I like to bring this up from time to time: In the 60’s my parents were trying to rent our house prior to our move to Seattle. One day they left the house and told me (I had just finished the 6th grade) that if anyone called about the house that “sounded black”, tell them it was rented.
I actually had the presence of mind to ask my dad why, and this is what he said, and I paraphrase: If we rent to white people and they are deadbeats, we can kick them out. If we rent to blacks and they are deadbeats, we’ll be stuck with them for a long time.
That was the day I realized that our “well meaning” anti-discrimination laws hurt the very people the purport to help. Of course, as life went on, I learned I only scratched the surface of the insidiousness of such laws and their generational effect on the people they claim to help.
Yes, minimum wage laws hurt most the marginally employable. The requirements expected from an employer towards a full time employee ensure that many of the marginally employable have to commute between two or three part time jobs - because nobody will offer them full time - despite it being in both they and the employee's best interest - because of the burden put upon the employer via legislation to “help” employees.
If you create a protected class of citizens - it is not unreasonable for people to NOT want to be caught on the wrong end of their protected status.
Prior to sexuality being a protected classification - one might well want to hire the most qualified person even if they are homosexual. After the legislation hiring that person is LESS favored rather than MORE favored. So whose interests did the legislation actually serve?