I think the problem here is that any criteria you use to choose one person over another is discriminatory -- that's the dictionary definition of discrimination: the choice between multiple competing options.
The problem isn't discrimination, it's unfair discrimination -- that is, discrimination on the basis of something that should have no bearing on a decision to employ someone.
Any criteria you choose will rule out people who aren't able to optimize for those criteria for whatever reason. I believe that's OK, as long as you are aware of the tradeoffs and try as much as possible, in good faith, to minimize unfair criteria while maintaining those criteria that help you hire people who have the best ability (or potential ability) to do the job.
The problem isn't discrimination, it's unfair discrimination -- that is, discrimination on the basis of something that should have no bearing on a decision to employ someone.
Any criteria you choose will rule out people who aren't able to optimize for those criteria for whatever reason. I believe that's OK, as long as you are aware of the tradeoffs and try as much as possible, in good faith, to minimize unfair criteria while maintaining those criteria that help you hire people who have the best ability (or potential ability) to do the job.