I wouldn't say that's unethical just stupid as I would expect that person to be a hard worker with few attachments.
Stereo types wouldn't exist if there wasn't some truth to them.

Depends what your ethic is.
In my ethics i would say yes it is unethical.
But is it unethical to not employ a retarded person when they might not be able to do the job well?
Where does ethics end and suitability start?
If you wanted a job in the KKK home office, would it be unethical for them to not hire you becuase you were gay, black etc?

E.g. not employing a person just because he is a gay Asian man.

Is that unethical?

Yes. Without qualification this is unethical.

Someone please make a distinction between rights and ethics.

Actually it would be many times more unethical to prevent the practice. Say some bum breaks into your house and start's eating your food. You remove him and exclaims since he is a dirty bum he has trouble acquiring what you have and there fore he should have access to what you have, you remove him of corse.

A business is no different, no one is entitled to a job and employers should be able to have a discriminating hiring policy if they wish.

Also say you want to hire your incompetent brother over say another white man, this is seen as reasonable. Yet to hire based on about the same genetic difference, a white person and an individual of any other race is somehow contradictory immoral. I see this process as both moral and and good idea.

The situation is that he was turned down solely because he was asian and gay. Things like this should not factor into the hiring process at all unless he's applying at a strip club or something, which probably can't be operating ethically in any case, but that's another debate.

E.g. not employing a person just because he is a gay Asian man.

Is that unethical?

What if he thought that the ethnicity and sexuality would affect the working environment etc just because he feels deep inside intuitively the ethnicity or sexuality is truly inferior (or superior so he is scared of hiring someone who is more powerful than he is).

Then he just has bad information about how ethnicity and sexual orientation effect productivity. It's his moral duty to have good, well thought out reasons for his actions though, so that he can be sure that they are moral, and he has failed in this regard, so then therein lies the unethical nature of his decision.

E.g. not employing a person just because he is a gay Asian man.

Is that unethical?

It depends upon the job, though in most cases, it is unethical. An example of it being okay to not hire an asian man because he is an asian man would be if you are making a movie, and the part for which you are hiring is someone to play the part of a black woman, then not hiring him for being a man and for being asian is not inappropriate, as those things are relevant to the job. Him being gay, though, is not relevant to any job that does not involve sexual acts (real sexual acts, not ones in a pretend movie sort of way).

Basically, when hiring, one should only factor in things that are relevant to the job. If it is irrelevant to the job, then it should not be a consideration for the position, and it is immoral (as well as stupid) to use irrelevant characteristics when hiring someone. And this means, for the vast majority of jobs, gender, race, and sexual orientation are not things that should be considered when deciding whether to hire someone or not.

Pyrrho;156843 wrote:

It depends upon the job, though in most cases, it is unethical. An example of it being okay to not hire an asian man because he is an asian man would be if you are making a movie, and the part for which you are hiring is someone to play the part of a black woman, then not hiring him for being a man and for being asian is not inappropriate, as those things are relevant to the job. Him being gay, though, is not relevant to any job that does not involve sexual acts (real sexual acts, not ones in a pretend movie sort of way).

Basically, when hiring, one should only factor in things that are relevant to the job. If it is irrelevant to the job, then it should not be a consideration for the position, and it is immoral (as well as stupid) to use irrelevant characteristics when hiring someone. And this means, for the vast majority of jobs, gender, race, and sexual orientation are not things that should be considered when deciding whether to hire someone or not.

But that's like being a robot.

People do have preferences. Perhaps the boss is looking for more than just fitting the role perfectly - i.e. his preferred race and sexuality.

Not being a bigot is like being a robot?

Do you think that people should all refuse to hire you due to your race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or some other such characteristic of yours, that has nothing whatsoever to do with your ability to do the job? Do you think that would be fair?