There is not a simple answer to the conundrum, but I agree with xenophanes in my preference: I would rather working relationships remained totally voluntary, ho

There is not a simple answer to the conundrum, but I agree with xenophanes in my preference: I would rather working relationships remained totally voluntary, however stupid people's reasoning may be. You are right that when unfair discrimination (or any stupid opinion in general) is widespread, the result is unjust--and can even cross the line from annoyance to injury. Small affronts can add up to oppression; death by a thousand cuts. I wish there were a form of redress beyond making papercuts illegal (something I'd rather not do). The main consolation I see is that making the action illegal may not help much except in marginal cases. If the law says one thing and society widely believes another, the latter is going to rule what actually happens--either through legislative change or jury selection or selective reporting or something. I believe the only real secure refuge from widespread discrimination is victory in the court of public opinion. One must rely on the natural justice of the cause and prove naysayers wrong. It is not complete protection, but I think it more just than the alternative: making a particular motivation for hiring or firing illegal. It is important to me that economic transactions be totally voluntary for both parties. And it is very important to me that private people be able to hold and act upon stupid beliefs. The invasion becomes particularly evident if I turn the situation around: Would I want to defend my actions before a court? Would I want a lawyer examining my motivation behind hiring this plumber, quitting that job, or buying a third car, to ensure they are not tainted by some vestige of racism? Heaven forbid! I don't have a great answer for it. But I think, weighing the two harms, I would rather suffer under misguided, widespread discrimination than permit the courts to question the beliefs and motivations that go into a private transaction. The former is an evil that I think I am willing to consciously accept as the price of the latter freedom.