But are they allowed to not hire someone if doing so would draw public outrage (and financial harm) against the company? What about if the person was arrested for something that would cause that, but never actually charged?
In the US at least, being arrested (or even accused) of certain things can end your career. Because, even it it's proven you didn't do it, no company will touch you with a 10 foot pole, because people (who don't care/know that you were innocent) will avoid the company if they hire you.
"But are they allowed to not hire someone if doing so would draw public outrage (and financial harm) against the company?"
Could you face the same because of gay/trans/etc hiring? That's the point of anti-discrimination laws - that nobody is allowed to discriminate and thus the public outrage is diluted if all are hiring the "undesireables".
"Allowed to" pulls a lot of weight here, do you mean legally, socially, or something else?
I do agree though, there's no good solution to the problem. That's one of the biggest indicators for me that state regulation, at least enforceable regulation, isn't the right answer.
Companies, employees, industry organizations, etc can all come up with their own solutions that they're happy with though. A primary feature of federalism is allowing smaller groups to try different solutions, its pretty good at more quickly finding a solution that may actually work well enough universally
In the US at least, being arrested (or even accused) of certain things can end your career. Because, even it it's proven you didn't do it, no company will touch you with a 10 foot pole, because people (who don't care/know that you were innocent) will avoid the company if they hire you.
There is no known solution to this problem.