(Nor should they be. Nor should women, blacks, gays, or jews. Have I pissed off enough people yet? The government should not be able to descriminate on the basis of irrelevent characteristics. But on what basis landlords and renters judge each other, or employers and employees, is no business of the government's.)

Wrong.

The Washington State government doesn't discriminate on any ethnic, racial, sexual orientation, or gender basis - but it does protect the individual from discriminatory practices of businesses and other agencies.

With people like you, we need it.

Wright: you pretty much have your wish. According to the Supreme Court's recent gay marriage ruling, you only need a 'rational basis' (ie, any made-up reason) to discriminate against any group (even, for example, racial minorities, because they are no longer a 'suspect class' since they have political power (evidenced by minority politicians and laws protecting minorities)).

Har har.

In any case, the court ruled that the government could legally descriminate. I wrote that the government should not legally be allowed to descriminate. Actually, I don't think the private sector should descriminate either, but I don't think its the government's job to enforce that behavior.

Descrimination is like cussing, or gambling, or prostitution. It's not something I would do, or I would want the government doing, but it's not the government's business to stop those who choose to do it.

I'm not sure it makes sense to equate repealing affirmative action with the victimization of the minority. If the UCs are deliberately discriminating against applicants based on their race, that would qualify as the tyranny of the majority.