[rdl]

I think she's arguing that even if 100% of the current employee participants are happy going to a hooters restaurant, posting a photo of it will deter future female hires.

In reality, it won't deter only female hires. I have nothing against going to places like this (or strip clubs: subsidized steak, at least in Oregon) socially, but a fair number of people wouldn't want to go socially, and I absolutely wouldn't want to go in a work context.

[tptacek]

DING DING DING THIS.

I have no problem with guys going to strip clubs or guys going to Hooters or guys hitting on girls at bars. I'm friends with plenty of people who do these things and still think they're great people.

But none of them take it to work, or go out of their way to take work to there.

[temphn]

What if 100% of current employees posted a photo of themselves at a gay pride parade, next to scantily clad gay men?

It's on their private time. But something tells me that Kathryn Hough wouldn't dream of attacking them.

[rdl]

I'd reject that on a company site or blog, unless I were selling something like PlanetOut. Expressing that you're EOE is good, but anything which implies exclusionary is as a practical matter bad for hiring. I wouldn't want people posting photos of themselves at a political rally either. If it's something like some small subset of employees go to a pride event (or post one of the "it's gets better" messages), that's a net positive, but "everyone at our company is homosexual; do not apply if you aren't" would be horrible.

(and of course what she as an individual thinks is appropriate isn't necessarily the final say for all companies, so attacking her presumed prejudices doesn't really win the argument...)

It's as much a marketing issue (to customers and potential hires) as it is a legal one. Going to hooters is 100% legal. It may prejudice a jury against you if there are discrimination lawsuits for other issues in the future, and it may make sales or hiring harder in some cases.

I see extremely limited upside to company trips to places like that, and lots of downside, so it's a bad idea.

There are lots of issues which fall on various points in this kind of branding. Personally, I'm fine with losing sales to anyone who dislikes firearms irrationally. Company shooting trips, sanction carry at the office on premises, etc are fine with me. As a practical decision that's a minor dislike by 10-20% of people, strong like by 5-10%, and irrelevant to most. Fine in the computer security industry, but if I were in the fashion, childcare, or animal-welfare industry, there would be a lot different numbers, so it wouldn't work.

[onceagainagain]

Pride Parade != Hooters-style Restaurant. Sorry. We're out there to be proud. Not sell beer and wings. Little different context, champ.

[planetguy]

Pride, gluttony. Both deadly sins.

[rada]

Google Marc Jacobs lawsuit. Kathryn Hough's warning - which you call an attack despite the article's overtly friendly overtones - fits to a "t".