Inappropriate discrimination can only be proven by reading people's thoughts. Practically speaking, anti-discrimination laws force many innocent people to spend resources and to discriminate inappropriately (e.g., quotas) because they might be accused of having inappropriate thoughts someday. Even worse, legislation such as the one proposed sets up protected groups, violating the basic principle of equal protection of the laws.
First of all it's important to understand the meaning of, "discrimination." In a general sense to discriminate means to distinguish between things or attributes (e.g., right and wrong, red and orange). Another common definition further refines this to mean distinguishing between people in an unjust manner (e.g., on the basis of skin color).
There are innumerable ways to discriminate between people.
One of my concerns with anti-discrimination laws is that they discourage people from distinguishing between people in many appropriate ways. They also discourage people from distinguishing based on feelings.
Scenario 1: Joe is interviewing Fred for a job where it's common to handle large amounts of money. He gets the impression Fred isn't trustworthy, but can't put his finger on why he feels this way.
Is it wrong to pass on Fred in favor of another candidate based only on this impression?
Is it appropriate to pass laws that make it illegal for Fred to discriminate based on impressions?
What constitutes proof that someone is discriminating inappropriately?
Is there such a thing as discriminating inappropriately?
Do people have a right to discriminate?
References