Any kind of discrimination — be it on grounds of religion, political opinion, race, or whatever it is — seems to be incompatible with the idea of freedom under the law.

 FA Hayek

Levels of discrimination

Types of discrimination

Perverse results

One of their most important rules is to say it is illegal to discriminate based on:

• Sex
• Age
• Religion
• Orientation
• Race
• Nationality
• Marital status.

Then they proceed straight on and riddle their statue books with ages, races, nationalities, religions, orientations, marital status and wealth.

What the government means is under no circumstance it is right to discriminate against any of these things, unless you are the Government, in which case you can do so for what ever whim you wish.

An employer will be put off employing people that may use anti-discrimination laws. 

• If the employer has a choice between hiring an individual that comes from a group that has a high rate of claiming discrimination against employers, then the employer will in the first instance choose the individual that has the lower rate.
• If the employer would be seen as being discriminatory by doing so, they may choose to forgo profits in order to avoid the risk.

Anti discrimination laws put firms off hiring those who might use them honestly or dishonestly.

Historically, it was the white heterosexual male that was accused of most discrimination. All discriminators were lumped into one simple group despite on a subgroup of these responsible for the system and some of that group were against it. This means that the heterosexual white male is the only one who cannot claim discrimination on race, sexuality or gender. Therefore he is the easiest social group to discriminate against wihout consequence, as that group is seen as the problem.

Anybody who is subject to discrimination has as much right to complain about it as anybody else, regardless of their gender or race. 

Positive discrimination is insidiously evil. The main assumption behind it, is it gives everyone an even playing filed in order for meritocracy to flourish. But the complete opposite is true. 

Meritocracy has been trumped by 'Positive' discrimination.

When discriminating positively, one has to ask is it more acceptable to discriminate against white women than black women?

Most readers would intuitively feel something wrong with this question, but it has to be asked if you believe in positive discrimination.

Positive discrimination seems to have the basis that there is no faith in the group being positively discriminated for. It is living in the past.

http://www.capc.co.uk/not_in_my_name.htm

Quite often when arguing against someone who is for positive discrimination, the person arguing is a beneficiary of it.

If their argument for it, is a bad argument, and it is pointed out, you will be branded with the sexist/racist card. In reality the comment would have been the same no matter the race/sex of the person making it.

Its an easy out for someone who is losing an argument as your credibility is undermined as doubt is raised.

Legal privilege is rife. Legal discrimination, which privileges some people over other is a far worse crime than non-legal discrimination, as at least when discrimination is not sanctioned by Government one has a chance of escaping it.