Either way, the well-intentioned laws governing discrimination in hiring will always be toothless as long as there is any legal reason to not hire a person that otherwise meets the stated job qualifications.
NFL quarterback, MLB pitcher, NHL goalie are obvious examples, but my strongest senior employees are closer to that spread of ability and "value" versus the field than a pieceworker in a clothing factory or assembly line could ever be (and are compensated accordingly).
I also regularly hire people who don't meet the letter of the stated job qualifications. I certainly don't want to devolve to a lawyerly interpretation of job descriptions as contracts and litigate whether or not Chris Jones did or did not objectively meet the stated JD or whether I became aware that Chris Jones did meet them before I was aware that Terry Smith did, or whether after becoming aware that both met the qualifications, why I did not engage in salary negotiations to determine the lowest price that each would accept to join.
"I believe that candidate X was stronger than candidate Y [or a better value]" are valid reasons to select candidate X over Y, even if they both meet the job desc and regardless of whether either is in a majority or minority group of any sort, IMO.
Unfortunately, when mis-used, that hiring manager flexibility results in some ugly outcomes. It also results in a lot of good outcomes (where the strongest candidates are highly sought after, and where there is incentive to distinguish yourself positively as a candidate and as an employee).
There will always be a lawful reason to not hire a person, therefore any unlawful reasons to not hire are simply unenforceable against any employer that wisely refrains from opening its big mouth and confessing to any of them.
Essentially, such laws merely instruct potential employers to never give prospective employees any reason for anything, and they suffer the unlawful discrimination anyway. The legislators thought only of their intent, and paid no heed to detection and enforcement.
They can't fix the problem shown via experiment and statistical analysis in the article with a new law, because they law they would pass to do so already exists.