Has anyone brought suit against these people, anywhere? If so, what's stopping them? What do they have to lose?

Considering the fact that she has a conflict of interest that prevents her from treating young, Hispanic males fairly, would she be allowed to create an employment policy that bars young, Hispanic males from employment?

It's that little switch again, the one that flips in people's minds and changes everything whenever the issue is related to smoking or involves smokers. Ethics get thrown out the window, as well as any right to fair treatment.

No, but not because her reasoning is not discriminatory. Discrimination on the basis of age or race, regardless of the notion or justification put forth, is illegal under the law.

Who suffers from these kind of policies? The children of parents who are discriminated against. Where are all the do-gooders who constantly whine about the welfare of the children? I don't see any of them coming forward to defend the interests of the children whose parents will be denied jobs due to Anne Gannon's repugnant employment policies.

And don't say it's not real discrimination because the courts have not defined it as such. We all know it is real discrimination regardless of how the courts have twisted their logic to exclude smokers from the human race.

I understand the frustration with this non-job related policy, but as for the guilt trip on the parent's children one could also argue that the parent who does not quit smoking in order to get the job is no better than Ms. Gannon. If someone is hurting for job and money to provide for their children but won't quit smoking or give it up and use the money to support their family is not going to garner a whole lot of sympathy.

People make sacrifices when times are tough and if the choice comes down to giving up a habit and putting on a chicken suit to earn a proper wage to feed a family, then the choice falls squarely on the parent. This is not to say the choice is not unfair, but there are plenty of people waiting in line to take an opportunity. Sometimes you do not have the luxury to risk hurting your children when the situation is dire.


No, I do not mean to say it is not real discrimination, clearly it is discrimination. I've said this before that there are many types of legal discrimination in existence. And it has nothing to do with the courts or some type of twisted logic. The fact is that discrimination is inherent in nearly all decisions a person makes. I don't support this policy, but it does not prevent any person from applying for and having the opportunity to receive the job. Yes, it is not allowing someone currently smoking from being hired, but the person can make a choice whether or not to quit smoking in order to work there.

I understand the frustration with this non-job related policy, but as for the guilt trip on the parent's children one could also argue that the parent who does not quit smoking in order to get the job is no better than Ms. Gannon. If someone is hurting for job and money to provide for their children but won't quit smoking or give it up and use the money to support their family is not going to garner a whole lot of sympathy.

People make sacrifices when times are tough and if the choice comes down to giving up a habit and putting on a chicken suit to earn a proper wage to feed a family, then the choice falls squarely on the parent. This is not to say the choice is not unfair, but there are plenty of people waiting in line to take an opportunity. Sometimes you do not have the luxury to risk hurting your children when the situation is dire.

So what you are saying is that employers should have the right to dictate their employees' behavior 24/7? In other words, the employer actually owns their employee's body, and even though the employee is allowed to leave the premises during non-working hours, they still must take care of "company property" according to their employer's dictates?

Can't you see how thin the line is between modern employment and slavery, Josh? Would you like to erase that line? If so, you have a lot more faith in corporate America than you should have.

Check out the story below for a good example of where things are headed, as far as employers becoming more and more invasive in their quest to gain total 24/7 control of their employees.

http://www.azfamily.com/outbound-feeds/yahoo-news/Hotel-owner-cuts-health-insurance-costs-with-onsite-medical-clinic-for-employees-73740887.html

Even the man himself admits that he is "Big Brother" in the lives of the people who work for him, who must follow his health rules around the clock.

The fact that sheeple blame the parents instead of blaming the employer's discriminatory hiring practice doesn't make a shred of difference, as far as the children's suffering is concerned. They are innocent victims. Children can't control adults.

There is no way that anyone can claim it is beneficial to children to deny their parents a job. Obviously Ms. Gannon feels her own personal issues come first, ahead of any child's well-being. You would think she would have sympathy for children who are growing up in a situation similar to the one she grew up in, but instead she lashes out at the whole family and punishes them in the only way available to her.

Everyone loses their parents, and it is painful no matter what the circumstance. My own father died of cancer which was not smoking-related. I would like to blame someone or something and act out my anger by punishing whoever I decide is responsible, but in the end, no one is responsible. Human mortality is a fact of life that everyone must learn to deal with, hopefully in a way that doesn't harm innocent bystanders.

So what you are saying is that it would alright to deny someone who smokes from this job, but make an exception for a smoking parent? What about a person taking care of an elderly relative? Or a disabled spouse? I think you can find an exception for every person if you really wanted to circumvent it with a sympathy argument.

I guess the question is more about motives than results. Is the motivation of a job qualification to punish or cause pain to the people who are being excluded or is it to cause a positive change?

I don’t believe it’s okay to deny anyone a job based on their off-duty behavior, as long as they’re not breaking the law. I just brought up that point about the children because I’m tired of hearing about how it’s necessary to abuse adults for the sake of the children. It’s especially obnoxious to see someone acting in a way that harms children, all the while claiming they are doing something positive.