It seems we agree more than disagree but are stuck on a specific part. I think the guy is a racist (which is not illegal) but think he is exposed on racial discrimination. Maybe not as exposed as being discriminatory with regards to religious or political affiliations, but it is conscionable that charges could brought up specifically on race.

Or not. They may choose to go after him only on religion or political affiliations deeming it a stronger case. They would focus in on the term 'non-Christian Arab' as I have.

But moving beyond that to your question, it is interesting. It seems the general practice of 'discrimination' in all of it's meanings is being defended here in this thread. The act of discrimination is not being challenged. It is legal to discriminate: it is illegal to discriminate for specifc reasons. It seems some think that it should be legal to discriminate for any reason at all, or based on religous or political affiliations, or even race. Well, I think that's wrong. And there are laws against it.

There are various situations where we as a society discriminate, some socially acceptable and some legally defendable. Or maybe not, but nobody chooses to do anything about it. But the act of discrimination in it's basic non-specific form is not illegal in any way. I don't see anybody saying it should be.