It's the government's job to enforce equal justice under the law, not to change the way a party pursues its own private interests.
Re-read what you just said. The whole point of government intervention is to PREVENT inequality BECAUSE of firm's pursuing these interests in an unfair way. You've literally managed to contradict yourself in one sentence, well done.
Insurance companies ought to charge whatever insurance premiums they want on whoever they want. If a particular insurance company alienates men, then men will contract with another insurance company that doesn't. If every insurance company charges exorbitantly high insurance premiums on men (which is improbable), then they will lose business from a key demographic.
This idealistic comment is extremely naive. If you had a basic knowledge of economics you'd know that insurance firms are oligopolies and are often part of what is known as a 'cartel', a group of firms who collectively agree to charge a minimum price in order to maximize profits. It's a well recognised argument that insurance firms are most likely in collusion with one another, either explicitly or implicity. Not to mention other exploitative practices such as dual pricing, elasticity etc..
So no, a new firm will unlikely capitalize on these high prices, not only because this "new" firm most likely does not exist, but also because a newer firm will not want to engage in a price war with a cartel of multinationals.
This incentivizes men to contract with one insurance company over another, and this is how free markets work, get a grip.
The insurance market is not a "free" market. In fact theres no such thing as a free market anywhere in the world. The man may receive a lower quote in a year's time, but will lose a lot of money after insuring unfairly for over a year.
The first example and second examples you gave are incomparable. Race alone should not be used to determine who is a terrorist, seeing how terrorists span many races. Indicators are required to determine who is a terrorist, such as a bulge in his or her jacket or a hat that reads, "Death to America." A Muslim should be granted citizenship if he passes these indicator tests and, of course, passes the citizenship requirements which test his or her principle (i.e, adherence to the political democracy and the enlightened ideals on which America was founded) and potential (i.e., ability to contribute to the American economy; that is, a return on investing valuable public resources into the immigrant).
Oh my. Are you aware your president motioned to ban this certain demographic from your country, purely on the basis of creed? Do you know how easy it is to fake one of your bullshit "indicator" tests? I've never seen an argument so naive.
Funnily enough, you've literally proved my point that they ARE comparable in an attempt to prove they're not. You've mentioned these "tests/indicators:" for accepting people in america. Are you aware there are no "tests" for newer drivers? Attitude is not assessed like in these indicators. You've added a variable to one side of the comparison without adding it to the other, well done, you've countered your own argument.
Women should not receive maternity leave payments because it's not the government's job to enforce them. It's a women's decision to get pregnant (barring rape, in which case there are exceptions, usually addressed through a court), it's a women's choice to have sex, and it's a women choice to leave her job for the purposes of raising a baby. If the government ended the required maternity leave payment, then employers would not be concerned about hiring women. If they are concerned about hiring women based on, for instance, prejudice, then that will only harm the business and reduce their potential gains. Other businesses will accept the qualified woman, thus harming the business who does discriminate. This doesn't mean that businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.
I happen to straddle the line on this issue, but the fact is, these payments DO exist universally in the west. If you understood my post correctly you'd realize I was pointing out that if the government is to legislate against one type of "discrimination", it will have to legislate for any others too, hence the 'double standard'.