>>21553795
This is fiction and falsehood. Not only would that be discriminatory, it'd be not in the best self-interest of the restaurant.
>Roll up those sleeves, boys! It's well known around the city that I don't hire cooks with tattoos. And you will be inspected weekly. A full nude stripdown at the interview isn't enough. I must stay vigilant. Ramon had a tattoo on his back for a full year before I discovered it and canned him.

Yeah, I tried to envision this being real but there's simply no way it'd work. The kind of person who thinks like that doesn't end up hiring people for a business. It's incompatible.

>>21539750
Yes, make it a thing. Keep digging up arguments against your perversions. Really EXPOSE an anonymous poster.

>>21524866
No. People just weren't accustomed to cameras watching them in their home yet. Now everyone is perfectly comfortable with "siri" or "alexa" listening for them to ask it something. They are fine with their "ring" camera recording their porch and front yard.

We're almost there. People run nanny cams all day long even. Remember the backlash that the one Xbox would have a camera on it? That was years ago.
People will probably WELCOME this awful shit if it gets them something else more easily. It's almost over. This can't possibly progress much further.