That makes sense. I am curious how would the court respond to discrimination based on, say, tattoos on their forehead? Extreme example to make a point.
That would be solidly legal, I'd guess. At least under federal law. Discrimination is just the preference of one thing over another. It is not illegal. What is illegal is racial, religious, sex, etc. discrimination.
Not the same thing, if you chose to be a member of caste or it had nothing to do with your anceatory then your comparison would hold true. But even if you said "curly haired people can't work here" that would be racial descrimination. The term race can mean different things in different cultures but the reasonable person's understanding would be ancestoral grouping of people based on physiological characteristic such as skin color.
Consider how east asians can sometimes have skin whiter than scandanavians but their race is still asian. Or how brown skinned southern europeans can be white while similarly skin-toned north africans are excluded from whiteness.
reply