Complete load of crap, jumping to all kinds of potentially wrong conclusions. As ossiblue mentions, there can be lots of extenuating or legitimizing circumstances. I know in my state one can apply for and obtain a waiver from tinting restrictions due to a sensitivity to light (I looked into it a while ago but then determined it really wasn't necessary to get an inspection sticker even with my tinted windows). If a company didn't hire someone on this basis, they'd be setting themselves up for a lawsuit bigtime ("so you didn't hire my client because of his medical condition? Tell me more...") Of course as with most things, good luck ever getting them to admit it - most companies will never state a reason that a particular candidate was hired and another one was not. They'll just give a safe, evasive, corporate non-answer like "we found the other candidate to be more qualified for the position" so in practice they can do pretty much whatever they want without repercussions.
Also, as has been stated, why would you work for a company that has a policy like this? I've turned down job offers before and I very likely wouldn't consider working for a company like this one if I found out their policy ahead of time doing my homework. The only reason companies get away with stupidity like this is because good, qualified people let them, roll over and compromise their principles just to collect a paycheck. Stop doing it and watch them change their tune. When all the best candidates start going to the competition and they start getting their butts kicked as a result, perhaps they'll reconsider - if they're able to figure out why it's happening before they go under.
I have tinted windows on my Mercedes which are / were legal in CA and MA but not in NH where I'm currently domiciled. Then again I spend 80% of my time down in MA and live very close to the border so I don't see the need to remove the tinting (that I paid good money for and which protects my interior and looks good) just to comply with a dumb NH law. I've even discussed it with a cop and he agreed with me that the tint law has nothing whatsoever to do with officer safety - it's just an excuse to pull over cars that exhibit a characteristic that a lot of low-lifes happen to incorporate into their rides. I said if pulled over I roll down the windows anyway and put my hands in plain view, so what's the issue. He said "absolutely none - you'll definitely get treated better and with less suspicion than someone who leaves the window up and / or has their hands out of sight, whether the windows are tinted or not. If we're really concerned we'll order the driver to lower the window over the loudspeaker before we even approach the car".
Also keep in mind that it is the duty of the citizenry to challenge and even disobey stupid or unjust laws. It's not a "mindset" it's a responsibility. If our forefathers had followed all the laws we'd still be singing "God save the Queen" and paying tribute to London (although our taxes might actually be less than the tribute we pay to Washington, but that's another discussion!
If my "mindset" about mindless conformity is a problem then fine - don't hire me. I don't want to work for you anyway. I'm sure your corporate leaders follow all the rules now, don't they? Your loss, not mine.