> I wasn't asked a question...
Anyway:
You didn't offend me at all.
I should've been more clear: It doesn't have to do with looks. That's the wrong way to look at this.
And as far as subjective feelings being relevant to whether a crime is committed or not: It's not that unusual. If you threaten to kill me, for example, then my feelings are critical to deciding whether a crime has been committed. Law isn't software. To a certain degree, it's gray by its very nature.
Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about the criminality of a lot of this behavior, but a lot of it definitely feels destructive and immoral.
Dave McClure's looks have no bearing on whether the comment "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you" is at all appropriate in a professional setting.
It's not.
Actually, I take that back:
It's only in any way appropriate if Sarah and Dave had a pre-existing friendship or relationship of some sort that made that sort of comment permissible. There's zero indication that they did. Dave knew they did not have this kind of relationship but nevertheless put this woman in a position where she was apparently both offended and concerned that it might affect her professional life.
That sucks. Doesn't matter how handsome Dave may or may not be.
So I guess, if you're good looking, it's legal, and maybe you end up marrying and having children (as people often do in these situations). If you're not good looking, it's a violation and you should be fired/prosecuted.
This definitely isn't a clean or fair way to write or enforce laws or standards for conduct and punishment in the workplace. It might still be necessary and it might be the best we can do, but it's definitely all a big gray area, not just in its interpretation, but in its literal definition ("unwanted").