Affirmative action is a difficult matter. I used to be very much against the idea; I pictured things as the majority of people having certain rights and access to opportunities, and minorities needing to catch up.  But then it was pointed out to me that that if the majority have rights and opportunities that the minority didn't, this was much an accident-of-birth shift from fairness as was the lack of opportunities of the minority.  This isn't really for individuals - anyone who happens to be a white male in, say, the UK, has at least some automatic advantages that someone who happens to be a black male doesn't because even though racism is hugely less than it used to be, the effects of racism take generations to pass (if parents were refused opportunities, this impacts on their children).

Some affirmative action can, if it works, help to shake things up not just by allowing underprivileged minorities to have equalised effective opportunities, but also by encouraging visibility of members of those minorities in situations where they have not been visible before.

Of course, it doesn't always work, and there can be resentment.  That is a serious concern. But, what I am trying to shake up is ideas of absolutes.  The idea that there has to automatically be the same approach for everyone, the same standard.  Having a consistent standard is only fair if you are already at a situation of equality.  Of course, complete fairness may not be the final concern, as it may not always be practical - you might just have to do your best.

But when I see rigid guidelines for what has to be the situation in a secular state, such as that requests by people and groups for treatment based on their religion should be ignored, this worries me. this seems a very simplistic strategy that does not reflect the messiness of life.

Here is a hypothetical situation.  There are some immigrants from some oppressive regime overseas.  They have suffered terribly, let's say.  We recognise that their attitude towards women is far from perfect.  They need housing and medicine.  Their culture insists that women are segregated.  Do we not provide necessary housing and medicine (urgently needed) unless they accept lack of segregation?  Do we prioritise conforming with our culture over the provision of basic needs (assuming they are dumb enough to refuse if we say no)?

What I am trying to point out is that these are not simple questions.  We should not be turning to a big book of the constitution and saying "line 5 on page 10 says no".  We have to put humanity over principle.   This is why I dislike unconditional statements that affirmative action is "nonsense". In this life, realistically, everything should be conditional, because life is so extremely complicated.