I recently heard this interesting story on television. A man had his face hideously deformed in a fire in his car. Then when he went to a local restaurant he had be going to for years, they asked him to leave. He supposedly was upsetting the other customers.
This got me to thinking. In the state where I live, obese people are protected against discrimination. Even ex-cons have some limited protections, I understand. (Of course gays are rarely protected in my state. But that matter certainly has already been brought up, I’m sure.)
So why not give people with hideous facial deformities legal protections against discrimination? I realize some would cite the above excuse that they frighten other people. But isn’t that the same argument they have always used against minorities–namely, other people won’t like it?
Maybe you could write a letter to the owner of the restaurant explaining why they lost two customers instead of one.
I am sometimes frightened by squeamish, mean-spirited, ungrateful and intolerant buttholes – but I wouldn’t want one to be refused service because of me.
Yet, I think Scylla has uncovered the right reasoning on this issue, inadvertently perhaps. If the person’s appearance was indeed so hideous that people were too disgusted to eat, I think the restaurant should be able to make that choice. However, they should consider that some people, like Scylla, would oppose that decision and may eventually go so far as to boycott the restaurant. Just a simple risk-benefit analysis should make the decision for the store.
I certainly think employers should be allowed to discriminate on that basis in hiring if the available position is one in which that employee would have any contact with potential customers. Revulsion at the sight of a facial deformity is totally dissimiliar to an aversion to people based on race. Racial perceptions may be a learned behaviour, but there’s something instinctual about revulsion at the sight of gross deformity. You can’t expect people to alter that, and you shouldn’t expect a company or facility to lose money being forced into accepting such a person. Let the market decide…let each company or facility balance the potential benefit of discriminating against such people with the risk of public outrage.
Of course, I apply none of these assertions to publicly held offices or publicly owned facilities.
On the other hand, restaurant patrons are free not to look at someone if they find his or her appearance revolting or frightening. (Granted, you can’t avoid that first glimpse. But after that the choice is yours; you can just go back to minding your own business.)
I was just reading in one of the books I’m currently copyediting about exceptions to antidiscrimination laws based on business necessity. The ones I remember are not having to hire older people for modeling clothes intended for youthful markets, and Asian restaurants hiring Asian servers to create an “authentic” atmosphere. I’ve already sent the chapter back to the client, so I can’t name the author’s sources for this.
And what if you are the burn victim, say two years from now, entering a restaurant you’ve been frequenting regularly for years until that car accident on the way home from that same restaurant?
How would you being turned away because of your appearance?
Hmmmm. Please provide some evidence of this. Just because you feel revulsion at the sight of those who’ve been disfigured, doesn’t mean the rest of us do.
Revulsion at physical deformity may be a strong urge for some but it’s one they should learn to repress or deal with.
A more interesting situation would be if the restaurant had a guest who smelt foul - could they legitimately turn away an unwashed person reeking of BO and urine, even if their clothes were clean and smart?
And what about someone with a disability or illness that made them smell very bad in such a way they couldn’t mask it with perfume?
Because in fairness to restaurant guests, you can avoid looking at someone, but you can’t turn off your sense of smell.
It saddens me how readily willing we are to determine what someone should or shouldn’t be able to do with their own property - as if they were totally at our discretion. And that people should be “allowed” or not allowed based on our whim.
