It really all depends on how that discrimination is used. For example, police officers utilize it in areas where it is statistically likely for a crime to occur. We would be wasting tax payers dollars if we didn't put police officers in places where crime was likely to happen. Employers also discriminate employees based on their criminal record, and that is fair.

Of course using it in a way that that violates certain rights "unreasonably", that shouldn't be allowed.

Discrimination in regards to what? And on the basis of what?

Discrimination is necessary for a functioning society (we discriminate, for example, between police and criminals, staff and customers, students and professors, etc.)

So to ask a question such as this is pretty pointless, unless one is seriously asking wether an utterly equal (with no form of any distinction in any field) society would be able to function. In which case, my response is a big, blubberingly fat: NO

Now, as someone else pointed out, discrimination is usually used to refer to treating people differently based on things such as gender, orientation, or race/ethnicty. In which case, I would say I generally oppose it, but this varies depending on what subject/situation we're talking about.

People will always be discriminatory regardless of laws or the sanctimonious bellowing of the self righteous. Claiming the moral high ground by quoting the noble sounding extracts of some literary academic who has never lived in the real world may sound good, but in reality such sweeping quotations belong in cloud cuckoo land. For instance some people have an opinion that fat people lack will power, have little self respect and therefore are unsuitable for employment, so they discriminate against fat people. Who's to say they're wrong? Many people may not wish to fly in an aircraft which is piloted by a swarthy skinned man with a bushy black beard, I certainly wouldn't. So in certain situations I, and many others, discriminate against those who may be from an ethnic group which sympathizes with Islamic terrorists. The police may prejudge a situation in which a black man is seen running down the street with a television under his arm after a black riot. By stopping him and asking for proof of purchase for the t.v, are they being discriminatory? Not so long ago prejudice/discrimination would have made people feel uncomfortable if a group of men,one of whom was carrying a briefcase and all of whom had heavy Northern Irish accents, walked into a crowded bar. Would they have been guilty of racial discrimination or just paying heed to their survival instinct alarm call? . Either consciously or subconsciously, everyone is discriminatory in their judgments, and they in turn are discriminated against. In employment situations all an employer has to do is make sure that all the right boxes of the anti racial and religious discrimination laws are ticked and he/she can discriminate away until their heart's content. Quite rightly too. All these stifling laws take away the employer's natural intuitive abilities when selecting a candidate for a vacant position, professional or not. People feel more comfortable and perform better in the workplace when working along side like minded people whom they feel they can trust. Anyone who denies this is a liar or an idiot. Not only is it right to be discriminatory in certain circumstances, it's absolutely vital.

Discrimination in adopting or entering into a profession is absolutely necessary. Digging a ditch with a shovel is not even a profession, but still requires discrimination to select people who have two arms. If you are trying to engage the services of a lawyer, you would rightly discriminate against anyone without a law degree. And So On. Discrimination in and of itself can be simply the criteria for choosing.

IMO Fairness is the actual idea being addressed on the OP. Yes unfairness should not normaly be used in selecting for professions. There are elements of unfairness that must yield to reason, as with the ditch digger.