Is there something wrong with hiring nice looking waitresses?

You mean, aside from objectification, discriminatory hiring, and shameless pandering to the lowest common denominator? No, nothing at all.

I believe the neologism for this is "breastaurant". Which is hilarious and terrible all at once.
 
You mean, aside from objectification, discriminatory hiring, and shameless pandering to the lowest common denominator? No, nothing at all.

I believe the neologism for this is "breastaurant". Which is hilarious and terrible all at once.

Oh c'mon! It's really not that serious.
 
You mean, aside from objectification, discriminatory hiring, and shameless pandering to the lowest common denominator? No, nothing at all.

I believe the neologism for this is "breastaurant". Which is hilarious and terrible all at once.

If you don't like it then don't bother going there.
Sheesh people, remove that stick from up your ass.
 
Oh c'mon! It's really not that serious.

Where it becomes serious is if people who do not fit their definition of attractive are refused employment that they are otherwise qualified for. Is there a big differnce between "you did not get the job because you are not blonde enough" or "you did not get the job because you do not have large enough breasts" and "you did not get the job because you are too brown" or "you did not get the job because you are gay"?

Yes, people have the choice to eat there or not and, yes, those that meet their physical requirements have the choice to work there or not....but the serious aspect of it is the qualified people who are excluded from working there for reasons that are superficial and judgemental in nature.
 
^ Oh my god, it's serving, not skilled work. Virtually everyone is "qualified" to do it. And based on my dining experiences, there don't seem to be a lot of restaurants that hire servers based on looks, so I don't see a problem that a few of them do. Besides, these cheesy corporate chains have mediocre food anyway, so they might as well compensate for that fact by having a parade of hotties prance about.
 
^ Oh my god, it's serving, not skilled work. Virtually everyone is "qualified" to do it. And based on my dining experiences, there don't seem to be a lot of restaurants that hire servers based on looks, so I don't see a problem that a few of them do. Besides, these cheesy corporate chains have mediocre food anyway, so they might as well compensate for that fact by having a parade of hotties prance about.

That's fine....I just thought we lived in a world where discriminatory hiring practices were frowned upon. If we accept this form of descrimination we should accept 'em all!
 
That's fine....I just thought we lived in a world where discriminatory hiring practices were frowned upon. If we accept this form of descrimination we should accept 'em all!

Couldn't agree more. Let's start by cracking down on the strip clubs--I hear they only hire hot looking women as well.
 
How about the city, which clearly states that racial minorities are given preference when it comes to employment? It happens everywhere.
 
I work at Earl's on King St. The Fuller family owns both Earl's and Joey's, as well as other chains such as Cactus Club and so forth. Essentially, the two brothers divide ownership of the various restaurants evenly. I can tell you that the hiring practices aren't as discriminatory and unfair as many of you like to believe. Of the male servers/bartenders working at King St., I'd say about 60% are gay, and 40% are straight. Female servers of all races are employed there, but sadly, there is an emphasis on looking attractive. Regardless, it is the reality. The suits coming in at lunch and after work don't want Shamu the whale serving them their food. The attractive servers simply adds to the ambiance of the place.
 
Really? Where?

Nevermind... its worded differently than I remember:

"Committed to employment equity, the City of Toronto encourages applications from Aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, members of visible minority groups and women."
 

Back
Top