Which of these incidences of discrimination are constitutional?

[WindowPhil]

1: Starbucks paying the college tuition in full only for their employees who are Women or People of Color.

2: A Business only offering health insurance for employees who are Women or People of Color.

3: A Business only offering time off to employees who are Women or People of Color.

4: Visa only letting its customers who are Women or People of Color have contactless credit cards.

5: California introducing free healthcare, but only for residents who are Women or People of Color.

6: A state legalizing murder if a Woman or Person of Color kills a white male.

7: A state legalizing rape and sexual assault if it's a woman or person of color doing it to a white male.

8: A state legalizing marijuana, but only for women and people of color.

Would all of these be unconstitutional?

Would some of these be unconstitutional?

Would all of these be constitutional?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

what world do you live in

[Donerail]

there would probably be a due process issue with legalizing murder

[lfromnj]

1/2/3/4.

These may be illegal but would still be constitutional.

[WindowPhil]

1/2/3/4.

These may be illegal but would still be constitutional.

How can something be illegal but constitutional?

Would those be legal anywhere in the U.S, but not the other way around?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

1/2/3/4.

These may be illegal but would still be constitutional.

How can something be illegal but constitutional?

Would those be legal anywhere in the U.S, but not the other way around?

I assume they would be prohibited by some statute, but it would be constitutional for the government to allow them.

[WindowPhil]

1/2/3/4.

These may be illegal but would still be constitutional.

How can something be illegal but constitutional?

Would those be legal anywhere in the U.S, but not the other way around?

I assume they would be prohibited by some statute, but it would be constitutional for the government to allow them.

But would it be allowed the other way around? Or is it only allowed because it would be reverse discrimination?

[Donerail]

"Reverse discrimination" is equally as illegal as the regular kind of discrimination wherever the law applies. California's civil rights law, for example, has been responsible for the death of "ladies' nights" and other events where women are charged less than men.

#2 would be illegal federally as a PPACA violation.

[WindowPhil]

"Reverse discrimination" is equally as illegal as the regular kind of discrimination wherever the law applies. California's civil rights law, for example, has been responsible for the death of "ladies' nights" and other events where women are charged less than men.

Are California feminists mad at the state for applying the law in the same way and making it worse for women?

[WindowPhil]

what world do you live in

The real one, considering these are all "Equity" and where we'll be in 30 years.

[Donerail]

"Reverse discrimination" is equally as illegal as the regular kind of discrimination wherever the law applies. California's civil rights law, for example, has been responsible for the death of "ladies' nights" and other events where women are charged less than men.

Are California feminists mad at the state for applying the law in the same way and making it worse for women?

nope

[Geoffrey Howe]

1/2/3/4.

These may be illegal but would still be constitutional.

How can something be illegal but constitutional?

Would those be legal anywhere in the U.S, but not the other way around?

The Constitution constricts government, not citizens.

[Mister Mets]

1: Starbucks paying the college tuition in full only for their employees who are Women or People of Color.

2: A Business only offering health insurance for employees who are Women or People of Color.

3: A Business only offering time off to employees who are Women or People of Color.

4: Visa only letting its customers who are Women or People of Color have contactless credit cards.

5: California introducing free healthcare, but only for residents who are Women or People of Color.

6: A state legalizing murder if a Woman or Person of Color kills a white male.

7: A state legalizing rape and sexual assault if it's a woman or person of color doing it to a white male.

8: A state legalizing marijuana, but only for women and people of color.

Would all of these be unconstitutional?

Would some of these be unconstitutional?

Would all of these be constitutional?

1. This seems constitutional.

2/3. These may violate statutes on equal treatment of employees.

4. Stupid but constitutional.

5. This might violate statutes. It's also really dumb, because it will result in middle-class and upper-class white people leaving.

6/7. This would likely be so severe as to establish white people as a protected class and targets of severe discrimination.

8. There is the argument that it may reinforce negative stereotypes, in addition to pissing off voters and attracting stoners of color.

[Kingpoleon]

I see no reason to object to any of these laws. Equity forever

[lfromnj]

I see no reason to object to any of these laws. Equity forever

Oh yeah Sotomayor kught unironically support these.

[Orangeoutlaw]

None of them.

Prop 16 was enough for me to vote against Biden with Harris as his vp.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

what world do you live in

The real one, considering these are all "Equity" and where we'll be in 30 years.

You keep saying this, but literally nobody outside of the terminally online are arguing for this.

[Donerail]

None of them.

Which part of the Constitution do you think prohibits Visa from offering contactless credit cards to only certain customers?

[ibagli]

None of them.

Which part of the Constitution do you think prohibits Visa from offering contactless credit cards to only certain customers?

Since credit cards are actually issued by banks that partner with Visa, rather than by Visa directly, I could imagine a scenario where a bank, wanting the extra business, was issuing the contactless cards to people who didn't qualify under Visa's rules. Visa would go to court to enforce its contract with the bank, and then it would be a scenario like with racially-discriminatory covenants where the enforcement of the contract would be state action subject to the 14th Amendment.

In a timeline without any federal discrimination legislation, I could see that doctrine getting even more expansive. Perhaps courts would be completely prohibited from taking a litigant's race into account during a lawsuit, so someone could even sue Starbucks for their college tuition, with Starbucks being prohibited from defending itself based on the plaintiff's race. It wouldn't exactly be the same as the conduct being unconstitutional, but (as with covenants) it would have the same effect.