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

[nclib]

I know a lot of people will pick option 3, but my question for those who support anti-discrimination laws in general, is "why is someone's marital status more relevant to one's job performance than race, religion, gender, etc.?"

---

I believe marital status should be protected wherever anti-discrimination laws are used. One thing that's disturbing is that women are much more likely to be asked their marital status at a job interview, than men are.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

whoops I voted No... take one away.

[John Dibble]

I'll give my standard answer - no, not unless the employer is the government.

[Dr. Cynic]

Yes... Marital status is no reason to discriminate.

[KEmperor]

Of course not, unless it's a government job.

[dazzleman]

I don't think it should be legal to discriminate based on marital status.

But here's the reality -- you can never prove why one person was hired and another wasn't.  So I think anti-discrimination laws such as this have limited effectiveness.

When people want to know if a person is married, it's not really marital status they're interested in; it's whether the person's reliability might be compromised by having to look after kids.

In an ideal world, this discrimination wouldn't take place.  In the real world, there are some jobs that aren't suited to people who have to take care of kids.

[Gabu]

I think anti-discrimination laws such as this have limited effectiveness.

In certain cases, depending on how the law works, it might even do the opposite, by causing a lesser-qualified person to not get hired because a person originally passed over successfully convinced the relevant authorities that he or she was not hired due to marital status.

In the ideal world, no discrimination would occur due to anything other than that which determines whether a person is qualified for the job.  I don't think, however, that it's something that should be legislated, as in 99% of the cases, it's impossible to know for sure.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Absolutely not.

[AkSaber]

Of course not, unless it's a government job.

[Nym90]

It should be illegal to ask it in a job interview or even after hire, but otherwise as has been said, it's easy enough to make up other reasons why you aren't hiring someone if you really want to.

But yes, it should be a protected status the same as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

[nclib]

When people want to know if a person is married, it's not really marital status they're interested in; it's whether the person's reliability might be compromised by having to look after kids.

In an ideal world, this discrimination wouldn't take place.  In the real world, there are some jobs that aren't suited to people who have to take care of kids.

Good point, though many married couples don't plan to have kids, so this discrimination isn't justified.

I read an article which talked about the fact that some employers even ask women if/when they plan on getting pregnant, for the reasons that you stated above. Regardless of the intent, it's a violation of privacy (and of course is also gender discrimination since men aren't asked when they plan on getting someone pregnant).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think it should be illegal.  I'm against all discrimination (thus also against Affirmative Action)

[Reignman]

Yes. What's the movtivation to do that anyway?

[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.