No, I do not. Discrimination in hiring based on fitness for the job is quite appropriate, though.
Because he’s not fit for the job. Again, discrimination based on fitness for the job is fine.
I’ll ask one more time, and understand that I think there’s only one possible answer and that you’re avoiding it on purpose because it requires you to rethink your axiom: in what way is he not fit for the job? Please be specific.
He’s not fit for the job because he cannot play a black man. At least not very believably. Is that specific enough for you?
Aaah, well that’s the crux of it, isn’t it. The intent isn’t to discriminate against anyone. No-one’s exactly hurt if some other people get to experience something they don’t - they’re neutrally affected, not negatively affected (speaking of classroom-type field trips etc).
And as for “innocent”…
It would annoy me if this happened at my school. Wanting to go because he’s a rocket engineer is at least as valid as wanting to go because he’s a successful black man.
Of course it’s not specific enough. What is it about him that makes him not able to play a black man very believably?
Is “annoyed” the same as “hurt”, though? " It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", sort of thing…