Enlil said:

First, it is not illegal for an employer to ask a person's age...at least not in the US.  It is a bad idea, because using age as a factor in hiring is illegal in most cases...

I agree it's immoral...I also think that people should be allowed to be immoral.  There are people who are so against drug use that they might not want to have employees that use simply because they don't want the paychecks they're writing to go to drugs.  Why should they be forced to fit your definition or my definition of morality?

As a society, we've chosen certain factors that an employer can't take into account...things like race, age, gender, etc...some states also include sexual preference in that list.  These classes are protected because of the widespread discrimination that these people have unjustly been subjected to. 

Smoking weed isn't like being black.  It's a choice.  Some would say it's a reflection of one's judgment.  If an employer thinks it's relevant, why should he be forced to ignore it?

---

Aerial Boundaries said:

Suppose I'm someone who believes that our sexuality is at least partially our own choice, even if certain genetics make us predisposed so a certain orientation.

So, let's for the sake of argument pretend that I am right, and that people do have some degree of control over who they are attracted to.

Wouldn't your logic apply here too? Would it be right for me, as an employer, to require applicants to disclose such information, and choose not to hire them on that basis?

Or let me put it another way, even if it is morally wrong, do you think I should have the right to do so?

---

venetianblinds said:

what do you think of the idea of piss tests before hiring as an invasion of privacy, in direct opposition to our constitutional right and unreasonable searches and seizures?

---

venetianblinds said:

what do you think of the idea of piss tests before hiring as an invasion of privacy, in direct opposition to our constitutional right and unreasonable searches and seizures? might it be better to go ahead with a test when an employee gives a reason to be tested?

---

sum_peeps said:

These giant corporations are getting special tax breaks from our government and are even considered persons so I think they should be forced to treat everyone equally regardless of what they put into their bodies and to respect peoples' right to privacy. Your rights shouldn't be voided just b/c you walk onto a certain plot of land.
And might I add that the only way they will even consider hiring you is if you agree to all their bullshit conditions and subject yourself to invasion of privacy.

---