Petition to include "size discrimination" in Human Rights Act

[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.

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/cj..._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/conte...e-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?

[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?

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.

[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.