Agreed. As another commenter says, in Glasgow the football team might just matter, and considering how things go: fair enough.

But this specific case was actually not about who the candidate supported, that’s just what the judge brought up as an example. I’d say it wasn’t even about not drinking, that’s what the candidate alleged. But the ruling seems like it would apply to all of those cases as precedent anyway.

By law, technically, yes. But that’s the trick: you say you didn’t hire someone because you think they wouldn’t fit the team. In reality, it’s because of their religion or ethnicity or gender. Officially though, you say it’s because they wouldn’t join in for drinks on Friday. “I just didn’t vibe with them”.

Of course this has caveats. It’ll only be possible between two equally qualified candidates, but that can be subjective as well.

Also this specific candidate was not hired because the employer said they didn’t vibe with them. The football team is an example used by the judge. The not drinking and being introverted was used by the candidate. It’s a weak case. I don’t think the candidate had much to stand on, but the judge’s ruling is way too generic is what my point is.

For football teams? Sure, maybe.

But that’s not the main point in the case, is it? To me this decision seems like it says you could decide not to hire someone because they don’t drink (since that’s basically what was being argued). Couldn’t that then be used to legally discriminate against, say, Muslims? Or people more committed to family than work?