It would make a lot more sense, wouldn't it?

You have no idea how stupid that sounded. People of all nations and the world are free to live in whatever free nation/country they please. This will mix cultures and languages. Now most countries around the world learn the national language and English in schools yes but many prefer to speak in their native language. The United States has no national religion, no national language, and etc. whereas I don't know anything about Australia but I can guarantee you should be free to learn whatever language you need. Now to your asian with multiple languages thing. What fucking international employer would say no to a bilingual person? None.

Sure, they are free to come to Australia if they'd like. What they're not free to do is discriminate based on the fact that someone wasn't lucky enough to be born into a bilingual family. People should be free to be employed at whichever store they apply for (as long as their attitude and skills are appropriate, because that's something you can change). Blocking English-only speakers (as is to be expected seeing as it's our official language) is racist and discriminatory.

God dammit you're a dense fuck aren't you? This has nothing to do with stores and local business'. You don't have to live in a bilingual family in order to learn a second language.

Hey Jillaroo, I was curious about your argument, so I spoke to a constitutional lawyer who knows Australian law. It's not discrimination to require bilingualism for two reasons. First of all, language itself is not a protected/discrimination area. Secondly, companies are allowed to exclude certain groups or individuals if they have bona fide reasons. For example, is usually discrimination to not hire a blind person, but it's fine if the job in question is for a pilot! Similarly, in the case of language requirements, the job is to serve a certain community. Eployees who don't speak the community language would not be able to do their job properly. That's why it's not discrimination. Besides, as a native English speaker, you would already have far more advantages than an English language learner. Why take away their advantages in the few areas?

I feel as if jillaroo is someone who just hears another person speaking another language and automatically thinks that they're talking about them.

Its not discrimination if there is a legitimate reason for wanting a different language. If you are hiring a guy that is going to head the expansion for your company in China, of course you are going to want somebody that speaks the language. If you live in an area that has a large amount of people that speak a different language (Such as near the Mexican border in the US, or eastern Canada) you might want your salesman, cashier, server, etc. to be able to speak both languages. The amount of importance for the language determines how mandatory it is. (less mandatory that a lower paid server speaks 2 languages, very mandatory that your head of foreign development can)