No. Not at all. It simply means he/she has a right to be considered on the same basis as other humans
A right to be considered on the same basis would be even more intrusive if it could be enforced, but fortunately we can't enforce thoughts or how people will consider other people.
If the member of the hated group is by some objective standards (or at least by standards the court later determines are objective) more qualified then the other candidates, then someone who doesn't want to hire him is forced to hire him.
"As for Amendment IX you have it exactly backwards"
No, I gave it forwards. It is what it is.
The quote was correct and "forwards". The meaning of the amendment is what you got backwards.
"it doesn't give powers to the government"
The Government has the Constitutional authority to uphold and protect all Rights granted in the Constitution.
The constitution grants no such right. The legal rights where granted by civil rights laws. In general rights granted in the constitution are rights against government. I don't think there is a single example where the constitution gives a constitutional right to an individual to make an affirmative demand on another individual who is not acting as an agent of the government. Your 1st amendment rights mean the government normally can't not allow you to speak, or publish a newspaper, or exercise your religion. Those rights don't mean that the government is empowered to make others give you a column in their paper or that the government can order a religious organization to accept you as a member. I have a second amendment right to keep and bear arms. That doesn't mean that a gun store or fire arms manufacturers have to provide me with a weapon, or even that a gun store must sell me a weapon. My 5th amendment right against self incrimination, doesn't mean my employer can not fire me for not providing information about my activities that might be against company rules.
The Government has the AUTHORITY to PROTECT the Rights of people. And people have Rights not enumerated in the Constitution, and the Government is of, for, and by the people.
The government has only the legal authority to it granted by the constitution. That includes the authority to protect constitutional rights. It does not include the authority to protect anything considered to be a right. It does not include the authority to impose an affirmative obligation on someone to assist you in your exercise of your actual constitutional right, much less in legal rights that the government under the constitution has no authority to grant.
"If the law treats everyone fairly and equally then you have equal protection of the law."
I would like you to notice the words "ALL" and "EQUAL" in the following:
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
That quote is from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That act doesn't and can't give the government the constitutional authority to enact itself.
Also that law did not create a situation where people had equal protection of the law. It defined additional legal protections (without constitutional authority). A law could be passed to protect any thing or idea. In theory the law could say "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without discrimination or segregation on the ground of ability". Such a law would be stupid but the actual civil rights law of 1964 has no more connection to equal protection of the law then the modified silly version posted above.
Those enacting the laws and many similar ones over the decades did not think so.
They are wrong.
The Government clearly has the Constitutional authority to enact laws which protect the Rights of people--not all of which are listed in the Constitution
A government that had such authority would have no constitutional limitation at all. It could declare anything a right and then create laws or make executive decisions to protect that "right".
Equal protection means that ALL people must be protected from murder and other forms of mistreatment.
It means that any type of protection from mistreatment must be applied equally. If there is a law against murder you can't exclude Arabs, or Baptists, or people with red hair. Also laws against murder, rape. theft ect. involve the government protecting you from an assault against your body or your property. You can not violate such laws by not doing something for someone, only by doing something to someone. That are not at all similar to a law which imposes an affirmative obligation on someone that they do something to or for you. Laws that impose an obligation on someone to hire you, rent to you, sell to you, ect. are closer to laws which would impose an obligation on someone to date you, contribute money to your political campaign, or allow you to post on their website.
I mean....do you REALLY believe that Pinhead's private taxi service should be allowed to deny service to all Asians?
Yes. However I would be likely to avoid using Pinhead's services in such a situation and would encourage others to do the same. If you have a free market in taxi services his business will take a hit and might even be destroyed by the loss of both Asian business and the business of non-Asians who dislike bigotry.
What if these particular firms all decided to not serve American citizens of asian extraction??
Such an even is extremely unlikely. If such a cartel formed to deny business to Asians it could be dealt with by anti-monopoly and cartel laws, and by the fact that trying to not sell to Asians would set up an opening to competitors which might be small now but would have the benefit on not having to contest with the large companies you list for access to the Asian market and the market of people who would attempt to boycott bigoted companies. Also there is the fact that such companies don't know who the eventual buyer of their product is. But I'll tell you what, if such a situation arises where the 15 or so biggest companies selling consumer non-durable goods all decide to not sell to Asians, I'll support a constitutional amendment granting the government the authority it would need to make such laws as the 1964 Civil Rights law.
Pretending that "protection" equates to "non-interference" is just plain silly.
Protection doesn't equal non-interference and I never said it did. Laws against murder are both protection and interference. Laws requiring someone to hire you or sell to you are only the latter.
Tim |
