Should it be illegal for employers to discriminate based on marital status?

[Emsworth]

Private employers should be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason whatsoever. But even if we accept the general principle that certain forms of discrimination should be illegal, there are arguments that an exception should be made for marital status.

Firstly, consider a reason commonly given in support of anti-discrimination laws: a particular group would, through no fault of its own, suffer tremendous social or economic disadvantages if discrimination against it were legal. I can understand this argument in the context of, say, racial discrimination. But I do not think that it applies with respect to discrimination on the basis of marital status. I doubt that married (or single) individuals would suddenly become a marginalized group in society. The threats they are likely to face from discrimination are quite minimal.

Next, there is the idea that employers should not be allowed to consider "meaningless" characteristics. Thus, the argument is that race should not be considered, because race does not tell the employer anything meaningful about the applicant's ability to fulfill his duties. This is not so, however, for marital status. One might argue that single individuals are likely to have fewer family commitments, or, perhaps, that married individuals are more likely to take maternity or paternity leave. These considerations are relevant to the ability of the prospective employee to carry out his job, to a much greater extent than, say, race.

Lastly, there is the argument that discrimination against certain classes of individuals is simply "wrong." To this, there is obviously no counterargument, because this line of reasoning is based wholly on arbitrary and personal opinions. At the very least, however, it must be admitted that discrimination on the basis of marital status is more socially acceptable than racial discrimination.