> So discrimination is okay in certain circumstances.
Yes absolutely, we discriminate all the time and discrimination is a morally neutral thing. I think you are mostly speaking about racial discrimination, because most people most certainly support discrimination for, say, a choice between skilled and unskilled people when hiring for a particular job role.
> What does violent crime and equal participation in society that you keep bringing up have to do with allowing one group to do something we don't allow any other group to do?
Well, as a society we DO allow some groups to do things that other groups do not. A lot of basic human rights revolve around letting people do things that some group of others do not, for example attending particular religious service. Again, I think you are getting at that we as a society do not allow racist discrimination in our society due to the harms that come from racism.
> What does allowing this accomplish that enforcing the existing equality laws does not? (Referring to EEO and EEH acts, if they are applied like they should be?) Legally, how does this not fall afoul of the equal protection laws as defined in the constitution?
I do not know much about the EEO and EEH programs you mention, so I can't really comment on those specific things. However, there is a great body of evidence that shows right now, in our current legal framework, there are racial injustices and disparities. For new legislation and policies, then question then becomes can this inequality be addressed through the law, and if so how. How any given program or policy interacts with equal protection under the law isn't an answering question without more specific questions about policy, as in the US the legal system and Supreme Court have both accepted and rejected laws and programs that do seek to fix racial inequality. To date, though, affirmative action programs have been found to be valid within certain criteria, so the allowed existence of such programs is not in question here.
> On a more practical level, wouldn't it be more beneficial for everyone involved (the employeer, the employee, society at large) for someone hiring for a position to choose the most qualified person for the job rather than selecting explictly for racial background?
It is a common misconception that affirmative action programs mean that unqualified people will be hired or admitted to an educational institution. Generally such programs include race as a factor when comparing alike, qualified candidates. How exactly these processes work will depend on specific programs, some of which have been found to not be legal in the US and were struck down (but affirmative action itself remains legal and valid). Further, there is a large cost to societies that keep populations based on race, age, disability, and economic class suppressed or excluded from education, jobs, equal legal protection, and personal integrity (among other things), so policies that can address those societal problems do have a measurable benefit.
Lastly, I meant to say that you were presenting the notion that policies that benefit minorities were wrong and unjust by questioning the need for those policies: that says to me that you either aren't familiar with the data about this or that you are familiar with that data and still don't believe it and would prefer a world without policies that help addressed our most fundamental inequalities as a society. This is my last post on this, if you would like to learn more, there are far better sources than I a Google search away.
