Discrimination is a bad word among the politically correct. People who discriminate, we are told are evil.
In fact everyone discriminates. We discriminate between green and red traffic lights, healthy and unhealthy food, tasty and bad-tasting food. We even discriminate between our property and someone else's when we want to use it.
Those who speak out against discrimination generally do not choose to to define the term, just to criticize. When pressed they will give a list of things which they think people should be allowed to discriminate on, and which they think they shouldn't.
Typically the list of should nots include race, religion, age, gender, marital status and number of dependent children. A closer investigation of the anti-discriminatory belief set shows the inconsistencies.
Do any of us not discriminate? Is someone a bad person because they choose a partner based on gender? No we are told, that is one case where it is OK. What about age? Generally we are told that that is OK as well. What about religion? What about race? The response to that is usually an uncomfortable one.
What comes out of this is usually a complex cross of relationships and criteria some of which are deemed acceptable, and some of which are not.
If your business partner is also your spouse then it is OK to discriminate on the basis of race, but if they are not, then you cannot discriminate on that basis.
So I'm only allowed to discriminate against people I want to have sex with? The argument becomes idiotic.
Special interest groups set up anti-discrimination rules to force an indirect subsidy from the rest of society. A single mother with three children, with a history of less availability than single childless man, is less likely to be selected for promotion. Naturally she wants the same income as her competitor without having to work the same hours. Anti-discrimination laws allow her to do this.
A new immigrant with poor language skills is unlikely to find a job as easily as a well spoken competitor. Anti-discrimination laws provide the mechanism to do this.
Strictly speaking, most laws do not prevent discrimination on the basis of language or time availability, but affirmative action policies close the gap. The reasoning goes something like:
In other words, this is the equality of outcome argument.
Every person has the right to choose their partner on whatever grounds they choose (provided the choice is mutual). They can choose on their appearance, gender grounds, racial grounds, religious grounds, the amount of money they make, the number of children they have and so on.
Choosing friends is no different. Choosing business partners is no different. Choosing employers is no different. Choosing employees is no different.
Forcing people to trade with, work for, or employ people chosen by the government is immoral.
In fact, irrational discrimination (choosing people on something other than merit) just creates opportunity for others. If one employer will not employ an excellent and productive applicant because they are a particular race, gender, religion or marital status, they simply create opportunities for their competitors.
Discriminating between safe and unsafe is something that me must do to survive. Discriminating when we choose a partner or a friend is something that is our fundamental right.
Discriminating against an employee on the basis of race, gender, religion marital status or the number of children is either sensible or not.
If it is sensible, that is, the employee is actually less productive than the other applications then why should this be a crime?
If it is not sensible, that is, the employee is actually just as productive as other applicants (or more so) then it has simply created on opportunity for other employers.
If there is a general pattern for employers to (foolishly) discriminate against particular groups, then employers who target those groups for recruitment would be more successful than other employers. If there were only a small number of employers for people to choose from this would be a problem, but modern economies are highly dynamic and offer a choice of countless employers.
Anti-discrimination policies are promoted by those who want subsidies to make up for their own incompetencies, or by those who genuinely feel that the groups they belong to have a low productivity.
Discrimination by the mass-media (such as continually portraying certain minority groups in certain ways) is annoying, but again, creates opportunity - for others to portray them in other ways.
Anti-discrimination laws have no place in a modern society.