An example of why the state should be small, so that the competition for non-discriminatory people is not too intense.

I agree that if he keeps his beliefs to himself and there is no ill effect, then there is no more to be done.

However, if he makes his feelings known even privately that he, say, thinks all Kalathumpians are thick, then if I were a Kalathumpian, I would not like my chances of getting a job.

We had a case like this in Australia a couple of years back. Law professor at a publicly funded university makes public (in a letter to a suburban Sydney newspaper, I recall) his feelings about the intelligence (or lack) of a particular ethnic group. He rightly copped flak (and I think retired early to save the sack) – if I had been a student in his class of that background, I would not have felt confident he would give me a fair chance.

In short he is free to think what he likes provided he harms no-one else.

I wouldn’t particularly like (say) the recruitment manager down at my local town hall expressing a negative prejudice against a particular group (or indeed a positive prejudice in favour of a group), even if not threatening violence, and even if expressing it privately.

Am not saying he or she should go to jail for saying such thing, but I don’t think that person would be fit for the job and would not be sorry if he or she were sacked for it.