On 6/26/2019 6:43 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: ...
The ASF doesn't pay *anyone* to work on our software. There is no discrimination in that. Sure one can argue it creates less opportunity than paying for a few individuals, but that's not the same as discrimination.
...
Suppose an agricultural or construction business prohibits the use of sunscreen and hats with brims. I am of European origin and live in San Diego, so for me to be outside all day without a hat or sunscreen would be certain sunburn and a high risk of skin cancer. Nobody is allowed sunscreen, so no discrimination.
More realistically, suppose a business requires all employees to wear their hair in styles that are not feasible with the naturally tightly curly hair that is typical of some areas of Africa. That can either prevent some African-Americans from working there or require them to use unpleasant and expensive hair straightening chemicals. It's the same hair style for everyone, so no discrimination.
(I regard a person liking some hair style and choosing to put time, money, and effort into it as very different from being forced to do so to get and keep a job.)
Suppose an employer configures all restrooms with very few sit-down stalls and many designed-for-men urinals, and limits the time for bathroom breaks. If more than a handful of women try to work there the lines for the stalls take longer than the break time. It's the same bathroom arrangements for everyone, so no discrimination.
Suppose a business prohibits covering any part of one's head, so some Muslim women, Jewish men, and Sikh men, who consider certain head wear to be mandated by their religion, cannot work there. It's the same rule for everyone, so no discrimination.
One can have a rule that is exactly the same for everyone, but has disproportionate effect on unfavored sub-populations. Are such rules ever discriminatory?
