And yes, one can compare for the simple fact that it IS discrimination. It might not seem like its "MAJOR LEAGUE BIG BOYS DISCRIMINATION" as portrayed by some, but it IS still discrimination. And it IS what the question of the thread was. No one gets to change the definition of discrimination just because they find some forms of discrimination acceptable and others not as acceptable. All that does is ignore discrimination. And through that ignoring the discrimination gets worse and worse until it becomes a problem. Don't believe me? Look at how you responded to my claims of discrimination because of my criminal history. You pretty much scoffed at it. "Maybe you shouldn't have committed crimes in the past" and "I was never a criminal". Yeah sure, you might have a prison work-release program at your restaurants, but you still look down upon criminals as evidenced by your comments towards me and my criminal history. And yet you know nothing of that history beyond the fact that I have one. Yet you still condemn me for it and find it acceptable that I was discriminated against. Evidenced by the phrasing of your words.
I haven't broadened any definition. If you consider it broad it is because you are not considering certain things as fitting the definition because they are, to you, piddly compared to what you've experienced. But you thinking that they are piddly does not mean that it is not discrimination and that there isn't an effect.