Althouse: "A few jurisdictions have laws against 'attractiveness discrimination.'"

July 29, 2012

"A few jurisdictions have laws against 'attractiveness discrimination.'"

"Try to guess which ones, then click on the link to see if you’re right."

14 comments:

Leo said...: Isn't forcing all women to wear face covering clothing sort of a law against attractiveness discrimination?; 7/29/12, 7:48 AM
Humperdink said...: Shocked, just shocked, that Kalifornia was the league leader.

I suspect a review of the San Francisco city council will reflect the truly ugly are well represented.; 7/29/12, 8:04 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Politics is Hollywood for ugly people?; 7/29/12, 8:08 AM
DaveW said...: Hah! I guessed San Francisco correctly (missed the others though).; 7/29/12, 8:17 AM
Sorun said...: "Customer preference for a certain “look” cannot be the only basis for such discrimination, or else stores in racist areas could refuse to hire black employees."

What is a "racist area"?; 7/29/12, 8:33 AM
Humperdink said...: What is a "racist area"?

Geez, that's an easy one. It where white people live.; 7/29/12, 8:44 AM
campy said...: What is a "racist area"?

Any area Barack Obama doesn't carry in an election.; 7/29/12, 8:44 AM
David said...: I got Washington and SF. They were too easy. Santa Cruz? Give me a break. But I over guessed by adding LA and NY.

Washington does not really need the law though. Remember, Washington is the natural destination for people not smart enough for New York or good looking enough for LA.; 7/29/12, 9:04 AM
edutcher said...: Wait till the try to emulate what Harrod's tried to do a few years and discriminate on customers' attractiveness.; 7/29/12, 9:33 AM
wef said...: I'm with Oscar Wilde.

It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances.

I would go further and say that those who object to those of us who celebrate attractiveness are almost invariably prudes, puritans, feminist scolds and buttinskies looking for another excuse to boss people around.

By the way, the longer quote is

To me, beauty is the wonder of wonders. It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible.; 7/29/12, 12:53 PM
n.n said...: If we cannot discriminate based on aesthetic differences, then we can also not discriminate based on physiological differences... on differences in intelligence, work ethic, ambition, risk acceptance, etc. In fact, any incidental characteristic that may engender a favored outcome must be overcome through coerced equalization.

Are there any characteristics which may not be argued to be incidental? Why is there arbitrary discrimination against individuals with aesthetically pleasing features? Envy is such a petty character trait.

Anyway, I suppose that context matters.; 7/29/12, 1:34 PM
n.n said...: Leo:

Progress is an intrinsically ambiguous concept. It really does need to be qualified.; 7/29/12, 1:36 PM
ark said...: I do not know if this is still true, but when I visited DC a number of years ago, I learned that the local law against "discrimination based on physical appearance" meant, among other things, that restaurants were prohibited from having dress codes.; 7/29/12, 1:44 PM
William said...: The world and nature are inherently unfair. A man's body has fewer maintenance issues than a woman's body. Good looking people get more breaks and attention than end stage lepers. The physically coordinated get more playing time than the klutzes. It goes on and on. Life is blatandly discriminatory..... I come from a lumpenprole background. I was able to personally resolve some issues regarding the inequitable distribution of wealth in America. I had less luck with my backhand and my acne.....I think a lot of radical egalitarianism is an attempt to square the circle. It is not within our power to make people equally happy, but we can make them all miserable so let's settle for that.; 7/29/12, 2:14 PM