> Seems like a real problem to me: either you discriminate against the religious person, or you discriminate against the homosexual, can't have them both.
A differentially-hostile work environment created by legal requirements of the job, e.g., working alongside people who you disapprove of because the employer is prohibited against discriminating against them to suit you, is not illegal discrimination.
> In fact if you think requiring drinking is discriminating, your are discriminating against the people who drink.
No, you wouldn't be, because not requiring drinking isn't discriminating against people who drink. (Not permitting drinking might be, but given alcohol's demonstrable effect on cognitive function, and the fact that a preference for drinking isn't a presumptively-illegal basis for discrimination in the first place, there are all kinds of reasons it almost certainly wouldn't be illegal discrimination in most cases.)
> What if the company owner is religious and doesn't want to hire people who drink for religious reasons - would that be better/OK?
Unless the "company" is a bona fide religious institution hiring people for a religious function, discrimination against employees (or potential employees) because they don't fit the company's (or owner's) religious preferences is textbook illegal discrimination, so, no, it wouldn't be "better".
" not requiring drinking isn't discriminating against people who drink"
Neither is going to a bar, because you are not obliged to drink alcohol at a bar.
Again I think this whole thing is ridiculous. Why shouldn't people allowed to do what they enjoy in their company? What if you quit a job to found a company, precisely because you want a company where colleagues go to a bar together occasionally? Why should you not be allowed to do that?
You can found a company where colleagues occasionally go to the bar together - as long as it is not mandatory, either implicitly or explicitly. But things that are a part of your hiring process are different than things that are optional parts of after-hours socializing. You should not be allowed to require such behavior because we, as a society, have decided that our employment should not be contingent on our lifestyle.
Also: bars are places that people go to socialize while drinking. You are not obliged to drink at a bar, but you are expected to. People who do not drink are likely to feel some social pressure about their decision while in a bar. That is not okay for a job interview. I have friends who do not drink. I consider it rude to ask them out to a bar because then we are going to an establishment that is clearly not for them.
A differentially-hostile work environment created by legal requirements of the job, e.g., working alongside people who you disapprove of because the employer is prohibited against discriminating against them to suit you, is not illegal discrimination.
> In fact if you think requiring drinking is discriminating, your are discriminating against the people who drink.
No, you wouldn't be, because not requiring drinking isn't discriminating against people who drink. (Not permitting drinking might be, but given alcohol's demonstrable effect on cognitive function, and the fact that a preference for drinking isn't a presumptively-illegal basis for discrimination in the first place, there are all kinds of reasons it almost certainly wouldn't be illegal discrimination in most cases.)
> What if the company owner is religious and doesn't want to hire people who drink for religious reasons - would that be better/OK?
Unless the "company" is a bona fide religious institution hiring people for a religious function, discrimination against employees (or potential employees) because they don't fit the company's (or owner's) religious preferences is textbook illegal discrimination, so, no, it wouldn't be "better".