Private discrimination is different than government sanctioned discrimination. First, it cannot be stopped, and second, government attempts to correct it often have the opposite result of their intentions and result in more prejudice and discrimination than would exist without goverment action.
Note: by 'government sanctioned discrimination', I am referring to both AA and 'hate crime' type stuff AND the reverse, such as segregationist policies in schools and public transport etc... In the US, 'Civil rights' activists often, IMO, didn't recognize that government itself was at the root of the discrimination in the first place.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Personally, I feel a private business (and they're ALL private) should be free to discriminate for whatever reasons they like. EO, "hate crimes" and other legislation just interferes with the interests of private business owners.
The government however, must represent the interests of all citizens. Their only goal should be to eliminate all discrimination (inclusing quotas and set-asides) from the public sector, without encroaching on the abilities of private business-owners to run THEIR businesses as they see fit.
In the case I mentioned, I don't believe that the IT director has the permission or authority to establish his own caste system within the stockholders company. He's an employee, not an owner.