Maybe you’re using “discriminate” in the sense that it’s the active choice of a policy-making body to contrive things to create a certain outcome. Make laws, establish institutions and classist social structure, etc. And that’s indeed different than contriving things so as to create a non-discriminatory outcome. You see? We surely apply some discriminating practices that lead to both types of outcome. For example, laws are made to (supposedly) ensure that everyone has equal access to basic liberties. And of course any of those policy actions can simultaneously create discrimination in some areas while relieving it in others.

So it’s difficult to go anywhere useful with your argument. You’re proposing that an A should be done because it leads to so much obviously beneficial B outcome. Sort of like saying we should blot out the sun because that’ll save everyone from the discomfort of sunburn. (Sorry, I stretched for that analogy.) For me at least, it begs the question of what is the trade off. And that would surely be my first contention to your argument if I were trying to argue this like a real philosopher.

If that was indeed what you meant by discriminating, I wonder if you could reframe your proposition around the whole set of possible outcomes. As in, doing A leads to all these different Bs, and most of them are good, therefore we should do A. At least, that’s something I could sink my teeth into.

And maybe you only meant we should prevent discriminatory outcomes. But that gets us into even more of a tangle, it seems, because I’d quickly argue that it’s impossible to prevent any sort of outcome in society and commerce without imposing some sort of discretionary (discriminating) policy, law, or governance structure. And if there’s no practical consequence to the proposition, it’s not really an argument as much as it’s just wishful thinking.