I agree it's reprehensible, but property rights and free speech are more important than someone else's feelings.
The reason why Libertarianism isn't going anywhere, in a nutshell.
rumborak
We'll just have to increase our efforts. We ain't goin' away.
Yeah, but you're never going to achieve mainstream acceptance or "critical mass" as they say when you embrace something like discrimination and chalk it up to "private property rights"
If it were going to gain any mainstream acceptance, I think it would have done so by now, when you consider that the concept of libertarianism has been around for more than 150 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Getting back to the hiring thing: As a hiring manager, my job (among other things) is to hire the person who best meets the qualifications for the job, but also who is going to be the best fit at my company in terms of personality, background, etc. In my opinion, no one is "entitled" to a job. As mentioned above, a job is something you have to compete with others for. They don't call it "the job market" for nothing. While I am not OK with disqualifying candidates based only on the color of their skin or their gender or religious or ethnic heritage, I think it's perfectly acceptable for someone in my position to exercise some "gut feeling" on who the right candidate is going to be. I think the main criteria should certainly be objectively measurable (education, experience, etc) but there are also some "soft qualifications" (hygiene, personal appearance, personality, etc) that I think are well within the spectrum of "appropriate" criteria by which to evaluate a potential employee.