Why? Organizations are always subsets of the world in which they operate, and I don't see how being picky about the types of people with whom one associates is any sort of inherent injustice (other than the fact that, if applied improperly, it may hinder or otherwise impede/impair the organization, or (again, if applied improperly) deny opportunity to the disadvantaged on the wrong/unjust basis).
If I theoretically wanted to never hire people who are, say, sports fanatics, what's bad about that (outside of the fact that it may or may not make my team perform better or worse)?
Or, for a more concrete example: I do actually refuse to hire people who are both a) presently addicted to nicotine and b) consume tobacco combustion smoke to service that addiction. My personal thesis is that not quitting smoking in 2022 (and further not switching to a vaporizer now that such is widely available) is correlated with a specific lack of important personality and cognitive traits that make someone maximally effective in life (and at work). Am I being awful, and why?
You seem to approach it as something inherently bad, and I'm curious as to why, because I don't see any (external) harm whatsoever in it, and I should be free to make bad(?) hiring decisions that potentially kneecap (or benefit) my own team/company if I choose.
In fact, given that people working within the team/company are entirely opt-in, I see the ability to shape a team on other important social axes using these sorts of methods as a very important competitive differentiator (for better or worse; one would hope it results in competitive advantage) with regards to attracting and retaining talent (from relatively insignificant "your coworkers won't be ashtray stinky" all the way up to things like "your coworkers won't be TERFs").
What's the social/moral downside? Is there one?