I wish someone would stand-up to these people

[Cool Breeze]

That's my point. The government doesn't have to do anything.
We the people can decide what businesses stay in business and which ones do not by voting with our wallets. There are several businesses I won't spend money in because I don't agree with their practices.

[Ropey]

Reminds me of the story I read about some huge company that basically set up an entire town for its workers... probably an oil or mining company somewhere in the boonies of America back in the early part of the 20th century. I don't remember exactly where or when.

The company provided infrastructure, utilities, housing, police, firefighting, schooling, etc for its employees/citizens. But it suspended many Constitutional rights in the town. Workers sued for violation of Constitutional rights. Usually you can only sue the government for violation of Constitutional rights, which was the company's defense.

Supreme Court said that if a company or non-governmental entity provided services that were very similar to what a traditional government provided, it was considered the government. Employees won.

[Tobias Lutz]

Really though? How about 'No blacks, asians, women, homos or wops need apply.'

I use the racially charged language here deliberately to make a point. Smoking is legal.

One doesn't just decide in their 20s to quit being "black, asian, a women" etc. Personally I don't support the idea of anti-discrimination clauses extending to tobacco users.

[Aithos]

Really though? How about 'No blacks, asians, women, homos or wops need apply.'

I use the racially charged language here deliberately to make a point. Smoking is legal.

The point you guys are missing is that this is a free country and they are allowed to make hiring decisions based on things that are PERSONAL CHOICES. You don't choose your race, you don't choose your sex, you don't choose your sexual orientation and all of those things are protected by hiring laws. You *do* choose whether you're a smoker or not, whether you do drugs or not and companies are well within their rights to make hiring decisions based on those things. I would be a lot MORE concerned if as a PRIVATE BUSINESS you were not legally allowed to choose the sort of employees you want to hire. I also think that hiring based on obesity is absolutely fine and a lot of companies already do it.

As someone who has been a store manager and hired employees here are some of my thoughts (and you're welcome to disagree, it's a free country):

1) If you are 300+ pounds you don't take care of yourself, you aren't even remotely physically fit which makes any job requiring you to do something besides sit behind a desk a challenge. Your insurance costs are higher, you probably aren't as healthy and therefore miss more work, you probably don't work as hard because there is a higher chance that you're lazy than someone who is fit and somewhat in shape. Etc. Now I'm talking about morbidly obese people, not people with a beer belly or a bit of pudge. You can see where the thought process is though, and it's well within my rights to make those kinds of judgements. Being obese is a personal choice in all but the most extreme genetic circumstances. Losing weight can be tough, but anyone willing to commit FULLY to doing it will be successful.

2) If you're a smoker many of the same things apply - your healthcare costs are higher, you probably miss more days of work, you probably don't work as hard (because you take more breaks), you are probably less physically fit for any manual labor type job, etc. Again, it's a completely valid reason to judge someone. Also, if you show up to a job interview reeking like cigarettes and couldn't refrain from smoking after you shower/dress for an interview (meaning you can't go a couple hours without a smoke) then I'm not hiring you. It means you either 1) don't care you smell like shit or 2) you smoke over a pack a day and you'll always be outside smoking and not working.

I get the fact that its your life and your choice what you want to do - and I FULLY support your right to make that choice. I won't judge or criticize you for it, I really don't care at all. I just ALSO fully support *MY* right and the right of anyone who owns a business to NOT hire you for those choices. It's not a double standard and it's not hypocritical, freedom works both ways and people in groups that are often discriminated against like to forget that when it's convenient.

People also like to conveniently forget that there are very real consequences to drug use (and nicotine is a drug) - do you want your air traffic controller fiending for a smoke when he's calculating your flights approach? I don't. How about your doctor when you're having surgery or the nurse who's assisting? You think maybe during a lengthy procedure someone who normally smokes every hour might perform less well (mentally and physically) when their body doesn't have that drug they are used to? Ever been around a smoker when they are craving badly? They are irritable, they get shaky, their attention span is bad, it affects their memory and their attitude. Not exactly the kind of people you want helping patients.

BTW - I am a strong advocate of smokers rights. I just don't feel that your right to smoke gives you the right to decide whether or not someone hires you. If I don't like tattoos I don't have to hire people with them. If I feel that stereotypes and the impressions of my customers will be negative toward someone with visible tattoos - tough shit. I fully support your right to get them, it's your choice whether you want to (and I think tattoos are awesome), but you didn't have to get them and you knew there would be repercussions when you did it. Just like if you smoke, you KNOW there are repercussions to it and you better be prepared to deal with them.

EDIT for TLDR:

TLDR - People making the argument against businesses that hire based on personal choices need to put themselves in the shoes of the people on the opposite side. It's really easy to get offended or feel that it's unfair when you sympathize with the smoker, but pretend you're the business owner for a minute and you've got an entire staff of people who take 5 breaks of 15 min or more a day to smoke ON TOP of their lunch break, who miss a couple days of work every month for health reasons, who constantly reek of cigarette smoke and cause customer complaints. Then on top of everything else the cost of heath insurance goes up and cuts into the profitably of your business, which for some small businesses can be a big deal...

[Sigaar]

Beauty of being self-employed. Me and my wife make our own rules...period.

[OB1theStogie]

Problem is... What's next? Testing your cholesterol?

[Chris0673]

I have to admit I'd be pretty cheesed off if I found out I didn't get hired because I use tobacco products. I don't think ANY company, private, government, or whatever has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do when you are not at your place of employment. My time is my time. On the other hand, it really used to piss me off when my soldiers would take 10 minute smoke breaks every hour. I hated smelling that foul reek of stale cigarette smoke for the rest of the day too. What really used to get me is that, if you add up 10 minutes an hour over the course of a 10 hour day these people were missing almost two hours of work every day. And I got grief for taking one 20 minute pipe break around lunch time.

I don't care if you want to ban tobacco use at the workplace but don't tell me I can use it at home. As long as I'm coming to work looking and smelling like a professional, who cares? And, for the record, my tobacco use has NEVER caused me to be late or miss work. As a matter of fact, I usually get more work done because I can go home and relax with a pipe or cigar and come back to work recharged and ready rock the day!

[BMack]

Problem is... What's next? Testing your cholesterol?

I'm surprised this isn't already a thing. Testing your blood for this and must have kale present.

[UncleFesterESQ]

Reminds me of the story I read about some huge company that basically set up an entire town for its workers... probably an oil or mining company somewhere in the boonies of America back in the early part of the 20th century. I don't remember exactly where or when.

The company provided infrastructure, utilities, housing, police, firefighting, schooling, etc for its employees/citizens. But it suspended many Constitutional rights in the town. Workers sued for violation of Constitutional rights. Usually you can only sue the government for violation of Constitutional rights, which was the company's defense.

Supreme Court said that if a company or non-governmental entity provided services that were very similar to what a traditional government provided, it was considered the government. Employees won.

I believe this is Marsh v. Alabama. (2 years out of law school here)
We can thank the Jehovah's Witnesses for this. Those damned kids and their free-speech needs.

[Branzig]

Problem is... What's next? Testing your cholesterol?

My company tests BMI, Cholesterol, Blood Sugar, and Blood Pressure every year and for every new hire.

Obviously it isn't grounds for termination, but it is used for insurance coverage and the more unhealthy you are the higher your insurance deductibles are.

And yes, under my company's terms and conditions, I am a "smoker" so even though I meet all BMI, Cholesterol, Blood Sugar, Blood Pressure standards I still have to pay an extra 150 a month because I have a cigar or pipe every once in awhile.

Not right now, but who knows, maybe at some point if you are "unhealthy" to the company you work for it could be grounds for termination or not being hired.