I agree with you completely, however I see no need at all for them to be anything but civil legislation issues. Its the act of defining discrimination that I have issue with.
By defining an 'act of discrimination' we create the discrimination it rules against.
Before the definition, Company A refused to hire Person B because of their disability/race, whatever. Surely there doesn't need to be a whole seperate set of rules to cover that?
Having an actively anti-discrimination society leads to a society where positive discrimination (the great oxymoron of our time) becomes desireable.
To discriminate is to favour one over another. Give the job to someone who may be doesn't quite have the same skills as another candidate, but ticks the female/handicapped box.
Thats fair enough, you might say, but is it? Why, in a fair and free society, should the job applicant be discriminated against?
I just think it unfair that some people live with a whole different rule book to protect them.
(The road laws are another example, kill someone by running round after a few pints waving a big piece of lead pipe in the park, its murder/manslaughter, take a corner badly because you've had a few pints and cripple a child and you probably get dangerous driving. Not fair)
Whilstever there is one rule for one person, another for someone who is different there will never be any equality, the very fact that there is a difference, and it is noted in law, will always create discrimination.