[arjie]

Well, yes, that's why it's a protected category. It's the fact that it's a protected category that distinguishes it from non protected categories. That's the distinction and that's why the same doesn't apply there as for any random thing.

If you substitute "poor programming skills environment" it suddenly makes sense. That's the thing with substitutions. They change the meaning.

I'm all in favour of letting people discriminate on these grounds. They're the people reducing their own hiring pool. Everyone else is going to evaluate the candidates directly for culture and consequently have a competitive advantage.

[mantas]

> If you substitute "poor programming skills environment" it suddenly makes sense

Why would it? From my experience, companies with poor code quality are great to poach junior-to-mid programmers. They're super happy to jump the ship and they're well aware of code smells and problems poor code causes.

> I'm all in favour of letting people discriminate on these grounds.

Would you discriminate based on person himself or because he dared to work for company you don't like?

[arjie]

I won't actively do that though I suppose some bias will seep into my judgment for every company whose work I admire.

But I think it's important that other people are able do it.

Also I picked "poor programming skills environment " to mean everyone there has poor programming skills.