Obesity is a disability, rules the EU

[FlyingJesus]

It is a disability, it hinders people from being able to do certain things that an able-bodied person could. Doesn't mean we should pander to them and give fat people bonuses just for being fat - it reeks of certain emergency services and military groups (in the US specifically) dropping or abolishing physical requirements to be more inclusive even though it clearly means that these people will be less able to actually do the job to a decent standard, which is stupid - but it's certainly still right to class it as a disability. What's wrong is a system attempting to claim that the severity of any disability is the same as all others

[The Don]

The group includes genetic impairments but isn't limited to them and a new branch for 'self inflicted' diseases only serves to morally separate those that have inherited what causes their disability from others. This is legislation, not a school playground, there's absolutely no need for it as it serves very little actual purpose.

It’s got nothing to do with morals; obesity is categorically different to a disability such as epilepsy and should therefore be treated differently.

We need to remember here that the law isn't giving a free pass to fat people, it's allowing them equal opportunity in the job market and beyond and it's going to reopen doors that were previously shut in their faces because of preconceived notions about their ability to perform tasks to a usual standard.

Are you suggesting that a self-inflicted problem isn’t a good enough reason to pass someone over for a job? Should employers be forced to employ people with poor hygiene that never shower? Or drug addicts? What about people with facial tattoos? Obviously equal opportunities are important, but what you’re suggesting is not what equal opportunity is supposed to promote.

Equal opportunity is a stipulation that all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified.The aim according to this often complex and contested concept is that important jobs should go to those “most qualified” – persons most likely to perform ably in a given task – and not go to persons for arbitrary or irrelevant reasons, such as circumstances of birth, upbringing, friendship ties to whoever is in power,religion, sex, ethnicity, race, caste, or involuntary personal attributes such as disability, age, gender, or sexual orientation.

A disorder such as obesity can and will hinder performance in a wide variety of jobs. Again, if the obese person has a medical disorder causing the weight gain they should absolutely be afforded the same equal opportunities as anybody else. When their problem is reversible due to overindulgence they shouldn’t be afforded the same protection. It sets a terrible precedent where employers should be forced to hire not those best for the job but the under qualified or unfit for the role.

A paraplegic in the past may have been disabled by their environment due to the need for a wheelchair in the past but the law now gives them far more access (with ramps and such as well as discrimination legislation) to a life that is considered normal. Why should obese people be denied a normal life and empowerment to become fitter?

A paraplegic man isn’t in that position due to his lifestyle choices and can’t easily reverse the situation. You’re treating obesity as if it’s incurable or near impossible to reverse, it’s not. Why should society be forced to change to accommodate people who feel alienated due to a lack of self-control? If a person is too large to sit on the chairs that a restaurant provides should the restaurant be forced to purchase reinforced chairs so that they aren't 'discriminating' against the severely overweight? A paraplegic on the other hand can't exactly change their lifestyle and suddenly recover so of course society should accommodate to their needs because they can’t escape said situation. What you’re suggesting does the complete opposite of empowering them to become fitter. What you suggest simply enables their behaviour and provides no incentive to change. I don’t think they should be refused help or anything near that, but I definitely don’t think obesity should carry the same label as other disabilities, and calling it a disability provides a false connotation to the public about obesity, and will further distort the root cause which is overeating.

I get the fat hat, people eat too much. Britain is looking at 50% obesity in 20 years and that's a problem. It's just not fair though to discriminate against them because of it. Why don't we just help them? There's no abuse here, everyone's working together.

We should help them, nobody is arguing otherwise and nobody is arguing for abuse. I have been saying it should be treated as a disability, just a self-inflicted one. Calling something what it is does not make this ‘a school playground’. Refusing to employ someone because of their lifestyle choices is not discrimination, if that were the case people with face tattoos would be suing employers left and right. People suffering from obesity should be provided all the help they need to get them back into a healthy lifestyle. Obesity is as much of a disability as an addiction to drinking, gambling or drugs is. All of these should be classed as an illness/disability. At the same time employers shouldn’t be forced to employ anyone that shows undesirable characteristics such as a lack of self-control and the reluctance to live a healthy lifestyle, nor should people with genetic or hereditary conditions be trivialised by being grouped with people suffering from their own lack of will. It’s clear that there are different types of problems that people face and they should be grouped accordingly, not all chucked under one definition to avoid hurting peoples feelings.

It is a disability, it hinders people from being able to do certain things that an able-bodied person could. Doesn't mean we should pander to them and give fat people bonuses just for being fat - it reeks of certain emergency services and military groups (in the US specifically) dropping or abolishing physical requirements to be more inclusive even though it clearly means that these people will be less able to actually do the job to a decent standard, which is stupid - but it's certainly still right to class it as a disability. What's wrong is a system attempting to claim that the severity of any disability is the same as all others

The problem with that is if it is classed as a disability it will automatically pander to them because it provides them 'equal opportunity' meaning they can claim discrimination if passed over for a job due to their obesity. Categorising it with other addiction caused problems will solve this.

[FlyingJesus]

Discrimination laws about disability are stupid anyway, if you're passed over for a job because you're too fat to do it then that should be the company's prerogative, they want the best people and shouldn't be forced to have a load of folk who can't even do the job right just to keep quotas

[Kimmy]

I think it should depend on what caused the obesity to begin with. Yeah, it's a problem, but if you're obese and it's self-inflicted then surely you shouldn't be allowed all of the typically disabled rights?

[GommeInc]

Discrimination laws about disability are stupid anyway, if you're passed over for a job because you're too fat to do it then that should be the company's prerogative, they want the best people and shouldn't be forced to have a load of folk who can't even do the job right just to keep quotas

From the court judgment it is up for the domestic courts to determine if discrimination has happened and affected someone who is obese. If a fire service rejects an obese person from getting a job as a firefighter the fire authority can argue it was based on policy grounds (public health and safety is written in ECHR, EU and many domestic laws) so there shouldn't be an issue in this area. The judgment says there has to be good reason and the decision ultimately lies with the context of the job and the claim - so it's pretty flexible as far as law goes.

[DryRash]

I agree in a way because some people can't help it because of conditions that they may have or they might be doing it because they're sad or what ever reason it is. However I would disagree in the fact that some people do it through laziness. I can't remember but I am sure I saw a comment somewhere saying how if a obese person (Who is technically disabled through this law)
Was sat in a disabled seat on the bus and an actual disabled person who cannot stand for very long comes on and asks to sit there, I'm not to sure what would happen.