Note also that discrimination is wrong when it demeans whether or not the person affected feels demeaned or stigmatized. In other words, this account of wrongful discrimination is grounded in the wrong that discrimination sometimes is rather than the harm that it may cause. (my emphasis)So, given that there need not be any negative consequences to any person, even just thinking a discriminating thought is wrong!? Now presumably discrimination is punishable. This means that if you could read people's minds you could/would be able to punish them for their bad thoughts of discrimination.
The problem is not necessarily how silly this is. This is taking to the extreme this type of philosophy (deontology). The problem is the only real objection to consequentialism is of this type.
Generally, objections to consequentialism are framed so as to violate a person's intuitions: Kill an innocent person, take her organs to save 5? How horrible!!
But think about it!! In the extreme which morality far and away violates intuition? So compare for yourself:
- Kill innocents to save even more innocents; VS
- Punish people for their thoughts.