The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Employers should be permitted to discriminate against the obese in the workplace

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,713 times Debate No: 27965
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Certain job vacancies are more suited to applicants with slimmer physiques, examples include those for: air hostesses; pearl divers; jockeys; human canon balls; strippers; cave swift-saliva gatherers (the main ingredient of Chinese birds nest soup); trapeze artists; astronauts; firemen; limbo-dancers and chimney sweeps.

On the other hand, there are job vacancies that fat candidates are more suited for, including those for: grape treaders; opera singers; nightclub bouncers; freak show exhibits; sumo wrestlers; Father Christmas impersonators; human shields and drive-thru restaurant critics.

However, in certain jurisdictions in America, notably the state of Michigan, employers are not allowed to discriminate against job applicants on the basis of weight,

This is the result of the powerful fat lobby who commission biased surveys and bullies legislators into giving overweight candidates an unfair advantage in the job market.

For example, an international survey of the fat published by Weight Loss Resources entitled "Fattism: Discrimination As Real As Sexism and Racism" found:

* Two thirds of people concerned with their weight believe employers have a responsibility to help them stay in shape.
* More than half (55%) of people concerned with their weight believe fattism should be treated in the same way as sexism and racism.
* More than 60% of people concerned with their weight say they have been bullied, made fun of or discriminated against because of their size.
* Nearly 80% of those taking part in the survey say weight is becoming more of an issue in today"s society and is 50% more of an issue in the workplace.
* Nearly a quarter (23%) of respondents say their weight has held back or hindered their career opportunities.
* Over a fifth (21%) say their weight leads to work colleagues and associates undervaluing their abilities.

The fat lobby even gives obese people advise on how to exploit the law to get compensation from their employers when they get too fat to do their job. For example, in an article entitled "Fattist Employers Need to Work Things Out" an apologist for the obese writes:

"If an employee's obesity hinders their ability to perform their job, they may be able to claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), which, if successful, could result in costly uncapped compensation for financial loss and an award for injury to feelings. The DDA defines disability as 'a physical or mental impairment, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on an individual"s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities'. While some conditions such as alcoholism, are specifically excluded from protection, obesity is not, so it could fall within the definition."

The underlying message the fat lobby wants to project is that if someone is grossly overweight it's somebody else's fault and somebody else's problem to deal with, and that the fat should get special treatment in the workplace.

The fact is, however, that obesity occurs when energy intake from food and drink consumption is greater than energy expenditure through the body's metabolism and physical activity over a prolonged period, resulting in the accumulation of excess body fat. in other words, they are greedy and lazy - and employers should not be forced to recruit greedy, lazy workers.

Naturally, there is a tiny minority of obese people who are overweight due to medical conditions, and those people should not be discriminated against. To facilitate this, they should present prospective employers with a letter from their doctor, similar to the example reproduced hereunder.

"To Whom It May Concern.

Re: Mr Slobodan Slobberchops

This is to certify that, in my professional opinion, the above patient is grossly overweight through no fault of his own. Let's put it this way, even if he were interred in a Stalinist labour camp in Ethiopia for five years and fed on half rations he would still resemble a huge pile of sweating blubber when he was released - it's really not his fault that he"s so fat, he's just got Prader-Willi syndrome (a rare chromosomal disorder with symptoms that include learning difficulties, obesity and behavioural problems), that's all, and I have no hesitation in recommending him for the position applied for.

Yours faithfully,

Donna Kebab, BSc, PhD (lady doctor)."

With this provision in place I believe that employers should be permitted to discriminate against the obese in the workplace.

Thank you.


Weight discrimination legalities:
Fattism survey:
Article: "Fattist Employers Need to Work Things Out":
The cause of obesity:
Prader-Willi syndrome:


If the resolution were named this "Employers should be permitted to discriminate against people who can't do their job efficiently" I would agree. It's the fact that it specifically identifies teh obese which I want to attack.

Based on the resolution, if we were to take the slim, sexy Britney to be a pornstar but she couldn't last one minute before collapsing and the obese ugly Veronica but, if you zoomed in on her face and jus tshowed the man and his reactions, it would show just how amazing head she could give, we'd have to pick Britney. Not only would this negate that a fetish for BBW (big beautiful women) exists but also denying that being hot is only one aspect of being apornstar.

There CAN be obese acrobats, all that matters is that the amount of muscle they have allows them to propel themselves better than the slim competitor for the same job role. In fact muscle weighs more than fat and many rugby players are officialy obese[1]. Obesity is not at all grounds to prevent people in physical lines of proffession, instead if one were to observe that a person who HAPPENS TO BE obese is unable to do the job as effectively as a slimmer individual this is good grounds to discriminate against the one who couldn't do the job but not because they are obese.

I would like to let you know there are many slim unhealthy individuals wo are slim due to luck of metabolism. This is a perfect counter argument to any basis of discrimination against the obese.

Additionally, I think that peopel should never discriminate against ANYONE for ANY REASON OTHER than their ability to do a job. If it HAPPENS TO BE that one's obesity is causing less efficiency to do a job the person should be unexmployed int hat professionon the sole basis of efficiency.

"Don't judge a book by its cover." -Ancient proverb

Better to have an obese ninja than a perfectly physiqued sports addicted narcissist working for you.

Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Rational Madman for accepting this debate and for posting his duly considered rebuttals, to which I respond as follows:

I appreciate the distinction my opponent makes about discriminating against someone who HAPPENS to be obese rather than BECAUSE they are obese, and that's a fair point, but I am not suggesting employers MUST discriminate against the obese, merely that they should be entitled to if they so choose.

Let's draw a parallel between obesity and alcoholism, both conditions are self-inflicted and, given sufficient will-power and support, can be overcome. Please review the following job interview scenario:

Hospital Manager: Well, Doctor Tikka-Masala, you are certainly qualified for the vacancy we have for a brain surgeon but I do have one concern: I can't help noticing that your hands are shaking uncontrollably, and that may be an issue when performing delicate operations on a patient's cerebral organ.

Doctor Tikka-Masala: The reason my hands shake is because I'm a chronic alcoholic, but don't worry, after a few stiff whiskies they're as steady as rocks and I always down half a bottle of Jack before I operate on a patient.

Hospital Manager: I see. The problem is, the hospital has a policy that says that doctors can only perform surgery when they are sober, which means, in your case, that we can't offer you the job. Sorry.

Doctor Tikka-Masala: But that's blatant discrimination against alcoholics! {Takes a large swig of whiskey from his hip flask} Just because I like a drink doesn't mean I can't do my job, bastard. You'll regret this pal {hic}, you'll fvcking regret this...remember, I know where you work, I know where you fvcking work,, drunk-hating tosspot.

I think you will agree, having read that dialogue, that the Hospital Manager was right not to proceed with Dr Tikka-Masala's job application, even though he may have judged the candidate to be unsuitable solely upon his addiction to alcohol..

Now, with reference to my opponent's rebuttals, while I agree that some fat women are able to provide sexual services just as well as slim women (although I don't think many tricks would pay for an obese ho to sit on their face, especially not on a hot day) and that certain athletes such as rugby players and American footballers may be, by BMI measures, technically overweight, clearly there are some jobs where the indolence and gluttony of the obese, together with their size, will make them unsuitable for the vacancy and, therefore, employers should be able to discriminate against them.

Thank you.


Alcoholism is an addiction.
Obesity is a physical state.

An alcoholic gets withdrawal symptoms like shaking. They would perform worse on a patient and risk his life hence failing their duty as a surgeon if they were to be a drunk doctor the whole time. Thus, ANYONE, alcoholic or not, should not be drinking when operating. Non-alcoholics have medical conditions such as Parkinson's that do not allows hands to stop shaking. Thus they cannot operate. Your analogy is thus ridiculous and I think it should be totally disregarded.

Obesity is not an addiction. An addiction to 'food' is just as bad as alcoholism and hence barely any job lets you eat outside of 'breaks'. Thus, I think it's a matter of health and safety to stop anyone, EVEN ANOREXICS to eat in a work place. As is it necessary to stop a straight edge Buddhist monk who suddenly decides to give up his religion to not drink in the work place and fire him immediately.

The truth is this: Employers should not, ever, in any way have any right whatsoever to discriminate against a worked who is obese. Ever.

If a person who happens to be obese can do the job well, they get it if they can't they don't. It's like saying turning down a black man to play for a white guy's role in a movie is discrimination, no it's just they can't do the job. You suggest an almost religious disgust amongst employers to the obese being permitted whereby before you open your mouth at the interview they should have warrant to ask hey are you obese? Oh okay... You don't get the job sir. Well unless they are applying to be something like a model this is VERY IMMORAL and disgustingly unjust. If you can conceive any way in which that is 'okay' or 'permissible' then I'm sorry but you might be a psychopath (one who can't feel guilt).
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RationalMadman 3 years ago
RationalMadman for some reason stuf was added to end of link. This is correct link
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
lol i want to take this, but I have too much going on right now.
Posted by Heineken 3 years ago
If I get fat from drinking whiskey and eating steak....then discrimination is unwarranted. Steak and whiskey are unavoidable.
However, if I get fat from eating cheesecake and drinking buttermilk straight out of the jug, the discrimination should be allowed.

I think this topic is balanced on a razor's edge. The edge is called "dignity". There is no dignity in breaking open a doughnut and sucking the jelly out, but there is dignity in a 20 oz steak and a bottle of Jack.

I wish you luck.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by emj32 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering iamnotwhoiam's S/G point. You cannot give Con S/G on the grounds that "Pro must of mispelled something."
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct. Not because Con did anything wrong, but because a British sense of humour should be encouraged. Con loses sources points because his link was broken. Con won the debate in my opinion. He established that the issue was ability to do the job and there are no grounds for prior discrimination on basis of weight. That leaves them tied, but Con won the debate. The scoring system could be better. So I'm giving an extra point to Con. I'm sure Pro must have misspelled something.