Keeping it short and sweet, <a href="http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/12/discrimination.html" author="Scott Adams">Discrimination</a> throws out a few observations on paradoxes in our society's of valid and invalid prejudice. For example, though most prejudices aganst traits people can't control are regulated, <iq>it's totally legal for an employer to reject a stupid person</iq> who applies for a job. To the hypothetical argument that this is a worthwhile exception, he retorts: <bq>You might argue that it is in society's overwhelming best interest to discriminate against stupid people because otherwise the economy would crumble. But I would argue that if idiots couldn't get jobs for which they are unqualified, your workplace would be empty right now.</bq> *rim shot* In general, society does allow prejudices based on traits people have chosen for themselves. The major exception to this rule, religion, only applies to the larger established religions, though there is no basis in logic for this distinction. The accepted religions are in no way less zany than many of the more recent variations. <bq>If a guy shows up for a job interview and tells you his religion requires him to wear a stuffed rhino penis as a hat, you can show him the door. But if he says his prophet walked on water<fn>, or rode to heaven on a flying horse<fn>, you slap a name tag on his cubicle and hope for the best.</bq> <hr> <ft>Christianity, with Jesus in the lead role.</ft> <ft>Islam, with the prophet Mohammed as jockey.</ft>