"Who will you choose,
the qualified one,
or the NOT qualified one."


 The qualified one.  

 The difference is when one is qualified, but would be a better candidate for getting the job done because of their gender or whatever "diverse" standard they have.  A power lifter instructor: Probably more money in it if you hire a male.  A women's shelter counselor: Probably more positive results if you hire a female.  Suicide hotline for gay humans: Probably best to have gay staff.

 None of them should get the job if they are completely unqualified.  
 

"Totally disagree.
In fact in my experience,
it has always been,
hiring the most qualified,
makes me the most money."

 Great.  This is not the case for me.  If I hired a man to go fit swimwear with sensors on women because he was the most qualified sensor technician, I'd have very few women volunteering. So I'd have less data, and thus less money.  I'd lose the contract to the first company that used a female to fit clothing on females.

 JoG asked if there were scenarios where diversity was beneficial.  There is, but the diversity needs to compliment achieving goals.  


"Please supply the stats,
where ‘X’ employees are  hired on qualification,  
VS
‘X”  hired on  skin color, sex, heritage, etc etc."

 No.  I already said hiring people based exclusively on color, race, gender etc. is not ideal.  You can go find that information to support what we already agree about.

 I am saying that the evaluative spectrum will create more variables in who is "qualified".  If I am hiring a human to talk to teenage girls about social media safety methods, a young female would be most qualified from a participation perspective.  However someone like Zuckerberg would be the most qualified to discuss social media risks.  the problem is young females won't listen to Zuckerberg like they would another young female.  Ideally I should diversify the group and have both working on that project, instead of hiring another middle aged male that is an expert in online security.

 If I was hiring staff to be at an ED, I would want males and females on staff.  Not people that can't do the job, but specifically accredited medical providers capable of doing the job.  But if I had 20 positions and 15 were females, I would want to hire 5 males to diversify the group so more positive clinical outcomes were possible.

 That may mean a nurse with 30 years of experience loses the position to a male with 10.  This has more to do with her timing of application to the job than her gender, as I would have hired her if she had applied earlier - she would have been one of the 15 females.