We investigate preferences for engaging in or opposing discrimination, focusing on moral preferences beyond self-interest. Some individuals may oppose statistical discrimination on grounds of protected-group equality, while others may prefer it to reward groups with higher average merit. Likewise, individuals may oppose taste discrimination or assert their tastes for groups. We conduct incentivized online experiments to elicit discrimination preferences in three domains: ethnicity, gender, and LGBTQ+ status. Analyzing over 60,000 anonymous decisions about how to pay workers, we report highly heterogeneous preferences and a paradox of meritocracy—while merit may be a reason to reject discrimination, it also justifies discrimination.