour not criminal behaviour I don't know what you are implying by making that comparison .

Not hiring someone absolutely is taking action. Whether you decide to hire someone or not you are making a decision and acting on that decision.

A business is not a person at the end of the day. You are not violating anyone's right to free thought.

Edit: anyways I was just simply trying to make a distinction between things like skin colour and someone's physical fitness. There is absolutely no situation where the colour of someone's skin has any implication on the persons ability to perform a task whereas there are 1000's of situations where someone's weight does have implications. Equating the two is just poor logic

[Seth1968]

Let's put it this way J-hop:

You open a small grocery store. I then tell you who you can and cannot hire, and if you don't abide, you'll be criminalized and sent to jail".

I suspect your internal reaction would be, "Screw you, it's my business and I have a right to hire whoever I want".

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Let's put it this way J-hop:

You open a small grocery store. I then tell you who you can and cannot hire, and if you don't abide, you'll be criminalized and sent to jail".

I suspect your internal reaction would be, "Screw you, it's my business and I have a right to hire whoever I want".

I don't really follow the stretch I feel you're making.

It absolutely doesn't tell you who you can or can't hire. It just says skin colour can't be a qualifier or comparison metric between two applicants. I think you'll agree that outside of our debate that actually makes complete sense. Then you also would run into the issue of where to draw the line. What size of company before you'd introduce anti race discrimination laws if allowed your option?

But again this is not the point I'm trying to make. Just wante d to hilight the false equivalency of race and physical fitness


Edit: I guess I'm not really following. Let's take a hiring situation where two applicants are of different race can you explain how a law not allowing skin colour as a qualifier tells you who you can and can't hire?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by J-hop
Edit: I guess I'm not really following. Let's take a hiring situation where two applicants are of different race can you explain how a law not allowing skin colour as a qualifier tells you who you can and can't hire?

Ok, let's take that scenario and extend it to me telling one of those applicants that I won't hire them because I think their race is lazy. Now that would be illegal, and my main question is why? I'm not looking for a generic "because it's discrimination" answer, but rather why exactly is discrimination illegal in this regard? The only answer I can see to that question is, "because it hurts someone else's feelings".

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Ok, let's take that scenario and extend it to me telling one of those applicants that I won't hire them because I think their race is lazy. Now that would be illegal, and my main question is why? I'm not looking for a generic "because it's discrimination" answer, but rather why exactly is discrimination illegal in this regard? The only answer I can see to that question is, "because it hurts someone else's feelings".

Interesting example, worth debating. I don't think I can offer an intelligent response off the cuff.

I am still grappling with what right of yours would be violated by saying you can't compare race when making the decision. You still aren't limited in any way shape or form on your thought. Just your actions. That is the sticking point for me

[whiteout]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Ok, let's take that scenario and extend it to me telling one of those applicants that I won't hire them because I think their race is lazy. Now that would be illegal, and my main question is why? I'm not looking for a generic "because it's discrimination" answer, but rather why exactly is discrimination illegal in this regard? The only answer I can see to that question is, "because it hurts someone else's feelings".

In the case of telling the applicant that you think their race is lazy, you aren't seeing any evidence that THEY are lazy.

If you had a someone who was dressed in ripped jeans and tshirt in front of you applying for a professional job, you could SEE that they probably don't care enough to bother at the interview, so why would they bother to do any better at the job.

If you had someone who was obese applying for a position, you would know that statistically they will take more sick days and you might have to make accommodations that you would not have to make with an employee who was a healthy weight. Depending on your business, an obese person might not be the image that you want your business to have. Would you take advice when buying sports equipment, fitness gear or health food from someone who is less likely to be experienced with those items?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by J-hop


Interesting example, worth debating. I don't think I can offer an intelligent response off the cuff.

I am still grappling with what right of yours would be violated by saying you can't compare race when making the decision. You still aren't limited in any way shape or form on your thought. Just your actions. That is the sticking point for me

But my actions in this scenario aren't physically hurting anyone. Granted, they may be emotionally hurt, but that emotional hurt is of their own choosing. For example, the recipient of my remark will typically have either 1 of 2 reactions:

1) I'm emotionally hurt, and the law says you are to be jailed for hurting my feelings (again even though the recipient chooses whether or not their feelings are hurt).

2) It's your business, and none of my business who you choose to hire or not to hire.

If they choose #1, then they are not only erroneously claiming their rights are being violated, but they are actually trampling on the rights of the business owner.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by whiteout


In the case of telling the applicant that you think their race is lazy, you aren't seeing any evidence that THEY are lazy.

That's irrelevant to my point.

We should all have the right to think and act with total freedom provided that such freedom does not physically injure someone, or inhibit anothers right to such freedom.

[zhao]

Originally posted by J-hop

There is absolutely no situation where the colour of someone's skin has any implication on the persons ability to perform a task whereas there are 1000's of situations where someone's weight does have implications. Equating the two is just poor logic

There is.

An undercover gang cop isn't going to work in Compton if he's ginger white.

An Asian girl isn't infiltrating Al-Qaeda.

A black guy isn't going to be a good salesman at a KKK convention.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968


But my actions in this scenario aren't physically hurting anyone. Granted, they may be emotionally hurt, but that emotional hurt is of their own choosing. For example, the recipient of my remark will have either 1 of 2 reactions:

1) I'm emotionally hurt, and the law says you are to be jailed for hurting my feelings (again even though the recipient chooses whether or not their feelings are hurt).

2) It's your business, and none of my business who you choose to hire or not to hire.

If they choose #1, then they are not only erroneously claiming their rights are being violated, but they are actually trampling on the rights of the business owner.

Well for someone like me for example. I don't have any financial support from family or friends. If I don't have a job I don't eat simple as that.. I'm less worried about my feelings than I am about providing for my family. If everyone were allowed to discriminate against me based on my skin colour I may never be able to provide for my family.


Originally posted by zhao


There is.

An undercover gang cop isn't going to work in Compton if he's ginger white.

An Asian girl isn't infiltrating Al-Qaeda.

A black guy isn't going to be a good salesman at a KKK convention.

Ok 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the time, sorry. I didn't think James Bond.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by J-hop


Well for someone like me for example. I don't have any financial support from family or friends. If I don't have a job I don't eat simple as that.. I'm less worried about my feelings than I am about providing for my family. If everyone were allowed to discriminate against me based on my skin colour I may never be able to provide for my family.

That may be true, but the private business owner should not be under any obligation to hire you, or anyone else for that matter.

Curious J-hop. Would you choose #1, #2, or something else from one of my previous posts?

[max_boost]

:nut: :nut: :nut:

[Antonito]

What is with all this theoretical horseshit? We don't need to guess at what the outcome could be, these laws were written to specifically deal with the fact that black people were discriminated against to the point that they could not get meaningful employment*. Take all this safe space snowflake bullshit about your rights being violated because black people existing offends you and fuck off to the 1950s

*This was the case in America, Canada just followed suit on the rules because we're not a bunch of twats

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Antonito
What is with all this theoretical horseshit? We don't need to guess at what the outcome could be, these laws were written to specifically deal with the fact that black people were discriminated against to the point that they could not get meaningful employment*. Take all this safe space snowflake bullshit about your rights being violated because black people existing offends you and fuck off to the 1950s


Except, I'm not personally agreeing or disagreeing with my points. I could switch sides in an instant.

I just want to know why a personal business owner can be criminalized for choosing who they hire, or not hire.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968


That may be true, but the private business owner should not be under any obligation to hire you, or anyone else for that matter.

Curious J-hop. Would you choose #1, #2, or something else from one of my previous posts?

I wouldn't choose either. This isn't about hurting someone's feelings, I think you are smart enough to realize that is a pretty naive view of racism

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Except, I'm not personally agreeing or disagreeing with my points. I could switch sides in an instant.

I just want to know why a personal business owner can be criminalized for choosing who they hire, or not hire.

Wonderful, I hope this look at incredibly recent and nearly universally known history has been illuminating

[Gman.45]

More rules, more laws, it'll make the world better. Just you wait Jimmy, you'll see!!!!! If you think this needs to be a LAW, you're part of what's wrong with the world.....we don't need a law for every single fucking thing in society.

I have a similar opinion - less regulation and rules, not more, and NO special rights for people who CHOOSE their "condition", be it trans-whatever, or being obese. I do agree with Antonito's points somewhat, in that we need not be cruel about solving the problem, but again, I don't want to swing so far away from trying to be "nice" about it, that we give special rights which do nothing but reward and reinforce poor choices and behavior.



You guys are arguing past each other. -Obesity is a major problem that can and should be fixed. Correct -We shouldn't treat people as sub humans. Correct Here's what you guys are setting up in your minds as straw men: -Obese people are human garbage -We should completely enable obesity and celebrate it Gman.45 gave an excellent example of the main problem with obesity but missed the most important aspect. Obviously willpower is the key to losing weight, but how does an obese person build up that willpower? And why is it so hard to do it when so many others have no problem abstaining from overeating? His own story provided the clues. He used food to deal with his depression/unhappiness and once he got rid of the main contributor to that negativity (his miserable marriage) he was able to power through the misery of losing weight. So why do people act as if the only component to losing weight is willpower? Why not address the underlying mental issues first (or at least at the same time) and then have a much higher rate of success? Note that I'm talking about serious obesity, not putting on 30lbs because you're 30 and you like cheeseburgers until one day you decided to take up jogging and subbed in a green salad for cheese fries. I'm talking so fat that it impacts every aspect of a persons life but eating is the only thing that makes them happy

I can agree with some/most of that, but still, regardless of the "why's" of obesity, the results are exactly as FraserB has pointed out, a medical/human catastrophe, and people here are on board with enabling it? I don't understand that. Again, it's not discrimination to not hire somebody due to being morbidly obese IMO - they move more slowly, have more sick days typically, longer lunch/break/bathroom time is often required. Again, I speak only from my personal experience, I'm sure some morbidly obese can work many jobs, but it's BS to think they could work in an intense physical job, like say a roughneck, or work in a job which requires combat/warfare skills - which is what I became once I got in fighting shape.

I think this pussy whipped super left method of having boo-hoo parties with the media over issues like obesity which are 100% related to CHOICE, is ridiculous. What's worse is their solution, which is instead of fixing the problem, to enable and defend it and make it illegal to criticize and correct their problems.

Being of libertarian mind, I'm against most government regulation, and even though I would never support it, I would be more in favor of rules/laws which enforced medical intervention with obesity, LONG before I supported these left/liberal enabling/protection law ideas. The sad fact is this is the world we have, one of fast food, terrible ingredients and additives in junk food, and a world with a lot of pain and suffering in so many ways - which is why 1/3 of us or more are morbidly obese in North America. I'm not sure how to solve that, but I do know that laws protecting and enabling this behavior are a 100% no go for me.

[rx7boi]

Damn, that's nuts.

How long until personality traits get added to this list?

You'll certainly face discrimination if you're an uppity SJW bitch who acts like you shit gold.

[Swank]

Curious about the views of discriminating against smokers vs obese people; should the same rules apply?

29 states and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination based on legal activities outside the workplace, which includes smoking tobacco. In these states, it is illegal for an employer not to hire you simply because you are a smoker.

Smoking is a choice, smokers typically take more sick days a year, and more smoke breaks. They have reduced pulmonary capacity which would impact their abilities for work requiring physical exertion.

I know some people would pay more to eat at a restaurant with non-smoking staff (especially cooking staff), and they wouldn't even think twice if the price was the same.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Swank
Curious about the views of discriminating against smokers vs obese people; should the same rules apply?

29 states and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination based on legal activities outside the workplace, which includes smoking tobacco. In these states, it is illegal for an employer not to hire you simply because you are a smoker.

Smoking is a choice, smokers typically take more sick days a year, and more smoke breaks. They have reduced pulmonary capacity which would impact their abilities for work requiring physical exertion.

I know some people would pay more to eat at a restaurant with non-smoking staff (especially cooking staff), and they wouldn't even think twice if the price was the same.

How far should a company have to put themselves out to accommodate workers though?

Do you feel that employers should have to spend more money to buy specialized officer furniture to accommodate higher weight? Should they have to buy more expensive uniforms to accommodate larger bodies? Should they have to allow frequent, extended breaks due to physical exertion? Provide mobility aids for employees?

Would you be ok with the cost of these things being passed onto the workers who require them or should the employer be forced to pay more to make accommodations? Or should the employer be allowed to assess the pros and cons of each potential hire and make their own decision?

As for the cost of smoking compared to excess weight/inactivity, there is a paper a few pages back showing the cost of smoking is now less than excess weight.

[max_boost]

Business owners just have to be smarter about it.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
Coming from one of THE most intolerant, close-minded, "my view or the highway" kind of posters on here. YOU'RE the reason you needed to take a break from here, don't blame others.

I used to think I misunderstood your posts, till it became apparent that you're so blinded by your own self-righteous train of thought that you couldn't even see it. There's not even anything wrong with that, or being that way, people should be true to their opinions. It's just hilarious how you deride everyone else who doesn't tow your line, you just try to clean your insults up with a few more passive aggressive nicety's than most. :rofl: You're absolutely correct that I'm intolerant to stupid childish behavior. The first 30 odd posts in this thread are people, including yourself, calling fat people stupid, losers, lazy, slobs, pigs, etc... So, I guess it's not okay to stand up and say, "Yeah, this is wrong." Want to call me intolerant of shit behavior that I see that is wrong, and then try to mock me because I think talking to people like that is a waste of time. Okaaaay...


Originally posted by FraserB
Here is the source for my made up numbers.
Seems like a shady organization and the references included in the paper are probably full of lies too.
http://www.cpha.ca/uploads/e-mail/cjph/v106i4/Volume_106_4_e171-e177.pdf
If you read the document, they're all estimated numbers, which you're quoting as fact. I guess that's OK if you're in the media....



Originally posted by J-hop
There is a huge difference between violating someone's rights and being insensitive or even "discriminating" with legitimate cause. You should not be allowed to refuse to hire someone for a manual labor job because an applicants skin is brown. But you should absolutely be able to refuse to hire someone who is overweight and will not be able to perform the job properly (I'm sure you will agree discrimination is completely warranted in that case and should not have laws that prevent people/employers from doing so). There absolutely is a difference.... Like all things, the reality is in the middle. There are always going to be cases where discrimination is legal and warranted. You can't hire a blind guy to be a pilot, a man in a wheelchair to be a firefighter etc.. I don't think anyone with common sense would ever argue that. Which brings up the actual topic. These people are petitioning to have a recourse for appearance based discrimination. That includes fat people, gaunt people, tattoos, body mods, people with horrible scars, etc.. It gives them a recourse to make a complaint with the human rights commission, which then would be able to actually hear the complaint and make a decision on it. These aren't exactly special rights... they're available to all Canadians. If FraserB's report is to be believed, over 50% of Canadians.

I still stand by my original point. It wasn't many years ago that this type of behavior was directed at black people, natives, homosexuals, women...

I will admit this thread took a more interesting turn ... I do have a question for gman.45


Originally posted by Gman.45
I have a similar opinion - less regulation and rules, not more, and NO special rights for people who CHOOSE their "condition", be it trans-whatever, or being obese. I do agree with Antonito's points somewhat, in that we need not be cruel about solving the problem, but again, I don't want to swing so far away from trying to be "nice" about it, that we give special rights which do nothing but reward and reinforce poor choices and behavior.. Last summer there was a young man who crashed his motorcycle at the Toronto Motorsport Park. He lost both his legs. Should he be eligible to receive protection from discrimination? He's responsible for his condition with obviously poor decisions. Or that 13 year old girl who lost her leg trying to jump onto a moving train last summer here in Calgary? Have these two forfeited any special privileges or support now that they're handicapped?

This page might be worth reading...
http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/what-are-human-rights

[mazdavirgin]

Still going with the false equivalence I see... Problem with all your examples are that you're picking stuff which cannot be fixed or altered such as skin colour or loss of legs and comparing it to something that most certainly can be changed. No one is born fat and no one is incapable of not being fat. Fat people do not violate the laws of physics and magically swell up. It's nothing like talking about discrimination due to loss of limbs, height, sex, age, skin colour. You can't change that shit but you most certainly can choose not to be fat. All it takes is eating less and exercising self control.

Want to try more logical fallacies? :facepalm:

[codetrap]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
Still going with the false equivalence I see... Problem with all your examples are that you're picking stuff which cannot be fixed or altered such as skin colour or loss of legs and comparing it to something that most certainly can be changed. No one is born fat and no one is incapable of not being fat. Fat people do not violate the laws of physics and magically swell up. It's nothing like talking about discrimination due to loss of limbs, height, sex, age, skin colour. You can't change that shit but you most certainly can choose not to be fat. All it takes is eating less and exercising self control.

Want to try more logical fallacies? :facepalm: Uh, sorry. I didn't see anything in gman.45's other posts where he limited himself to reversible conditions. Only to conditions that were brought on by personal choice. So, sorry, it's not a logical fallacy as I'm not making an argument. I'm providing a different perspective and asking him how he would evaluate it.

Also, the fact that fat is a alterable condition has absolutely no bearing on the petition they're making. Are you saying, "Lose some weight and we won't discriminate against you?" or, "Remove all your tattoos and we won't discriminate against you?". So, about people not being born fat... have you ever seen a healthy baby?

[suntan]

Wow, being fat is no longer a choice.

Bravo.

Babies are born fat? No, they're born with the weight they're supposed to be. Well, except for the ones that aren't, and if you're a big fat baby, the first thing they do is test the baby for diabetes.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by codetrap
If you read the document, they're all estimated numbers, which you're quoting as fact. I guess that's OK if you're in the media....



Do you feel the numbers in the report are incorrect or inflated? Even if they are off, you can't deny that excess weight and inactivity is a drain on healthcare/the economy.

The reference materials used in the formation of the report are all available at the bottom, do you feel those sources are biased or incorrect?

[codetrap]

Originally posted by suntan
Wow, being fat is no longer a choice.

Bravo.

Babies are born fat? No, they're born with the weight they're supposed to be. Well, except for the ones that aren't, and if you're a big fat baby, the first thing they do is test the baby for diabetes. Who's saying being fat isn't a choice? And does it matter if it's a choice? Does it make it OK to discriminate against fat people because "they made a choice"? Most healthy babies are little chubby monsters, just like they're supposed to be. Fat and happy. :)

[suntan]

Who?

Fat people, that's who.

Of course it matters if it's a choice.

Homos: no choice.

Smoker: choice.

Rapist: choice.

Fat people: choice.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by FraserB
Do you feel the numbers in the report are incorrect or inflated? Even if they are off, you can't deny that excess weight and inactivity is a drain on healthcare/the economy.

The reference materials used in the formation of the report are all available at the bottom, do you feel those sources are biased or incorrect? I have my reservations about them. They took the source data from previous years, extrapolated that, and then applied an arbitrary formula to extrapolate their estimate. It could be right, it could be off by 20B. Nobody really knows. I came across a couple of other articles that put the number closer to 4-6B in previous years with a modest growth. I completely agree that obesity is an epidemic in the developed nations. Food is cheap and easy and largely unhealthy, combined with higher stress and less leisure time. I also agree with the steps are being taken to alleviate this issue and hopefully turn it around in our young people. There's tons of stuff in my kids schools to encourage them to be active, and I'm doing my personal best to be an active parent with them... (as I type this at 5:45 PM while waiting for a report to run for work)...

None of this matters though to the original petition. Healthy, unhealthy, personally chosen, happenstance, biology.. whatever. Discriminating against fat people because of their appearance is wrong. Treating them as sub-human, mocking, deriding, name calling.. childish bullying is wrong. The first 30ish posts on this thread highlighted that there is a general attitude problem here regarding it. Overweight, fat, obese, whatever. They're still people. They're not stupid because they're fat. They're not lazy because they're fat. The issues they face are myriad and many. They deserve sympathy and support. Not derision and cruelty. At least that's my *intolerant* opinion.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by suntan
Who?

Fat people, that's who.

Of course it matters if it's a choice.

Homos: no choice.

Smoker: choice.

Rapist: choice.

Fat people: choice. So, you're ok with discrimination based on appearance if it's due to choice?

[FraserB]

You're right, no one deserves derision and ridicule. Support for dealing with whatever issues someone is facing is good, supporting positive changes is good, but I can't get behind support for an unhealthy way of living or promotion of that way of thinking.

It's good to see schools encouraging more physical activity, which is a component of being healthy. Is there anything in their curriculum that deals with proper eating (which is the biggest factor)?

[suntan]

Originally posted by codetrap
So, you're ok with discrimination based on appearance if it's due to choice? Sure. Why not?

People get discriminated because of the following, all the time:

Bad haircuts.
Bad breath.
Bad taste in clothing.
Body odour.
Being less intelligent (hell, this one can't even be controlled!)

But hey, do better than me. Codify a law that works.

[suntan]

Originally posted by FraserB
You're right, no one deserves derision and ridicule. Support for dealing with whatever issues someone is facing is good, supporting positive changes is good, but I can't get behind support for an unhealthy way of living or promotion of that way of thinking.

It's good to see schools encouraging more physical activity, which is a component of being healthy. Is there anything in their curriculum that deals with proper eating (which is the biggest factor)? Yes there's all sorts of shit in there about proper eating.

My kids won't eat a lot of junk food as a result of all that brainwashing.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by FraserB
You're right, no one deserves derision and ridicule. Support for dealing with whatever issues someone is facing is good, supporting positive changes is good, but I can't get behind support for an unhealthy way of living or promotion of that way of thinking.

It's good to see schools encouraging more physical activity, which is a component of being healthy. Is there anything in their curriculum that deals with proper eating (which is the biggest factor)? Unfortunately not that I'm aware of. About the only thing is they promote healthy snacks and lunches in the newsletters... by saying.. "feed your kids healthy snacks". Maybe other schools are doing different things. :dunno:

[zhao]

Originally posted by codetrap
So, you're ok with discrimination based on appearance if it's due to choice?

You aren't? Something wired wrong in your brain?

We are literally programmed to discriminate based on appearance. Do you date girls that are 600 pounds who shaved their head but decided to grow out their chest hair and leg hair? Do you hire the guy who shows up for an interview in a G string and a smile? Do you eat at a restaurant where everyone working there looks like a slob that slept in a gutter last night with clothes they probably haven't washed in 6 weeks?

I'm guessing discrimination based on appearance is A-ok to you in most cases.