Without 'the state' there would be no legitimatised use of force to make people's actions not be 'racist' or 'sexist' or 'homophobic' etc. And so, instead, a natural order would form and prevail. This was one of the matters I pondered and returned to whilst coming to accept and understand that statelessness is necessary and optimal for a properly functional human social order. The question was: how could 'minorities' be protected from 'discrimination' in a stateless society. The answer is not to offer a resolve to that supposed requirement but to understand that the question itself is invalid.
The supposed validity of the question is a premise advanced by 'the state' to help engender and consolidate a need for the existence of 'the state' to provide this function in society. This role helps not only 'the state' to perpetuate, (that minorities believe without the protection of 'the state' they would be subjected to discrimination so therefore, they believe, the perpetuation of 'the state' is essential for their continued well-being and protection), the role also allows 'political factions', within the state, to assemble a 'majority of minorities' to then act in union against the actual, real, social majorities.
In having 'the state' act against the true social majorities (supposedly on the behalf of their 'anointed' minority groups) it mean that 'the state' uses violent force and the threat of force to 'make' the majority behave in a manner they would not freely opt to do. This causes deep distortions to social order which is then exemplified because it suits 'the state' to consolidate ever widening factions too, who believe that they are also dependent on, or want, perpetual 'state' force for their specific situation to be protected, preserved, advanced and respected.
So it suits the state to fill their territory with an ethnically and culturally disparate population, to have a large population living in subsidised housing, to support single mothers, to have a significant population dependent on welfare, to give 'respectability' to non-heterosexuals, assure government workers of pensions, women the power to make fathers pay for them and their children no matter what and so on. It also, therefore, suits 'the state' to continuously add to these such factions comprising this state dependant element, to even cause endless frictions between each and all, so that then 'the state' is necessary to always remain as the 'only' solution to the apparent disorder that would result in the absence of rulers.
If, for example, it is that the natural, preferred, human social order is: to just live as nations of ethnically similar people; why not allow that resulting, stable, social order arise? I am somewhat doubtful that that is the real natural universally preferable situation for modern cultured human societies but it is very difficult to measure as so much of our past cultures were dependent on rulers usurping this intrinsic tendency and building nationalism in the people as a binding force for 'state' perpetuation, influence and, of cause, unity to support war.
Now the social order is to be directed towards ever-deepening social union of the peoples and nations of the world. Purportedly such global-union is a drive towards 'a world without wars' and for technocracy: the effective 'scientific management' of the global population and resource (the arguments against which is a separate matter to that being addressed here). In order to allow 'the state' to dictate, within a supposedly representational democratic process, to bring about the changes required, the voice of the majorities need to be repressed else such a union will be rejected as would a socialist society, and, I consider the continuation of the cult of the religious belief in 'the state' itself.