Tim's argument is really more from the perspective of human rights than economic justification. The link to economic activity is only that, "we undermine people

Tim's argument is really more from the perspective of human rights than economic justification. The link to economic activity is only that, "we undermine people's potential and deny ourselves and our society the full benefits of those individuals' talents." The cost of this is distributed and small (to the company), and therefore he is not making the argument that companies that do not discriminate will out-compete companies that do. He is making the more subtle argument that increased human flourishing and creativity that result from antidiscrimination laws are good for business. The title is misleading and the argument is muddled - advocates of Tim's position would do well to avoid this line of argumentation and make the stronger point: Antidiscrimination laws advance human flourishing and cause our society to be more just. Therefore they are worth having.