no u

But not against morailty, capishe?
You shouldn't get to take the boss's money away just by being the most qualified.
You should only get the boss's money by being the kind of person that the boss wants to give it to.

I don't think you understand the social ills behind allowing discrimination to run rampant.

Educated minorities who are unemployed because they cannot find meaningful employment causes downward pressure on uneducated minorities. With increased unemployment, these people will resort to criminal activity in the alternative, especially organized criminal activity (you can see this happening today, poor black, hispanic, and asian kids have no future so they resort to joining gangs--imagine this 50x worse, as now even the middle class and rich ones will slowly join their ranks--and the last thing you want are extremely sharp and intelligent people running criminal enterprises)

All because you don't think the government should regulate discriminatory practices.

Well it is partially necessary due to social disparities between specific groups. Even in the modern day there are major differences between how people (even in the same family) are raised. Thus society attempts to compensate for these disadvantage to give everyone an equal opportunity.

If we instead based it only on scores, groups who start off at a disadvantage may not as likely make it into those positions. The difficulty encountered by a specific group may thus discourage future attempts, thus continuing to maintain a divide.

Not to mention there is also an inherent bias due to the resistance to change. People do not like to change if the previous method has worked for them thus far. Not many people want to try a new route if they can get from point A to B already.

You fix disparities among minorities and low income families from the ground up by dealing with bad public schools, crime, and job markets, not by siphoning off their best and brightest with discriminatory practices.

Ok sure.
If it runs rampant that's a bad thing.
But making something legal doesn't make it run rampant.
In addition to that it's my contention that they could only make it illegal because it already was frowned upon.

When Title VII was enacted in the US, it only passed because the Democrats controlled the Congress.

If Democrats controlled the congree because more people voted Democrat, and they did so knowing that Democat policy was contra discrimination then that pretty much proves the point that most people don't need laws to hate discrimination.

It means no such thing. By the same logic, the Patriot Act proves that the people voted for it indirectly by electing Republicans to office.

Also do you not know what gerrymandering is? a majority of any party in any legislative body is a meaningless thing

Discrimnation happens.

Forcing employers to hire even one person not based on merit, but merely to fill a quota is not the solution.

If a company hired on merit alone, and if there is just a coincidence that the first 25 were all men, no law should not force a company to then hire women for position #26 to better represent the population. There are many, many jobs I have had where women simply didn't exist in significant numbers, like programming & electrical work, where specifically I knew but one woman union electrician and a handful of H1-B asian women programmers out of hundreds of co-workers from the field in the seattle area even. While I've worked with dozens of women with microsoft on their resumes, and not one real programmer besides some html dabblers.