There are some cases where most people would agree that racial discrimination is justified.
One of their most important rules is to say it is illegal to discriminate based on:
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.
The result being, less people employed, less goods produced, and less enjoyment running a business and MORE discrimination. However it will be immeasurable, if the employer pulls a job to avoid hiring an at risk individual, then that individual has no job because of discrimination, but does not know it.
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.
Its all a tick in the box excercise, you need some women, some men, some disabled, some alternative nationalities and some varying sexualities in the work place or your discriminating. Get a grip.
What happened to the best person gets the job. I have been there when lesser qualified people get a post because they tick one of the above categories.
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.
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22267147 caste discrimination