The following was paraphrased from a response I gave to a friend, denouncing his support of Federal "anti-discrimination laws." (He the liberal, I the libertarian)
EDIT (This is not my account, but a friend's. (I am no democrat) I just thought I'd share some food for thought with you liberals)
I disagree.
Affirmative action isn't racist in its intent, but it is certainly racist in practice. It's also obviously unconstitutional with the 14th amendment for public universities to discriminate against people because of their race.
Private colleges can do whatever they want. But even there, it's still asinine, condescending, and counter-productive.
Only a crackpot would deny that blacks have faced (and continue to face) massive discrimination, but it's always been my view that reverse discrimination just perpetuates racism, and gives racists a pretense for creating tension among middle class whites.
I support Federal anti-discrimination laws in dealing with government jobs and universities, For example, I oppose Don't Ask Don't Tell)(in that it violates the First Amendent) but I don't support them in regard to private entities. (For example, I wouldn't mandate that a Jewish private school accept Muslim students)
There are many principled reasons to do so.They don't work, because bigots find a way of getting around them anyway. (if they want to fire a gay, they will find a reason too) And anyway, companies rarely practice discrimination anymore, at least not successful ones. Are some Fortune 500 CEO's bigots? Sure. But by and large, the American people aren't. And they, by not subsidizing a proven-to-be-racist company, "regulate," the rest of the industry. (remember, the primary goal of a corporation is to make money, which is why GE employs Keith Olbermann)
To be discriminatory in your associations is also a fundamental, constitutional liberty. If you OWN the company or the home, you have the right to do whatever you want with it. You can even be a bigot or an idiot; you can hire your less-than-qualified friend that has had some run-ins with the law over a more qualified candidate. (and incidentally, many would to this) You can hire a guy without a high school diploma, for all I care. It's YOUR COMPANY, and you have the right to run it as you want, so long as you are not hurting those around you. (like by polluting or double-dealing)
The same applies for hate crime laws. If Person A rapes and murdesr a black woman out of racism, (while a reprehensible asshat) you should not be given a special "hate crime," sentence. If person B was not particularily racist (just a reprehensible asshat) and he found a woman (who, for arguments sake, was African American) in an alley one night, raped her, and then (fearing ramifications) murdered her to cover it up, why should the two sentences be different?
They shouldn't. And while liberals are pretty good on civil liberties, they fall far short of libertarians.