Are anti-discrimination laws constitutional?

Voting Has Ended

In the past 100 years there have been many laws passed at the federal, state, and local level banning discrimination based on race, age, sex, and orientation. While many of these laws are still in place today, there was a landmark Supreme Court case in 2000 that pointed to the first amendment. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale stated that under the first amendment, the Boy Scouts of America had the right to bar homosexuals as troop leaders. Another Supreme Court case, Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. ruled that businesses could not discriminate against women based on whether they had preschool aged children. With conflicting Supreme Court decisions, where do you stand? Are anti-discrimination laws constitutional?

 

    Point:                                                        Counterpoint:

   

Current Standings:
Yes: 76%
No: 24%
  • Shaylyn from Washington

    Minority rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” trump the rights of businesses to discriminate. There was a time in America when systemic discrimination significantly detracted from the ability of minorities to participate equally and freely in American commerce.

    [read less]

    Minority rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” trump the rights of businesses to discriminate. There was a time in America when syste…

    [read more]
    4
    • Christopher from Florida

      In America, citizens are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness no matter what race, religion, or views one has. Therefore i believe everyone should have equal treatment. Also coming from an African American male living in the United States of America I have experienced racism and segregation first hand and it needs to come to an end immediately.

      [read less]

      In America, citizens are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness no matter what race, religion, or views one has. Therefore i believe …

      [read more]
      0
    • Samuel from Massachusetts

      Also businesses are not a person, so a person trumps business. Even if it’s a Trump business (lol).

      0
    • jeron from Utah

      you have the right to pursue happiness not a right to be happy the busyness would not stop you from pursuing your happiness

      0
    • Mary from Colorado

      I believe that any form of distinguishing people of Culture,Ethnicity,Social class or Color is wrong and completely trumps the constitutional rights to, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness”, among minority. Who weren’t granted that freedom who were that small percent of the population who were discriminated against which totally under minds the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.Bottom line is i believe that everyone should have a right to sell and create business without having to worry about discrimination.

      [read less]

      I believe that any form of distinguishing people of Culture,Ethnicity,Social class or Color is wrong and completely trumps the constitutional rights t…

      [read more]
      0
    • Joseph from Texas

      Let’s say I’m a business owner. I own the business, and I should be able to hire whoever the heck I want.

      0
  • Shalev from Washington

    As someone from a minority group, I am happy for these laws. I’m also upset about how well they don’t work. The constitution says that every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anti-discrimination laws are designed so that people like me, who come from a minority group and have medical issues, have that chance. It’s frustrating that these laws don’t work as well as they are intended, but that doesn’t mean these laws aren’t needed.

    [read less]

    As someone from a minority group, I am happy for these laws. I’m also upset about how well they don’t work. The constitution says that every person …

    [read more]
    2
  • Rayna from Texas

    The United States of America underlies just what The Constitution intends to do in the name. “United States” full to the brim of people united in a sense of equal rights and equal liberty. Minority rights should not be in question whether private business or public institution. As the USA prides itself on the terms of a “melting pot” each component of this
    “pot” should be accounted for.

    [read less]

    The United States of America underlies just what The Constitution intends to do in the name. “United States” full to the brim of people united in a s…

    [read more]
    1
  • Kyla from Virginia

    Yes because “We the people…” not we the people of a certain race or gender or anything. Everyone should have equal rights because that is what America stands for.

    1
  • Ashley from Ohio

    Although there have been numerous arguments against anti-discrimination laws, there are also benefits that would not have been provided otherwise. Anti-discrimination laws provide an awareness to the general public to help fight off future issues.

    [read less]

    Although there have been numerous arguments against anti-discrimination laws, there are also benefits that would not have been provided otherwise. Ant…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jennifer from California

    It is true that every citizen of the United States has the freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as outlined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. By this, a business can refuse to hire an employee that is gay simply because that business does not agree with or like gay individuals. This would be considered a citizen’s legal exercise of their right to freedom of speech (and even freedom of religion). On the other hand, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment seems to be saying something different. “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws.” This direct quote from the Fourteenth Amendment implies that discrimination against someone based on their race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation is unconstitutional, though this amendment was specifically talking about blacks freed at the end of the Civil War. By this, it would be unconstitutional for a business to refuse to hire a gay person simply because they are gay. This would violate their right to “equal protection of the laws”. Though most can agree that discrimination should not, in any circumstance, be legal, it is difficult to determine what is meant by the Constitution regarding anti-discrimination laws when the document appears to be saying different things. A religious person can discriminate against a gay person because their religion and the Constitution allows them to, but the Constitution also says that everyone deserves equal protection of the laws, which means you can’t discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation. Perhaps the Constitution is just self-contradictory?

    [read less]

    It is true that every citizen of the United States has the freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as outlined in the First Amendment of the Consti…

    [read more]
    0
  • Roberta from Oregon

    The Constitution grants everyone the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Denying someone a job based on their race, gender, age (if they are old enough to work), religion, sexual orientation, etc. will prevent them from earning a steady income. If minorities are unable to find a job because business owners are discriminating against them, they have no way to earn money, which in this economy is the only means to food, healthcare, housing, etc. Therefore, discrimination is a means of taking a person’s most basic human right: life.

    [read less]

    The Constitution grants everyone the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Denying someone a job based on their race, gender, age (if…

    [read more]
    0
  • Samuel from Massachusetts

    Amendments have been established to prevent discrimination in the first place. If we were to go back to the the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness, is a key component of the documents. Every American has the right to pursue happiness and success. Discrimination goes against what this country stands for and has fought for. The British discriminated against America by levying taxes against us, which prevented Americans from pursuing their unalienable rights. Discrimination has no place in America.

    [read less]

    Amendments have been established to prevent discrimination in the first place. If we were to go back to the the Constitution and the Declaration of In…

    [read more]
    0
  • China from Indiana

    Everyone should be given a fair chance to work and not be discriminated against.

    0
  • Talia from California

    The 14th amendment clearly states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. This amendment supports individual citizens before it supports businesses who would like to discriminate against citizens for reasons such as race, sexual orientation, or religion. The constitution does not support racism, or other forms of oppression. This is to protect individuals and groups that have often been suppressed, not business owners who wish to continue oppressing people who are not like them.

    [read less]

    The 14th amendment clearly states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Uni…

    [read more]
    0
  • Bryan from California

    Being an American is about expressing culture, freedom, and standing together in unity. Not once has this country stood together to have those ideals, always having those in charge to impose racist laws… always attempting to exclude those that weren’t of their “class” or “color”. People, aside from other countries, in America have always been too prideful of their own beliefs and have been creating a xenophobic wall that absorbs no knowledge or respect of someone else’s view. Not only are anti-discriminatory laws constitutional, it is the American way. Ask your self, who are you to exclude someone because they are different than you, whether that be through religion or gender? Having said that, those that oppose that these laws are unconstitutional need to take a hot cup of tea and attempt to understand what is going to be accomplished by being able to slam the door in someone’s face because of ignorance and pride, two things that have broken the bond that we Americans need to have.

    [read less]

    Being an American is about expressing culture, freedom, and standing together in unity. Not once has this country stood together to have those ideals,…

    [read more]
    0
  • Rebecca from Idaho

    I fully support anti-discrimination laws. In the 1st section of the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution, it states that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It’s right there — in the constitution. Every single person deserves equal protection and opportunity in this country. We are supposed to be a “melting pot” of diversity, after all.
    Now, I’m not saying that companies should hire someone purely based off the fact that they are a minority (the most qualified people should be hired regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc.). What I am saying is that those traits should in no way inhibit the employee selection process.

    [read less]

    I fully support anti-discrimination laws. In the 1st section of the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution, it states that “No state shall make or en…

    [read more]
    0
  • Carrie from Illinois

    Discrimination violates the rights of those discriminated against. I don’t believe that anti-discrimination laws should be specific, though. The only anti-discrimination laws we should need should be all-encompassing, otherwise it is not really equality, is it?

    I am personally against laws that force business owners to hire diverse employees over someone who may be more qualified. For example, I am planning on going into computer science, but I do not want to get a job because there are not enough minorities, I want the job because I am the best person for said job.

    [read less]

    Discrimination violates the rights of those discriminated against. I don’t believe that anti-discrimination laws should be specific, though. The only …

    [read more]
    0
  • Michelle from New York

    If people can’t accept each other, and treat each other the same, than yes there need to be laws to help the minority.

    0
  • Elizabeth from Wisconsin

    “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These are words we hear often. They are said in our country’s Declaration of Independence. It states that these 3 rights can rightfully deny these things. Over the course of history, select groups of people have been denied these rights. In the past it may have been women or people with dark skin. Currently, the major fight is for LGBT rights. If, for whatever reason, Americans are not able to give people these freedoms out of the kindness of our hearts, the government should be able to enforce it.
    The goal of anti-discrimination laws is to give everyone a fair chance at getting work and other social privileges. Over the course of American history, there have been times when people who were not of a certain group (women, colored people, LGBT, etc.) were not given the same work opportunities or the same chance of success in the workplace. Anti discrimination laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Civil Rights act of 1964 (Employment and Anti-Discrimination Laws) are some of the most commonly referred to laws enforcing anti-discrimination in the workplace. These laws each state that it is not legal for a company to not give someone a job just because they do/do not belong to a certain group of people.
    Often, the First Amendment and freedom of religion is brought into the argument. If it is against someone’s religion, they believe that they should be allowed to turn away members of the LGBT community. However, nowhere in the Constitution, nor anywhere else that I could find, does it say it is legal to discriminate against someone in a place of work just because it is against your religious beliefs.
    Many people when explaining the unconstitutionality of anti-discrimination laws ask the question, “Why should I have to serve people in my business I don’t want to serve. I have the right to turn them away.” As it was put by Patriot News, “Business owners should be able to refuse service at will. If that means they don’t want to serve blacks, Hispanics, white people, pregnant women, or droids, that should be their right,” and they’re not the only people saying it. While this is a valid argument, the issue is, as it was put so well by Brenda Hale, “Both homosexuals and Christians were subject to the same laws requiring them not to discriminate in the running of their businesses. So if homosexual hotel keepers had refused a room to an opposite sex or Christian couple, they too would have been acting unlawfully.” No one would be saying it was okay for a shop owner who was colored to turn away white people. That is not how our minds work. We need to program to think the other way as well.
    As it is stated in the 14th Amendment, “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Cornell Law) Equal protection of the law, “Limits the State and Federal governments’ power to discriminate in their employment practices by treating employees, former employees, or job applicants unequally because of membership in a group, like a race, religion or sex.” (US Constitution- 5th and 14th Amendments) Although this is not stated directly in the 14th Amendment, when you put all the different amendments and freedoms that are granted to us by the Constitution, you will realize that it makes it so that discrimination is legal. If that means we have to put anti-discrimination laws in place, that is what we have to do.

    [read less]

    “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These are words we hear often. They are said in our country’s Declaration of Independence. It sta…

    [read more]
    0
  • Hunter from Oklahoma

    According to the Constitution, discrimination in hiring practices would be common, and you would expect it to be that way. Business owners of all kinds have their own preference when it comes to which employees they will hire. They could choose to hire based on their prejudices against all kinds of people whether they be minorities, women. etc. The Constitution in its inception was created with considerable flexibility to be able to accommodate people of differing backgrounds, ethnicities, and cultures. If someone is to say that all people have basic human rights, what constitutes as a “basic human right”? Who decides what these rights are? Some may see discrimination as the right of the person who discriminates while some may see that discrimination as wholly against what is deemed a basic human right.

    [read less]

    According to the Constitution, discrimination in hiring practices would be common, and you would expect it to be that way. Business owners of all kin…

    [read more]
    0
  • Larry from California

    Honestly, our founders came to America because they were different and wanted to live without the stigma that was cast upon them by their homeland. So why should we, as decedents, prevent people that are different from living without stigma as well?

    [read less]

    Honestly, our founders came to America because they were different and wanted to live without the stigma that was cast upon them by their homeland. So…

    [read more]
    0
  • Katie from Florida

    I believe that non-discrimination laws are constitutional for it literally states in our constitution, “no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” No, equality is never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but I wholly believe it was implied. Who are we to hold ourselves higher than someone else? What makes us better? The answer is nothing. Every single one of us has the right to live freely and without judgment, no matter our age, sex, race, orientation, etc.

    [read less]

    I believe that non-discrimination laws are constitutional for it literally states in our constitution, “no state shall . . . deny to any person within…

    [read more]
    0
    • Maura from New York

      Yes, no state shall deny equal protection, but that does not extend to private enterprises. The government does not have the right to control businesses and private institutions.

      0
  • Ninett from Florida

    Discrimination is not only seen unlawful in a court of law, however in today’s ever growing society. Therefore, it would be constitutional to have anti-discrimination set in stone as a law.

    [read less]

    Discrimination is not only seen unlawful in a court of law, however in today’s ever growing society. Therefore, it would be constitutional to have ant…

    [read more]
    0
  • Edith from Illinois

    Everyone deserves a chance to live the “American Dream” just because you look a certain way doesnt mean you cant have the same rights as others.

    0
  • Stephanie from California

    The anti discrimination laws are constitutional and should be kept. People in the work place should be discriminated one their ways of acting during work not because of their race or gender.

    [read less]

    The anti discrimination laws are constitutional and should be kept. People in the work place should be discriminated one their ways of acting during w…

    [read more]
    0
  • Dhamar from Arizona

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional because without them there would be no regulations as for who could be hired, for any type of job. People with disabilities, younger people, older people, people of different races or religions, and any kind of minority need jobs just as much as any other person.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional because without them there would be no regulations as for who could be hired, for any type of job. People …

    [read more]
    0
  • Amanda from Kentucky

    Without these guidelines, people of minorities would struggle to get hired anywhere. Characteristics that we cannot control such as race, gender, and sexuality should not prevent us from being able to join an organization or apply for a job.

    [read less]

    Without these guidelines, people of minorities would struggle to get hired anywhere. Characteristics that we cannot control such as race, gender, and …

    [read more]
    0
  • Lorraine from Maryland

    The Constitution protects the unalienable rights of all U.S. citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Discrimination violates these rights in the people being discriminated against. Since it is the government’s job and purpose to protect these rights, it is constitutional for them to enact laws that prevent discrimination and protect everybody’s basic rights.

    [read less]

    The Constitution protects the unalienable rights of all U.S. citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Discrimination violates these ri…

    [read more]
    0
  • Angel from Missouri

    If these laws weren’t in place many people wouldn’t even get considered for jobs, these laws help makes sure every one has an equal chance or at least you think it does right? However that isn’t the case sure they can’t say they didn’t hire you because you are gay or black or female instead they say he didn’t possess the necessary traits for the job (ie wasn’t straight) or he lacks the necessary experience (ie isn’t white enough) or she needs more training before considering for the position (ie needs to lose the boobs) Don’t kid yourself thinking the laws truly prevent it they don’t employers just have to be more creative as to why they didn’t hire you.

    [read less]

    If these laws weren’t in place many people wouldn’t even get considered for jobs, these laws help makes sure every one has an equal chance or at least…

    [read more]
    0
  • Camile from California

    I would have to agree with the point that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. Think back to 200, 300 years ago. When laws regarding discrimination were not in place, you had the Europeans/ European decent/ white people taking charge and putting themselves in higher positions. I do not think people know how big of an issue this is. To this day, in the year 2016, you have individuals being denied their rights, for being homosexual, for being transgender, a woman, of all things. If it weren’t for the Anti-Lynching Bill that was passed in April of 1922, I strongly believe that lynching would still be a popular practice. Being a minority, I do not believe that if anti-discrimination laws were not in place, we, as a country, would not be as “free-standing” as we are today. In 1787, when the Constitution was signed, the US was a war-zone against any individual who was not a white male. We must not forget about how angry Americans were after the Emancipation Proclamation was established in 1863. It had become self evident that “All mean are created equal,” was not true for anyone that was not white. I am a strong believer that anti-discrimination laws shouldn’t have to be installed if others just decided to be decent human beings and not commit crimes, acts of hatred, or openly discriminated others based on religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.

    [read less]

    I would have to agree with the point that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. Think back to 200, 300 years ago. When laws regarding discrimin…

    [read more]
    0
    • Darren from Ohio

      *Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina each owned 84 slaves. They were both Black.
      **152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards of New Orleans. Both Black
      *** In Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet. He was Black.
      Antoine Dubuclet, the previously mentioned New Orleans plantation owner who held more than 100 slaves, became Louisiana state treasurer during Reconstruction, a post he held from 1868 to 1877
      ****In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves.
      In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina’s largest Negro slaveowner.
      ****Approximately 169 free blacks owned 145,976 acres in the counties of Amelia, Amherst, Isle of Wight, Nansemond, Prince William and Surry, averaging 870 acres each according to Ervin L. Jordan Jr.

      Not ALL non-whites were happy about the Emancipation Proclamation.

      This isn’t a race issue. It’s a Constitutional issue

      [read less]

      *Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina each owned 84 slaves. They were both Black.
      **152 slaves, were owned by the …

      [read more]
      0
  • Macaylah from Missouri

    Everyone should feel safe. However, discrimination is not necessarily always a bad thing. Is it not discrimination when someone is denied a job because they do not have prior experience in that field? Anti-discrimination laws are meant to help protect people but it is a grey area and many use these laws as a shield in which they can bash other people. So bottom line, they are a good thing….but don’t be a douche.

    [read less]

    Everyone should feel safe. However, discrimination is not necessarily always a bad thing. Is it not discrimination when someone is denied a job becaus…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alden from New York

    Anti-discrimination laws prevent certain races from feeling inferior. These laws ensure us that we’re all the same regardless of what ethnicity we are.

    0
  • Melanie from Michigan

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional according to Title VII; however the government goes too far in requiring that companies hire a certain percentage of their employees from a different race. The laws should be there to promote equal opportunity, not restrict businesses in who they can hire to fill a position. I know people who were promoted because of their color when they were not really qualified, while people who had better qualifications were passed over. This does not equate to smart business practice or fair business practices for the employer to help their business succeed.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional according to Title VII; however the government goes too far in requiring that companies hire a certain per…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kacie from Kansas

    Yes, they keep everyone’s natural rights safe.

    0
  • Sydney from North Carolina

    Absolutely constitutional! Anti-discrimination refers to the law on the right of all people to be treated equally. I am a strong believer that we all should be treated equally regardless of who we are or how we look. I believe we all should be rewarded the same opportunities because we all bleed red, therefore we are all fully capable of reaching the same goals unless we ourselves limit ourselves. My main reason for voting yes is because I believe in equality to all and fairness will only build us up not tear us down!

    [read less]

    Absolutely constitutional! Anti-discrimination refers to the law on the right of all people to be treated equally. I am a strong believer that we all …

    [read more]
    0
  • Kalynn from Michigan

    Systemic discrimination significantly detracted from the ability of minorities to participate equally and freely in American commerce. Our world is changing as it should, and we’ve been continuously fighting this issue. Minorities should have just as much a right to “life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” just like “everyone else”. These laws should be THE NECESSITY in the Constitution to make this world and Our America a better America.

    [read less]

    Systemic discrimination significantly detracted from the ability of minorities to participate equally and freely in American commerce. Our world is ch…

    [read more]
    0
    • Mary from Colorado

      Yes, discrimination was never a Necessity in the constitution which makes us question our country as a whole.But last time i checked The United States of America was the, “Land of the Free and the home of the Brave”. Things like discrimination is what makes our country loose it’s value and constitutional rights to live free along with we as people pursuing “Life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Which is why discrimination jeopardizes it, because it’s distinguishing our country and rights to minorities along with deny people of their freedom to make business and commerce. “A kingdom toppled by their enemies can rise again..But one that crumbles from within ..will be no more”.

      [read less]

      Yes, discrimination was never a Necessity in the constitution which makes us question our country as a whole.But last time i checked The United States…

      [read more]
      0
  • Daniel from California

    I agree that Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional, in regards to public businesses, or else they we violate our right towards liberty. Discrimination laws, in my view, allows for race, sexual, and religious prejudice to exist.

    [read less]

    I agree that Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional, in regards to public businesses, or else they we violate our right towards liberty. Discrimi…

    [read more]
    0
  • saily from New York

    while being implemented in the constitution that all men are created equal, there are still many cases that show how people fail agree to these terms. i say that all human are created equal therefor race should not matter, color should not matter, gender should not matter, and peopel should not be discriminated for what they are but by their actions.

    [read less]

    while being implemented in the constitution that all men are created equal, there are still many cases that show how people fail agree to these terms…

    [read more]
    0
  • Leandra from New York

    Anti-discrimination laws are very constitutional because who are we to judge one another? No one has a higher level of authority over us to depict whether or not we’re allowed to do things based on our gender, sex, race, or sexuality. It says in the constitution that we have a right to follow our own religion, speak our mind, vote, live and participate in a democracy. If any of these rights are violated or provoked it is automatically deemed as unconstitutional because we are not being subjected to the rights we were promised by the U.S. government.

    Nobody is perfect so if you’re going to discriminate someone make sure you’re perfect first. We live in a world where a man can marry a man, African Americans can live freely without being segregated, where women can vote and participate in governmental disputes. We have come a long way from prejudice, racism, sexism, etc. So why bring that back again and open the minds of ignorant people?

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are very constitutional because who are we to judge one another? No one has a higher level of authority over us to depict whe…

    [read more]
    0
  • Timothy from Texas

    This is a very broad question, for the answers will theoretically be different for both the private and public sector; private sector gets to discriminate and the public sector doesn’t – due to the public sector being funded by all citizens and the private being self-funded. However, what often goes unaccounted for are the grants and loans and government subsidies given to a vast majority of private businesses. When taking into consideration that most private companies such as Boy Scouts of America are partially funded by the government through tax dollars – the dollars of black, gays, jews and all of the alike – it’s abhorrent and disgraceful for those same private companies to discriminate against the ones who contribute to their funding.

    This form of discrimination goes directly against fourteenth amendment which protects citizens from discrimination. And no discrimination is not symbolic speech and the idea of it being so is unprecedented not only in the constitution but also through court cases throughout our history. Discrimination is an action. An action which inhibits ones unalienable right to their respective pursuit of happiness. An action which encroaches upon the constitutional concept of equal application of the law. An action which lumps is up with third world countries where discrimination against minority faiths and women overall is widely acceptable. An action which the majority of the American people are against and since this is a proclaimed representative democracy, it’s time the majority is represented and the evisceration of anti-discrimination laws is stopped.

    [read less]

    This is a very broad question, for the answers will theoretically be different for both the private and public sector; private sector gets to discrimi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Addie from Colorado

    Anti-discrimination laws are absolutely constitutional, and can be applied to private businesses. Under the Commerce Clause (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3), Congress is entitled to regulate private businesses. Any such regulations are constitutional as long as they do not pose an “undue burden.” Anti-discrimination laws are certainly not an undue burden — they are a crucial mechanism for protecting minorities from tyranny and marginalization.

    Several other commenters have suggested that discrimination is tantamount to free speech, but this is simply not the case. Sure, it is constitutional (albeit bigoted) to publicly voice discriminatory opinions. Although such “hate speech” is essentially protected under the First Amendment, physical acts of hate (i.e. “hate crimes”) are not. In that sense, it is necessary to make a distinction between discriminatory speech — opinions that, although they may be offensive, are essentially just empty and theoretical — and discriminatory action, which has the potential to tangibly impact lives. Anti-discrimination laws target discriminatory actions, such as biased hiring practices or refusal to serve certain groups. Therefore, discrimination is not “symbolic speech,” but tangible action, which the government has every right to target with anti-discrimination laws.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are absolutely constitutional, and can be applied to private businesses. Under the Commerce Clause (Article 1 Section 8 Claus…

    [read more]
    0
    • Joseph from Texas

      Allow me to correct, the government is allowed to regulate PROCEEDINGS of businesses and regulate their BUSINESS PRACTICES. However, the government does not have the right to regulate what a business stands for. They can’t come in and force them to hire someone they don’t want to hire. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even the employer. It’s a private business; they can have private opinions.

      [read less]

      Allow me to correct, the government is allowed to regulate PROCEEDINGS of businesses and regulate their BUSINESS PRACTICES. However, the government do…

      [read more]
      0
  • Edith from California

    Discrimination is something that has become part of our lives since the very beginning. People are claiming that they want to make america great again but how? starting with the big issues like racism or discrimination. I don’t care if its constitutional or not because discrimination is not part of the law but of peoples doing and personal decision but is it beneficial to have this constitutional? then yes because the people who are getting effected by this are the people who immigrated here for the american dream, the freedom, and the opportunity. If america wants to stay great well they better learn to keep the majority of populated immigrants in america happy because we are the once doing the labor and the hard work so that the rest of Americans who were born here can just sit back, relax and drink beer.

    [read less]

    Discrimination is something that has become part of our lives since the very beginning. People are claiming that they want to make america great again…

    [read more]
    0
  • Riley from Oklahoma

    Well the constitution made all men to be freed and allowed everyone the right to vote, and banned poll tax. It leads us to be an anti-discriminatory country.

    0
    • Anmol from Georgia

      United States citizens have the constitutional right to freedom of speech. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and should have the right to be able to voice those opinions without fear of being arrested.

      [read less]

      United States citizens have the constitutional right to freedom of speech. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and should have the right to be …

      [read more]
      0
  • Derrick from Michigan

    In a perfect world, anti-discrimination laws would be unconstitutional. However, I think there are many unwarranted biases that people hold (sometimes unconsciously) that can and do unfairly affect some people. These laws are especially important in government organizations and institutions.

    [read less]

    In a perfect world, anti-discrimination laws would be unconstitutional. However, I think there are many unwarranted biases that people hold (sometimes…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tatyana from North Carolina

    Yes, anti – discrimination laws are Constitutional. The Constitution makes it clear that all U.S. citizens have certain rights that cannot be taken away from them. If businesses and institutions exclude people based on their gender, religion, sexual orientation, race, or any other trivial factor, they are infringing upon the constitutional right of these individuals to experience equal opportunity.

    [read less]

    Yes, anti – discrimination laws are Constitutional. The Constitution makes it clear that all U.S. citizens have certain rights that cannot be taken aw…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sage from Michigan

    The anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. Much like many other laws, people twist them so that they seem to be a “victim”. In most cases, no one is being attacked or left out, but instead do not have exactly equal circumstances. The law never states that the world will be a perfectly equal and fair place, and this is very true. Equality for all would end in mass chaos and destruction as there would be no class or leadership system.

    [read less]

    The anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. Much like many other laws, people twist them so that they seem to be a “victim”. In most cases, no on…

    [read more]
    0
  • Dennis from California

    The United States, although initially only for white men with property, was founded on the idea of equality. We pride ourselves in being a democratic country where anyone can achieve what they want to as long as they put their effort into their work. How can we preach to be a leading country if we do not give an equal opportunity for all. It is because of this reason that many people choose to follow the American dream. However, this is only possible if we do not discriminate. No one should feel inferior just on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, race, or gender. If we choose not to leave these laws in place how can we sing the national anthem and say that we are truly the land of the free?

    [read less]

    The United States, although initially only for white men with property, was founded on the idea of equality. We pride ourselves in being a democratic …

    [read more]
    0
  • Lauren from Florida

    The topic must be clarified prior to the creation of an argument. Firstly, what is an anti-discrimination law? And secondly, what makes something constitutional? Well, an anti-discrimination law is a law that can be defined as referring to the law on the right of people to be treated equally and something is constitutional if, in the eyes of the Supreme Court of the United States, it fits within the boundaries set by the United States Constitution. It is also understood and known that the United States’ constitution’s first amendment states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
    The question at hand, if anti-discrimination laws are constitutional, can now be restated using the above definitions to question if laws that relate to people being treated equally fit within the first amendment, wherein it states that there should be no law made that respects and relates to the prohibition of free speech, the press, the ability to assemble, petition or restrict religious practice. For this reason, as the first amendment in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution directly states that there should be no law made that affects the constitutional rights of equality, anti-discrimination laws can now be deemed unconstitutional.

    [read less]

    The topic must be clarified prior to the creation of an argument. Firstly, what is an anti-discrimination law? And secondly, what makes something cons…

    [read more]
    0
  • anahy from Texas

    Discrimination is bad because everyone should be treated with equal rights and respect for who they are. Nobody deserves to be mistreated because God made everyone unique and he would want all his children to be treated the same way no matter who different they may be.

    [read less]

    Discrimination is bad because everyone should be treated with equal rights and respect for who they are. Nobody deserves to be mistreated because God …

    [read more]
    0
  • Ben-Oni from Florida

    Essentially, they are in place to safe-guard an individuals overall rights. While I do understand the stance on private or religious matters where their might be conflict, overall they don’t hinder anyone. Rather, they affirm the fact that everyone should be equal.

    [read less]

    Essentially, they are in place to safe-guard an individuals overall rights. While I do understand the stance on private or religious matters where the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Renaya from Maryland

    Yes, no one person is born with any kind of choice to how they want to look or feel about anything. We gloat and say about how much we are a free country and how everyone is welcome into this country but as soon as you get here, there are things you can not have, or do simply because of the color of your skin or what religion you chose to follow. It is constitutional because no one should be denied anything because of the way they chose to live their life or because of things they simply can not control.

    [read less]

    Yes, no one person is born with any kind of choice to how they want to look or feel about anything. We gloat and say about how much we are a free coun…

    [read more]
    0
  • Clay from Ohio

    Anti-discrimination laws help a community operate in a sense that people feel safe and equal despite race, gender, sexuality, age, or belief. If these laws did not exist, besides not feeling safe, people would be treated unequally based on irrelevant factors. With these laws in place, people are guaranteed fair and just treatment by employers, educators, retailers, and society as a whole.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws help a community operate in a sense that people feel safe and equal despite race, gender, sexuality, age, or belief. If thes…

    [read more]
    0
  • Hannah from Florida

    Everyone is created equal no matter on how they look, speak, their religion, or race. I would feel treated wrongly if someone decided to treat me differently just because of my beliefs. We have to put ourselves in other peoples shoes and see how we are all created by God. Those people are trying to provide for a family, put back into the community and live a normal life. Without a job they are being set up for failure.

    [read less]

    Everyone is created equal no matter on how they look, speak, their religion, or race. I would feel treated wrongly if someone decided to treat me diff…

    [read more]
    0
  • Anthony from Delaware

    Yes because in essence, diversity is at the root of this country’s very culture. Factors such as gender, ethnicity, and religion should never prevent any individual from having just as many and equal opportunities as others with regards to education, employment, healthcare, justice in legal issues, and more.

    [read less]

    Yes because in essence, diversity is at the root of this country’s very culture. Factors such as gender, ethnicity, and religion should never prevent …

    [read more]
    0
  • Annie from California

    We have come a long way since the days of slavery, but in 2016, discrimination and inequality is still prevalent in our modern society. Though it may be less blatant, it is clearly still in existence every time we turn on the news channels. So are anti-discrimination laws right? To me, yes. A person should be judged off of their ability and knowledge, never their skin color, sexual preference, nor age of their children.

    [read less]

    We have come a long way since the days of slavery, but in 2016, discrimination and inequality is still prevalent in our modern society. Though it may …

    [read more]
    0
  • Jessica from Ohio

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional because without these laws, America would not be the country everyone in the world came to know America as. If these anti-discrimination laws were removed, then America would be headed in a direction away from all those individuals that fought so hard for equality in our country. The importance of individuals standing up for equality is so that their children and their children’s children will live a better life than they did. Even though the Founding Fathers at the time may not directly wanted equality for all people of any background, they still set up the Constitution and the American government in a way that would allow adjustments to occur without having the entire government to fall apart. The Constitution is very vague on specific issues and that is the beauty of it. America defines diversity and to further allow equality in America, anti-discrimination laws are necessary to prevent those prejudice to other backgrounds other than their own. Sometimes, the only way to achieve equality is to enforce laws that would forcefully stop prejudice.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional because without these laws, America would not be the country everyone in the world came to know America as…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jessica from Pennsylvania

    It was very difficult for me to come up with a clear answer for this question so I went with my gut. On one hand anti-discrimination laws do protect the right of many citizens, but on the other, being as unbiased as I can, they infringe upon the rights of other citizens to be unfair and discriminate against others. I think anti-discrimination laws are kind of in a gray area, but I definitely think they do more good than bad. They constitution itself is kind of a big document about freedom and anti-discrimination so I can’t really say that anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional.

    [read less]

    It was very difficult for me to come up with a clear answer for this question so I went with my gut. On one hand anti-discrimination laws do protect t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tene from Illinois

    Although I have read good points from both sides of the argument, I must admit that I am still leaning towards the yes side. Of course it overlaps with the first amendment. However, it does not override the first amendment. Freedom of speech still stands, but there is also the right to work. All this is saying is that discrimination kills the right to work. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it until further into the business. The fact of the matter is that yes, it is constitutional. We do not control who we are racially or any other sort. What we can control is our hatred and the way we treat others because of such minor details. I like the saying that after all of our skin, after everything is gone, we’re all just maggot food laying six feet under like everyone else in the end.

    [read less]

    Although I have read good points from both sides of the argument, I must admit that I am still leaning towards the yes side. Of course it overlaps wit…

    [read more]
    0
  • Allyson from Indiana

    Yes, Throughout the amendments you see a pattern of growth. The growth of anti-discrimination laws, this is because in the consitution it states every man (noun also pertaining to all people in general) has the chance for the pursuit of happiness, liberty, and land. (not in that particular order though) Point is, the forefathers wanted every person to have a chance to be happy and have liberty (the freedom to equal rights as everyone else).

    [read less]

    Yes, Throughout the amendments you see a pattern of growth. The growth of anti-discrimination laws, this is because in the consitution it states every…

    [read more]
    0
  • Amr from New York

    Yes, but only if enacted properly. The ends do not justify the means, so an anti-discrimination law that utilizes positive discrimination fails in a multitude of ways. First, it claims that laws are needed in order to boost the status of the discriminated, portraying them as inferior and in need of assistance. Second, it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. Therefore, anti-discriminatory laws should target the societal roots that bring about these discrimination rather than just alleviate the symptoms. Therefore, when done properly, with the right means and intentions, anti-discriminatory laws are entirely constitutional, and ensure that all men (and women) are not only created equal, but can also live as equals.

    [read less]

    Yes, but only if enacted properly. The ends do not justify the means, so an anti-discrimination law that utilizes positive discrimination fails in a m…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jane from Illinois

    Americans should not discriminate anyone because of their race, gender, sexuality, or other factors because minorities are just as intelligent and important as everybody else. These laws are a necessity in the Constitution to have a better and more equal America.

    [read less]

    Americans should not discriminate anyone because of their race, gender, sexuality, or other factors because minorities are just as intelligent and imp…

    [read more]
    0
    • Joseph from Texas

      “Should not” is simply your opinion. The constitution protects free speech, and everyone has a right to their own opinion. Putting laws on what you can and can’t say eliminates free speech; one of the things that makes America one of the greatest countries in the world. I don’t think it would make a “more equal” America.

      [read less]

      “Should not” is simply your opinion. The constitution protects free speech, and everyone has a right to their own opinion. Putting laws on what you ca…

      [read more]
      0
  • stephanie from Georgia

    The idea that these cases were brought to the Supreme Court makes me that they are constitutional. The idea that for these so similar cases we have two very different outcomes surprises me. I mean just think about it for a moment put yourself in their shoes what if for almost all of your life you were a Boy Scott? What if you had gone to all the meetings, raised all the money and just were a dedicated and reliable member of not your just your organization but community too. Then someone told you no matter how hard you worked or if you deserved it we don’t accepted you and we don’t care that you’ve worked hard for this position because your gay we don’t want you. It like a knife in the heart I understand I’m a women and a lot of times in my life I’ve been told we don’t want you. It’s a hard pill to shallow but I have learned I can only be myself but it would be nice if instead of the government putting a band aid on problem like they did with Boy Scott of America vs Dale they would actually have solved the problem. Just starting a conversation can go along way the judge could have ruled in favor and the Boy Scott’s would have learned something America would have been able to do some healing and growing.

    [read less]

    The idea that these cases were brought to the Supreme Court makes me that they are constitutional. The idea that for these so similar cases we have tw…

    [read more]
    0
  • Adrian from California

    We are all human beings with fundamental rights. There isn’t really much to debate.

    0
  • Sandra from Virginia

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional because they prevent discrimination and promote equality for all citizens. Discrimination prevents equal opportunities for all citizens and decreases the opportunity of advantages to exist. Allowing discrimination to occur will increase the amount of hate crimes, since boundaries would not be set for the basis of discrimination.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional because they prevent discrimination and promote equality for all citizens. Discrimination prevents equal o…

    [read more]
    0
  • Rebekah from Pennsylvania

    Anti-discrimination laws are undoubtedly constitutional. While many companies and employers boast that they do not discriminate when employing individuals, such laws act as safety nets for those who have been mistreated by the system. Anti-discrimination laws allow workers to have a platform to defend themselves with and, as such, are important if we as a country want to combat discrimination.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are undoubtedly constitutional. While many companies and employers boast that they do not discriminate when employing individ…

    [read more]
    0
  • Wayne from North Carolina

    Thomas Jefferson once stated that all men are created equal, as he wrote his declaration of independence. The purpose of creating America was to establish a land of freedom and equality for the people. Without anti-discrimination laws, the turmoils that plagued America for the past 300 years would have persisted. It is absolutely constitutional for anti-discrimination laws to exist. Everyone has an expectation that America represents freedom, so let’s keep meet this expectation

    [read less]

    Thomas Jefferson once stated that all men are created equal, as he wrote his declaration of independence. The purpose of creating America was to estab…

    [read more]
    0
  • Milton from California

    We all discriminate in our own ways. I don’t like the color green, so I should have the option to hang out with people who don’t like the color green — exclusively and by choice. What tends to happen is that our society works out the kinks with the free market. I use the Boy Scouts as an example. The more people that chose not to participate in Scouting because of the anti-gay rule, the more the Boy Scouts realized they needed the funding and membership to continue. The rule changed. Society worked out the issue without the need for a law.

    [read less]

    We all discriminate in our own ways. I don’t like the color green, so I should have the option to hang out with people who don’t like the color green…

    [read more]
    0
  • brianna from Virginia

    Yes, because we, as human beings, all have rights according to the first amendment of the constitutional Bill Of Rights. These rights are for all citizens, regardless of race, sex, gender, disabilities, religion, etc. We are all human beings and our rights to freedom are very important.

    [read less]

    Yes, because we, as human beings, all have rights according to the first amendment of the constitutional Bill Of Rights. These rights are for all citi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Erin from Minnesota

    The constitution already forbids discrimination in terms of voting, if the people wish to democratically enact laws banning discrimination I see no problem with that.

    0
  • Ciera from Mississippi

    Yes, because of according to the amendments made to the constitution, i.e. the 15th amendment, all should be treated equally in the eyes of the laws.

    0
  • Christopher from Florida

    Yes, because discrimination is not only a surface action. It is something that can be internalized.

    0
  • Ayana from Maryland

    Yes, anti-discrimination laws are constitutional because discriminatory acts violate one’s right to pursue happiness.

    0
  • aracely from Washington

    Yes, because the idea of human rights connects to this. Regardless of our sexual orientation, race, age etc… we are all the same as Thomas Paine whose ideas were incorporated into the constitution. Anti-discrimination laws help promote peoples human inalienable rights.

    [read less]

    Yes, because the idea of human rights connects to this. Regardless of our sexual orientation, race, age etc… we are all the same as Thomas Paine who…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sarah from Maine

    Anti-discrimination laws refer to the law of rights to be equal for each person. We are who we are no matter of our basis of race, color, sex, disabilities, religious views, ethnic origin, or any other status. We should not label each other. Instead, treat others with fairness, regardless if we do not accept their status. We should influence others to give the same respect as they wish to receive. We need to stop discrimination, and that is why we should have laws against it.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws refer to the law of rights to be equal for each person. We are who we are no matter of our basis of race, color, sex, disabil…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brooke from Florida

    They are constitutional because people need guidelines and laws in order to respect their fellow man, regardless of race or gender. Otherwise, America would return to the racist and sexist views of the 1960’s and before.

    [read less]

    They are constitutional because people need guidelines and laws in order to respect their fellow man, regardless of race or gender. Otherwise, America…

    [read more]
    0
  • Runal from Illinois

    Constitutionally, the Federal Government has been given the power (over time) to regulate these sorts of things. The 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act are both just laws. If we cannot have a society that declares legal equality and freedom from discrimination, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot.

    [read less]

    Constitutionally, the Federal Government has been given the power (over time) to regulate these sorts of things. The 14th amendment and the Civil Righ…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jacob from North Carolina

    You can’t discriminate, it’s wrong.

    0
  • Ayesha from New York

    In today’s world we should not have to rely on the government to tell us that it is wrong to discriminate against certain people based on such petty things. If a certain business does decided to discriminate people based on certain things then it is the job of people who shop there or work there to protest against such horrific acts.

    [read less]

    In today’s world we should not have to rely on the government to tell us that it is wrong to discriminate against certain people based on such petty t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Arianna from California

    Unfortunately our nation has a long history of discrimination against people be it the Irish a long time ago or the gays today. Thankfully we have evolved as a people and anti-discrimination laws are proof of it.

    [read less]

    Unfortunately our nation has a long history of discrimination against people be it the Irish a long time ago or the gays today. Thankfully we have evo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sarah from Louisiana

    I believe it is constitutional on the grounds that is sets a precedent of how to interact with other human beings, a precedent the human race did not have one hundred years ago. Though it is not the government’s place to tell its people how they must think and act, it is the government’s place to act as a moral beacon for its citizens to follow.

    [read less]

    I believe it is constitutional on the grounds that is sets a precedent of how to interact with other human beings, a precedent the human race did not …

    [read more]
    0
    • Mary from Louisiana

      This may be so, but how far can these laws go in order to fulfil their purpose? For example, in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, if the government would say that the Boy Scouts can not discriminate against homosexuals being troop leaders, what will stop them from finding other, even ostensible, reasons to disqualify scouts?

      [read less]

      This may be so, but how far can these laws go in order to fulfil their purpose? For example, in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, if the gove…

      [read more]
      0
    • Matthew from Washington

      Moral beacon? Don’t forger, slavery was legal. The Holocaust was legal. The persecution of Christians was legal. The persecution of women and non-believers is legal in some Middle Eastern countries. The government should not legislate morality. Legality does not equal morality and vice versa.

      [read less]

      Moral beacon? Don’t forger, slavery was legal. The Holocaust was legal. The persecution of Christians was legal. The persecution of women and non-beli…

      [read more]
      0
  • Sharmore from Georgia

    I believe that this law is constitutional because without it, I am certain in some parts of the country, minorities would be denied jobs, service, and housing just because. Having basic human rights shouldn’t be based upon your skin or nationality.

    [read less]

    I believe that this law is constitutional because without it, I am certain in some parts of the country, minorities would be denied jobs, service, and…

    [read more]
    0
    • Lou from Ohio

      Is it your basic human right to force me to provide you goods or services (to sell you things)?

      0
  • Kathleen from Kansas

    Of course they are constitutional. The Constitution states WE the people, and last time I checked everyone is a person. It does not matter your race, gender, creed, romantic/sexual preferences, or anything else. Everyone is a person and deserves to be treated as such. The Constitution needs to do its job and protect everyone.

    [read less]

    Of course they are constitutional. The Constitution states WE the people, and last time I checked everyone is a person. It does not matter your race, …

    [read more]
    0
  • Zach from Michigan

    Personally, I believe unless that particular aspect of that person (sexuality, race, religion, etc.) there should not be discrimination. These laws are constitutional because stated previously is that all men are created equal. Despite the meaning of that sentence at this current time period, the literal meaning is that nobody is allowed to be discriminated because everyone is equal. Now freedom of speech allows people to say biased things but biased laws are something different entirely

    [read less]

    Personally, I believe unless that particular aspect of that person (sexuality, race, religion, etc.) there should not be discrimination. These laws ar…

    [read more]
    0
  • Charity from Ohio

    Despite gender, age, religion or race, a qualified candidate should receive employment and shall not be discriminated against. Employers still have every right to choose whom they wish to employ, given they base their decision solely on the applicants attributes to the company. Anti-discriminatory laws simply ensures skilled applicants are given equal opportunities.

    [read less]

    Despite gender, age, religion or race, a qualified candidate should receive employment and shall not be discriminated against. Employers still have ev…

    [read more]
    0
    • Benjamin from Washington

      Yes, this is true. Anti-discrimination laws can ensure that skilled minority citizens applying for a job get a fair chance to be employed in a pool of similarly-skilled workers. But, I believe that this can go too far. During the period of Affirmative Action, Hopwood vs. Texas served as an example for this when a minority applicant was accepted into a university over a Caucasian applicant to balance racial representation in the university. According to my AP US History Textbook (“The American Pageant, 16th Edition, Cengage Learning, pg 965) and spare research (in your defense, mostly from wikipedia and potentially inaccurate sources, as this type of question and court case can easily cause the truth of an event to be skewed to fit the beliefs of both the left and right), Hopwood, the Caucasian applicant, was the more qualified of the students when ethnicity wasn’t considered, and by a long shot. So, while these laws may be helpful in terms of cases where a less qualified majority citizen is selected for something over a more qualified minority, they aren’t as helpful (in fact, potentially detrimental) when the majority is either similarly or better- qualified. Sorry to make this seem like a semi-tirade, but I had a lot to say in response to this.

      [read less]

      Yes, this is true. Anti-discrimination laws can ensure that skilled minority citizens applying for a job get a fair chance to be employed in a pool of…

      [read more]
      0
  • Willow from Alabama

    Yes, because no matter what we are all human beings no matter what gender, preferences, race, or colour we need to treat each other with equality. When we discriminate each other all we are doing is bring hatred and misery, we already have enough of that without the help of these laws.

    [read less]

    Yes, because no matter what we are all human beings no matter what gender, preferences, race, or colour we need to treat each other with equality. Wh…

    [read more]
    0
    • Tori from Texas

      Respectfully, what does that mean? Sure, there might be discrimination and there might be tensions and the like, but how are laws going to change that? Personally, it seems to me that things even might be being blown out of proportion, exponentially as the years go on, although I am aware that is a very unpopular opinion. All in all, I’m just wondering your opinion on what legislation could possibly do for the issue of discrimination.

      [read less]

      Respectfully, what does that mean? Sure, there might be discrimination and there might be tensions and the like, but how are laws going to change tha…

      [read more]
      0
  • Rashaun from Florida

    Just because you’re different than everyone does not mean you should take it out on others. God made us to be different that is why we have black and white, boys and girl, the straight and LGBT community because we are all different. We are a diversity society so have laws to discriminate should even be existing because everyone is different in there own way. You are basically saying if you are a bi-racial child then there should be law cause its only black or white not mix. It does not make any sense therefore there should not be law for discrimination. We already fighting with other countries so why fight with ourselves. When we all were little we always had to fit in somewhere and that is just like today in the world. If were homosexual we have to find other people that has the same characteristics just so we can fit in. We are entitled to being different. So are anti- discrimination laws constitutional? Yes because they protect us for being difference and allow us to be who we want to be so we won’t be discriminated from others.

    [read less]

    Just because you’re different than everyone does not mean you should take it out on others. God made us to be different that is why we have black and …

    [read more]
    0
    • Willow from Florida

      You have to remember that not everyone believes in god, other than that I agree with you completely.

      0
  • Raul from California

    Of course that they are constitutional, the constitution states WE the people not just those that are privileged.

    0
  • Daisy from Texas

    I strongly believe that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional in every aspect. No individual should ever feel “left out” by their community, job, or peers. One should never get discriminated against based on gender, partner preference, or by ones skin color. The fact that such laws are being put into effect to change discrimination is one step closer to a more united community.

    [read less]

    I strongly believe that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional in every aspect. No individual should ever feel “left out” by their community, job…

    [read more]
    0
    • Lou from Ohio

      Why are anti-discrimination laws constitutional?

      0
  • Anika from California

    I believe that everyone deserves to be judged as who they are as a person, not by their membership to a group, religion, race, gender, or sexuality (and more, as people can be discriminated for nearly any reason). With this, discrimination laws need to be counteracted with anti-discrimination laws in order to provide this blank slate that the average Joe can receive automatically. Frankly, there aren’t too many average Joes around, especially since America is famously known as the “melting pot,” meaning that we are full of different cultures and races that are still discriminated against by a minority that takes authority. Besides, if the Fourteenth Amendment, the cornerstone of anti-discrimination power in the Supreme Court, was declared constitutional, then its successive tributary anti-discrimination laws should be constitutional as well.

    [read less]

    I believe that everyone deserves to be judged as who they are as a person, not by their membership to a group, religion, race, gender, or sexuality (a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Martin from Illinois

    Given that these anti-discriminatory laws are prohibiting discrimination and not forcing people, which would create more tension in the end one way or another, then yes, these are constitutional by far. There is no reason for certain races or sexes to be denied what others are not.

    [read less]

    Given that these anti-discriminatory laws are prohibiting discrimination and not forcing people, which would create more tension in the end one way or…

    [read more]
    0
  • Dean from California

    I do think that there should be an anti-discrimination law because it does give more rights to minorities. In the past, Whites, especially men, had the power to control or rule other ethnicity. This showed that white men would control other races and ethnicity’s and that is why there should be anti-discrimination laws so that it can regulate this and prevent a dictatorship of white men from the country.

    [read less]

    I do think that there should be an anti-discrimination law because it does give more rights to minorities. In the past, Whites, especially men, had th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Veronica from Indiana

    There is little point in sending someone who is dangerous to society away for the rest of their life to prison because it’s a life devoid of purpose and meaning and therefore not worth living. Plus, it gives the families of those who had been wronged a sense of closure and justice. As long as the death sentence is done humanly then I think it is justified.

    [read less]

    There is little point in sending someone who is dangerous to society away for the rest of their life to prison because it’s a life devoid of purpose a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Edem from Maryland

    Anti-discrimination laws protects the human rights of people, whether they are citizens or not, living in the United States. Without them, ignorant people will treat people however they want. Not only can they treat people inhumanely, but they can also harm them physically.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws protects the human rights of people, whether they are citizens or not, living in the United States. Without them, ignorant pe…

    [read more]
    0
  • Shoshanah from Arizona

    All people are equal. It is important to keep businesses and others from discriminating against another person based on qualities like gender and race that should not influence another’s opinion.

    [read less]

    All people are equal. It is important to keep businesses and others from discriminating against another person based on qualities like gender and race…

    [read more]
    0
  • Amy from Georgia

    These laws are meant to prevent discrimination and move us towards being equal all around. It is selfish minded people that twist such laws into pretzels to get what they want regardless of everyone else. THEY have no convenient markers…

    [read less]

    These laws are meant to prevent discrimination and move us towards being equal all around. It is selfish minded people that twist such laws into pretz…

    [read more]
    0
  • Joshua from Florida

    The United States is a country of freedom of speech, where everyone can speak their minds. It’s one of the most important amendments in the constitution. The U.S. is also a place that frowns upon discrimination. It’s true that we can say what we want but when what we say harms another person it cannot be allowed to stand. That’s why Anti discrimination laws are so important, they help everyone who is affected by discrimination while also keeping the sanctity of the 1st amendment.

    [read less]

    The United States is a country of freedom of speech, where everyone can speak their minds. It’s one of the most important amendments in the constituti…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kailley from Minnesota

    It is constitutional to ban discrimination because it should not occur anywhere

    0
  • Alexandra from Arizona

    Sometimes the government must involve itself with anti-discrimination laws. We can’t just leave it to businesses to “fail or succeed.” The common people don’t always pay attention when choosing what they spend their money on. Therefore, it should be up to the government to lend power to those who can’t go up against a big business.

    [read less]

    Sometimes the government must involve itself with anti-discrimination laws. We can’t just leave it to businesses to “fail or succeed.” The common peop…

    [read more]
    0
  • Adetoun from Indiana

    I believe so, because no matter your race, gender, color or preferences we should all be treated equally, we are all humans not animals and whether we decide to behave a certain way or were born a certain does not mean we are less. Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional because it allows for equal treatment for everyone whether trough criminal act or way of life.

    [read less]

    I believe so, because no matter your race, gender, color or preferences we should all be treated equally, we are all humans not animals and whether we…

    [read more]
    0
    • kenyota from South Carolina

      I agree we are all one in God’s eyes. So it shouldnt matter what race or relegion you are from.

      0
  • Marimar from Texas

    Anti-discrimination laws protect individuals who are seen as minorities (i.e. women, immigrants, etc.) and helps them gain equal rights as others who ignorantly find themselves above them. The absence of these laws would make it almost impossible for minority groups or populations to live their American Dreams.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws protect individuals who are seen as minorities (i.e. women, immigrants, etc.) and helps them gain equal rights as others who …

    [read more]
    0
    • kenyota from South Carolina

      Yes, they are I think that we have reached a point as a people and as a nation where we no longer need laws that outlaw discrimination. I say this because I believe that discrimination in this country really is no longer much of problem, at least not on the level as when the laws were first passed.

      [read less]

      Yes, they are I think that we have reached a point as a people and as a nation where we no longer need laws that outlaw discrimination. I say this bec…

      [read more]
      0
  • Claudia from Missouri

    Of course I think discrimination should not exist and that all people should respect each other. However, forcing someone to serve or employ someone who has completely different views than what the business person has is just as wrong as saying an African American can’t shop at a certain store. That would be giving one person their freedom by taking another’s away. If the owner of a corporation is Catholic, they should have the right to not hire a homosexual man or woman to work for their company if they would be going against the values of the corporation. If everyone would just accept the fact that people are different and we disagree but still respect each other, the world would be a much happier ad peaceful place.

    [read less]

    Of course I think discrimination should not exist and that all people should respect each other. However, forcing someone to serve or employ someone w…

    [read more]
    0
    • Logan from Michigan

      I tend to disagree. Part of the definition of respect is to give people fair and equitable treatment, there is also a equal protection clause in the constitution to give people fair treatment in the justice system. This ensures judges to not discriminate based on things like orientiation, race, etc. I think that the separation of church and state perpetuates not only in the government, but throughout the nation and the “states” that make up the nation. This means that as a business (that may or may not be assisted with public funds) that taking personal beliefs out of the equation when serving customers ought to be enforced, due to the fact that discriminating against any identity in any way is a version of prejudice. Prejudice interferes with one’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. The founding fathers didn’t want Britain taking away one’s liberty, and I believe that today, they wouldn’t want businesses taking away liberties of individuals as well as customers.

      [read less]

      I tend to disagree. Part of the definition of respect is to give people fair and equitable treatment, there is also a equal protection clause in the c…

      [read more]
      0
    • Claudia from Missouri

      I meant no, they are not constitutional

      0
  • Autumn from New Jersey

    No one has the right limit others livelihood by preventing them to shop or work in a company. Anti- discrimination laws are in place to protect people of all backgrounds. Those who support discrimination laws have the privilege of being discriminatory.

    [read less]

    No one has the right limit others livelihood by preventing them to shop or work in a company. Anti- discrimination laws are in place to protect peopl…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sarah from Washington

    Humans have a biological drive to categorize and exclude others-it’s evolutionary adaptation based on how we learn to recognize predators. However, in a civilized society, that exclusion is much more subtle, and requires deeper analysis to prevent it. We no longer need to recognize when someone is going to come into our camp and steal our hunted food. Discrimination now comes in the form of denying access to services or needs, and there is no basis for requiring that in today’s society. The Constitution’s writers recognized this, and developed the language to protect such exclusions.

    [read less]

    Humans have a biological drive to categorize and exclude others-it’s evolutionary adaptation based on how we learn to recognize predators. However, in…

    [read more]
    0
    • Benjamin from Washington

      Thank you for at least recognizing the primordial instinct that all humans have to categorize. You make a very good point.

      0
  • Margaret from Wisconsin

    To state that Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional commits the fallacy of tradition. Others pointed out that the United States has experienced growth and change since the signing of the constitution. The basic ideas of Freedom, Justice, The Pursuit of Happiness, all of these virtues were and still are American values. To protect other peoples Freedom, Liberty, and Welfare Rights, we need to adjust laws often and according to the changing world around us. If the Anti-Discrimination laws promote virtuous behavior then of course they are constitutional, if these law promoted vicious behavior, that would be another conversation. Tolerance is an important virtue in American society because we are a melting pot of different cultures. It is important to promote tolerance towards groups of people to prevent marginalization of these diverse groups of people. This is not to say that I promote the idea of cultural relativism because that is not the direction I am going, tolerance is different then cultural relativism. Subjectivism and Relativism is based on personal and public opinions, completely feeling/emotional based. I believe emotions are important in our ethical decision making but facts and logic are just as important in making rational decisions.

    [read less]

    To state that Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional commits the fallacy of tradition. Others pointed out that the United States has experienc…

    [read more]
    0
  • Amy from Virginia

    It is awfully depressing that we have to enforce anti-discrimination laws to prevent injustice against religion, sex, race, or other beliefs. We are all humans and it should be instinctive of each of us to respect and accept the differences in others. We all have the right to live as we please. If we learned to respect others and their differences, discrimination would not be a problem. It sickens me that there are many issues occurring today, simply because of the color of one’s skin or their beliefs.

    [read less]

    It is awfully depressing that we have to enforce anti-discrimination laws to prevent injustice against religion, sex, race, or other beliefs. We are …

    [read more]
    0
  • Jakob from Texas

    Anti-discriminatory laws are, by all means, constitutional. Under the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause establishes that “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” – Additionally, this has been also confirmed in various court cases such as Loving v. Virginia (1967), which provided a legal bases for interracial marriage, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which also provided a legal bases for same-sex marriage. Basically, anti-discrimination laws are in a way covered by the Equal Protection Clause, because the law could essentially increase the power or extend the reach of that clause.

    [read less]

    Anti-discriminatory laws are, by all means, constitutional. Under the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause establishes that “no state shall den…

    [read more]
    0
  • Eric from Massachusetts

    The constitution is founded upon the principle that “all men are created equal”, therefore any piece of legislature combating discrimination is inherently constitutional.

    0
    • Daniel from Arizona

      That’s actually the Declaration of Independence… The real basis of the Constitution is a government with limited powers in order to enjoy our liberties to the fullest.

      0
  • Daniel from California

    Anti-discrimination laws, are constitutional, but others may think not. These Anti-discrimination laws are important; discrimination, is a huge problem in America as we live in a generation, where race, gender, or religion should not affect how we see and think about other people. We can’t change everyone’s view on this, but we can enforce it through the passing of anti-discrimination laws. We should change for the better where race, gender, and religion do separate us, but only brings us together for the greater good!

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws, are constitutional, but others may think not. These Anti-discrimination laws are important; discrimination, is a huge proble…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sara from California

    Yes of course! People should be treated equally and it is sad that we have to enact laws to make this happen.

    0
  • stephanie from Illinois

    Yes, because as many of our founding fathers have previously stated, all men (or any people) are created equal. It is also common sense that everyone should be treated like a decent human being.

    [read less]

    Yes, because as many of our founding fathers have previously stated, all men (or any people) are created equal. It is also common sense that everyone …

    [read more]
    0
  • Jenna from Wyoming

    This country is to be a free country. WE are to honor each person as a person. That does not matter if they are male, female, black, white, gay, lesbian, straight, tall, short, Muslim, Christian, etc. That is the whole point of our country. To come together and love one another as a person, not anything more or less. Everyone deserves the same treatment, and everyone deserves to have the same rights. These rights were written in our Constitution, and with these rights we are protected, and given the same treatment as everyone else. It is to be equal, not diversified.

    [read less]

    This country is to be a free country. WE are to honor each person as a person. That does not matter if they are male, female, black, white, gay, lesbi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Carson from Virginia

    Anti-segregation laws cause many universities to be bias. It caused a slightly more qualified privileged white male to be denied acceptance in favor of a slightly less qualified unprivileged black female. This is not fair and a school should accept the best and ignore gender, race, and other cultural/ethnic traits.

    [read less]

    Anti-segregation laws cause many universities to be bias. It caused a slightly more qualified privileged white male to be denied acceptance in favor …

    [read more]
    0
  • Alexandra from Florida

    you get treated how you treat others and I’ve always lived by that saying. It is not right to treat someone poorly just because of their skin color, this is why our world is so broken and there is no fixing it.

    [read less]

    you get treated how you treat others and I’ve always lived by that saying. It is not right to treat someone poorly just because of their skin color, t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ennix from Michigan

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. This portion of the constitution gives us the answer to this question. The excerpt states how everyone is created equal meaning we shouldn’t be discriminating each other.

    [read less]

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that …

    [read more]
    0
  • Kevin from Connecticut

    I’m going with the majority cause I can and I have no knowledge of this subject.

    0
  • Bailey from Oregon

    Yes, I believe that it isn’t right to discriminate in the workplace. Even though their are certain lifestyles and life choices I disagree with or believe to be morally wrong, it doesn’t make it okay to descriminate against them. The constitution was created to make things more equal and less hierarchy like.

    [read less]

    Yes, I believe that it isn’t right to discriminate in the workplace. Even though their are certain lifestyles and life choices I disagree with or beli…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jhonice from District Of Columbia

    Within The Constitution it clearly says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are rights that ALL people are entitled to no matter their face, gender, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. It is the government’s job to protect these unalienable rights and to assure that all persons have them.

    [read less]

    Within The Constitution it clearly says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Crea…

    [read more]
    0
    • Daniel from Arizona

      Yet another person who cannot differentiate from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution… While government’s duty is to protect life and liberty, what happens when one person’s liberty is infringed in order to appease another?

      [read less]

      Yet another person who cannot differentiate from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution… While government’s duty is to protect life an…

      [read more]
      0
  • Ernest from Wisconsin

    The U.S. should abolish the death penalty because its crew to make another human suffer and it take time for a person be put on death row and it cost a lot of money to process it

    0
  • Angel from Ohio

    Their is no country on Earth that gives its people as much freedom as our country does. We have come so far from our horrific past by passing laws and amendments to help better each citizens life. I have been discriminated against a lot in my life but I believe that with out those anti-discrimination laws it could be a lot worse, especially for people of color. Without those laws in place people would be free to get away with treating people unconstitutionally whenever they please, and get away with it. In the workplace, in school, etc. The hatred will continue to spread and it will only take America back 200 years. To keep us from repeating our past mistakes we make laws to help keep America great.

    [read less]

    Their is no country on Earth that gives its people as much freedom as our country does. We have come so far from our horrific past by passing laws and…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ariana from Florida

    America is and has always been a land of opportunity. Everyone should be allowed to have access to the same opportunities as another person. If people are discriminated, they do not have equal rights, and that is a major problem in any country. Every single person should be allowed to receive a job and be payed accordingly, despite gender, race, or sexuality. There needs to be laws that help prevent this kind of discrimination from occurring.

    [read less]

    America is and has always been a land of opportunity. Everyone should be allowed to have access to the same opportunities as another person. If peop…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kyle from New York

    Everything is situational in life so there is always a “depends” in each case. However, everyone deserves equal treatment and fairness and that is the original intent of the Constitution.

    [read less]

    Everything is situational in life so there is always a “depends” in each case. However, everyone deserves equal treatment and fairness and that is the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Rene from California

    Discrimination is something that shouldn’t occur because this country is suppose to be free and not judge because we have freedom to do anything.

    0
  • Ashley from Illinois

    I believe no one should be discriminated against in any way.

    0
  • Mackenzie from Maryland

    Everyone needs treated equal no mater what

    0
    • Crystal from North Carolina

      While this is true, people will never be treated equally. Adding anti-discrimination laws are not going to fix anything if the people who enforce it are corrupt. There are plenty of laws and regulations in place for treatment of prisoners, but they aren’t enforced very well. To be honest, I don’t think it really matters if they make laws for it or not. There will always be those to oppose it

      [read less]

      While this is true, people will never be treated equally. Adding anti-discrimination laws are not going to fix anything if the people who enforce it a…

      [read more]
      0
  • Hannah from Montana

    I believe that everyone should be treated as human beings and that they should not be discriminated against because of their sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

    0
  • Serenity from California

    Amendment Fourteen: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
    This is such a clear statement. It makes it absolute that, as citizens of America, we cannot be denied the right to equality. This is the statement that, to me, makes anti-discrimination laws constitutional. Discrimination in the U.S.A should have been extinct years ago. However, we still struggle with it today. Discrimination is unacceptable. Our very constitution, the keystone of our government, explicitly says this.

    [read less]

    Amendment Fourteen: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
    This …

    [read more]
    0
  • Nora from Illinois

    Yes, Anti-Discrimination laws are constitutional because the goal of the constitution is to create a more perfect union. To create this, there must be laws placed in order to give everyone a chance to show their full potential without being judged on race, gender, and/or sexual orientation. These laws should not be permanent, however. They should only remain until our viewpoints change.

    [read less]

    Yes, Anti-Discrimination laws are constitutional because the goal of the constitution is to create a more perfect union. To create this, there must be…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jp from Oklahoma

    Based on the foundation of the Constitution, the applicability of anti-discriminatory laws are only focused on the Federal government. From a Constitutional standpoint, the 5th Amendment, which protects “Life, liberty, and property” (Where the right to privacy also stems) and the 14th Amendment which denies states from violating such rights succeed in addressing these issues. Before one decides whether or not anti-discriminatory laws are constitutional, we must ask ourselves, “To whom?” While the moral compass lies on the side of yes, we must also understand why it is constitutional to begin with. The laws of anti-discrimination are applicable to the government. There have been times, however, where discrimination has in fact hurt equal opportunity between the people and corporations. From that point of view, we must know that our rights stop where another person’s begins. The question itself is generic, but in a over-arching sense, I believe it is not only constitutional, but necessary to have anti-discriminatory laws that apply to the State/Local and Federal government. The matter of business discrimination practices must apply on a case by case basis to understand if any rights within the Constitution are largely infringed based on circumstance.

    [read less]

    Based on the foundation of the Constitution, the applicability of anti-discriminatory laws are only focused on the Federal government. From a Constitu…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alyssa from Rhode Island

    While many are able to overcome challenges to achieve success, the truth is that certain groups by race, gender, or other minority positions are oppressed at multiple levels. If everyone had the same access to education, health services, and a healthy upbringing, then anti-discrimination laws would not be needed. The face that Griggs v. Duke Power identified that a non-discriminatory policy could still overwhelmingly deny African-Americans promotions due to society and education restrictions exemplifies that we need an in-depth approach to dealing with discrimination beyond the individual.

    [read less]

    While many are able to overcome challenges to achieve success, the truth is that certain groups by race, gender, or other minority positions are oppre…

    [read more]
    0
  • Musa from Georgia

    No one should ever be held back of some factor that makes than different from everybody else and any moving towards making all men, and women, equal is a great thing. However, this doesn’t mean that every person that’s fired or rejected from a job should sue for discrimination.

    [read less]

    No one should ever be held back of some factor that makes than different from everybody else and any moving towards making all men, and women, equal …

    [read more]
    0
  • Jaspreet from Pennsylvania

    Yes, Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. Everyone should be treated the same regardless of what age, gender, ethnicity, color they are. It is up to the citizens to follow the constitution, and not discriminate others. So many great leaders have made great laws to prevent discrimination from happening. If laws like this did not exist, then our nation would be very weak.

    [read less]

    Yes, Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. Everyone should be treated the same regardless of what age, gender, ethnicity, color they are. It is…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jacquelyn from Michigan

    Yes because race, gender, sexuality, etc. does not determine whether or not you are fit for an organization or job; it’s the actions that determine it.

    0
  • Jennifer from Tennessee

    Our nation was founded by people who were tired of being treated unequally. While it may be burdensome at times, we can not forget this key point. While we would like to believe there is no longer a need for protection against discrimination, that just isn’t realistic.

    [read less]

    Our nation was founded by people who were tired of being treated unequally. While it may be burdensome at times, we can not forget this key point. Whi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kierra from South Carolina

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional up to a certain extent. I don’t believe that discrimination is okay in any way, shape, or form, but because people view discrimination so subjectively, it’s kind of hard to say yay or nay; it really depends on the situation. It’s only common sense that a business hires based on qualifications and not looks, so I understand the law forcing businesses to treat men and women equally. Services, on the other hand have a lot of red tape. If you’re a business, you’re supposed to provide your services equally, and without discrimination. But if a woman who owns a bakery is a Christian, and doesn’t want to bake a cake for a homosexual’s wedding, is that really discrimination? She has nothing against the homosexual, she just doesn’t want to go against her religion. Does she really deserve to pay a hefty fine or go to jail? I believe that since discrimination isn’t constitutional, anti-discrimination laws are, but it really depends on your definition of discrimination.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional up to a certain extent. I don’t believe that discrimination is okay in any way, shape, or form, but becaus…

    [read more]
    0
    • Sofia from California

      I also had a hard time answering this question too. When you said, “it’s kind of hard to say yay or nay…” -Kiera from South Carolina

      I happen to be a religious person and having said that I am not going to judge you or anybody’s sexual preference. Because I live to this modo that says, “It’s the freedom of the children of God. Such people can connect with everybody. They don’t feel the need to eliminate anybody” -Richard Rohr

      I admire your strong use of language and I do agree with you the definition of discrimination. My definition of discrimination is harming someone emotionally, physically and mentally that leads to death. I know it’s a bit dark but it’s the cycle of life and we as humans must not have this grow or build anymore.

      [read less]

      I also had a hard time answering this question too. When you said, “it’s kind of hard to say yay or nay…” -Kiera from South Carolina

      I happen to b…

      [read more]
      0
  • john from Illinois

    On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln presented the Emancipation Proclamation. This piece of legislation announced the freedom of all the slaves, but was it constitutionally right for the government to issue an anti-discriminatory law? It most certainly was legal for slavery to be abolished. When the lives, safety, or well-being of individual American citizens are being threatened, it is the job of the government to issue laws prohibiting discrimination. For large issues that threaten individual security, the government should have the right to create and enforce laws, but for low-scale personal relations, it is the individuals job to resolve the issue, not the government. For example, in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, it was not the governments job to interfere. It is the job of the citizens to take care of their actions and consider how they will effect others. Obviously, in a broken world, no person is perfect. Thus it is the governments job to help protect the rights that Americans hold so dear.

    [read less]

    On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln presented the Emancipation Proclamation. This piece of legislation announced the freedom of all the slav…

    [read more]
    0
    • Cameron from Texas

      The emancipation proclamation did not free all the slaves, it freed the property within the states in rebellion, The Confederacy. On your arguments though, there exist laws that protect people’s life and property. If a member of a discriminated class has any of these violated they can bring the violators to justice. Discrimination, as in to not giving a person a job because they’re gay or black or anything like that does not violate the person’s safety or well-being. Ant-discrimination laws would destroy individual rights as individuals would be forced to service and believe in the idea of tolerance which is not a right the government has. This you state and reaffirm with your statement about the Boy Scouts of America, so I don’t know exactly what you are trying say. You seem to attempt to draw a distinction between large and small issues, but I do not see it.

      [read less]

      The emancipation proclamation did not free all the slaves, it freed the property within the states in rebellion, The Confederacy. On your arguments th…

      [read more]
      0
  • Charles from California

    The fact this is still happening is absolutely ridiculous. We all need to be helping each other not putting one another down just to make us fell better about our selfs

    -1
  • Jacob from Utah

    Equal right is equal rights. Discriminating against someone for something as silly as their skin color is not right, and if you use the constitution to prevent others from then good on you. It is ridiculous to think that in today’s day and age discrimination is still an issue.

    [read less]

    Equal right is equal rights. Discriminating against someone for something as silly as their skin color is not right, and if you use the constitution t…

    [read more]
    -1
  • silvia from Texas

    Despite the progression society as a whole is making, we continue to be held back by discrimination. Anti-discriminatory laws are necessary to discourage any bias and promote equality.

    [read less]

    Despite the progression society as a whole is making, we continue to be held back by discrimination. Anti-discriminatory laws are necessary to discour…

    [read more]
    -1
    • Cameron from Texas

      These laws would force the idea of equality on the people of the United States. Not everyone believes in this idea of equality which is evident from the necessity of this discussion. You need to prove what you say and not just say it, otherwise there is no certainty of your ideas.

      [read less]

      These laws would force the idea of equality on the people of the United States. Not everyone believes in this idea of equality which is evident from t…

      [read more]
      0
  • dayanna from Texas

    Many people still discriminate other people based on race, religion, and sex orientation. Constitutional means that we the people of the united states want to establish peace, equality, and tranquility among us and if we don’t do that that would actually against the constitution. The law of anti-discrimination is totally connected and related to this preamble.

    [read less]

    Many people still discriminate other people based on race, religion, and sex orientation. Constitutional means that we the people of the united states…

    [read more]
    -1
  • Kenechukwu from Texas

    Yes, anti-discrimination laws are constitutional, but they still need to be carefully examined to verify that these laws are in fact, constitutional. Everyone should be treated equally, but the outcome, the consequence of each passed legislation has an effect on the country that resonates throughout, and soon becomes controversial. Anti-discrimination laws are allowed to help the oppressed; they have been established for years, initially because of race and gender equality. So, as citizens bring new factors into this topic, then there’s an issue. I do believe that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional, only to an extent. When citizens want anti-discriminatory laws for every denomination, person, organization, etc., there becomes a problem because people can’t handle opinions nor offensive statements. There were times when these laws were necessary, in a life-saving way. Now, citizens want laws passed just for sake of it. Once again, anti-discrimination laws are constitutional; however, the line has to be drawn somewhere before legislation gets out of hand and won’t be able to realize the difference between a need and a desire.

    [read less]

    Yes, anti-discrimination laws are constitutional, but they still need to be carefully examined to verify that these laws are in fact, constitutional. …

    [read more]
    -1
  • Christian from New York

    There is no right to discriminate stated in the constitution, so any argument against the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws must be inferred from existing amendments.
    The first amendment could be interpreted in such a way where monetary transactions are considered speech, thus making discrimination in employment or services by a private organization protected speech. If implemented, this argument would effectively make all objectionable transactions, like bribery or prostitution, protected by the constitution. In order to prevent this, a directly harmful action, like denying employment to a marginalized group, is not considered speech. This does not mean that discrimination by a private group or person is unconstitutional.

    [read less]

    There is no right to discriminate stated in the constitution, so any argument against the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws must be inferr…

    [read more]
    -1
  • Clarissa from Pennsylvania

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional because they are in place to protect all people. It is wrong to discriminate someone based on their sex, race, age, sexual orientation etc. It is not a matter of religion anymore, people do not deserve to be treated unfairly because they do not fit with the majority.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional because they are in place to protect all people. It is wrong to discriminate someone based on their sex, r…

    [read more]
    -1
  • Daniel from New York

    Discrimination is often the result of ignorance and uneducated/unfounded beliefs about a person, which in modern society has become a larger and larger problem in many southern states.These laws assist the government in combating the day to day abuse and mistreatment that some groups in the US face not only behind closed doors in in private life but in the public sector as well.

    [read less]

    Discrimination is often the result of ignorance and uneducated/unfounded beliefs about a person, which in modern society has become a larger and large…

    [read more]
    -1
  • Kalee from Indiana

    depending on the president and the laws he decides to make and enforce

    -1
  • Samantha from Virginia

    A vital part of the Constitution is the belief that “All men are created equal.” “All men,” meaning every human. “Are created,” we are all put on this Earth in the same way. “EQUAL,” the final word is the kicker. It means that everyone stands on an equal platform. Each and every person should have equal opportunities to achieve the goals they set their sights on.

    [read less]

    A vital part of the Constitution is the belief that “All men are created equal.” “All men,” meaning every human. “Are created,” we are all put on this…

    [read more]
    -1
  • arianna from Arizona

    Anti- Discrimination Laws are constitutional because it clearly states in The Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” which clearly states in black and white that it does not matter the color of skin you are, the ethnic background you may come from. We should all have the same rights and treat each other with respect as we would want to be respected.

    [read less]

    Anti- Discrimination Laws are constitutional because it clearly states in The Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” which clear…

    [read more]
    -1
  • Jessica from California

    Based on the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, it is constitutional to create anti-discrimination laws because they are made with the intention of ensuring equality. Therefore, anti-discrimination laws are protected by the Constitution.

    [read less]

    Based on the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, it is constitutional to create anti-discrimination laws because they ar…

    [read more]
    -1
  • Jonathan from Illinois

    Everyone deserves a fair shot at life. No one deserves discrimination, and if, as a nation, we believe that, indeed, all men are created equal, then the idea of discrimination is against everything our country stands for. Discrimination must be ended now, and anti-discrimination laws are certainly constitutional.

    [read less]

    Everyone deserves a fair shot at life. No one deserves discrimination, and if, as a nation, we believe that, indeed, all men are created equal, then t…

    [read more]
    -1
    • Aggie from Ohio

      What about the unborn? Do they deserve a “fair shot at life” or not, because some people believe they are not humans?

      0
  • Zara from Pennsylvania

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional but not for every group. It is wrong to discriminate because of race, gender, or religion but it is not always wrong to discriminate because of other things.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional but not for every group. It is wrong to discriminate because of race, gender, or religion but it is not al…

    [read more]
    -1
  • Joshua from Utah

    If this is a nation of the “people”. Then there shouldn’t be discrimination.

    -1
  • Andrea from Texas

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional because those who are discriminated are judged, laughed upon, talked behind their back, and pushed around. Is judged, laughed upon, talked behind their back, and pushed around seen as a safe or free environment? NOPE.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional because those who are discriminated are judged, laughed upon, talked behind their back, and pushed around….

    [read more]
    -1
  • Monica from Maryland

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. I think that based on the origin of our country’s origins that all people have the right to to treat each other fair and equally.

    -1
  • Bridget from Michigan

    They are constitutional, because everyone should have a chance to work in a safe environment. If there are anti-discrimination laws in place it allows a supplement to the constitution.

    [read less]

    They are constitutional, because everyone should have a chance to work in a safe environment. If there are anti-discrimination laws in place it allows…

    [read more]
    -1
  • John from Delaware

    yes

    -1
  • Danaris from Florida

    Yes, Because it gives everybody an equal opportunity to achieve the idea of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    -1
  • Sahara from New Jersey

    I think they are constitutional. Everyone should have equal opportunities when it comes t clubs, jobs, and many other things. When it comes to homosexuals I don’t think they should be judged because of the person they once were, they are a totally different person now and have remade themselves to be happy. No one has the right to stop someone else’s happiness that just isn’t fair and it shouldn’t be the American way. The same applies to women with children, they have to take care of their children so none should discriminate against them. Things happen and as people we have to adjust and deal with it.

    [read less]

    I think they are constitutional. Everyone should have equal opportunities when it comes t clubs, jobs, and many other things. When it comes to homosex…

    [read more]
    -1
  • James from Tennessee

    My stand on this issue stems mainly on issues such as gays in scouting because I have a passion for scouting and Duty to God and this has been a huge issue in scouting and the churches who serve as chartered organizations over about the past 1 1/2 or so.

    [read less]

    My stand on this issue stems mainly on issues such as gays in scouting because I have a passion for scouting and Duty to God and this has been a huge …

    [read more]
    -1
  • Veronica from Virginia

    I believe that anti-discrimination laws are completely constitutional. The Constitution expressly states that we, as citizens, have the right to “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Laws barring discrimination are serving to guarantee that we are not deprived of these unalienable rights, as is the government’s duty to protect.

    [read less]

    I believe that anti-discrimination laws are completely constitutional. The Constitution expressly states that we, as citizens, have the right to “Life…

    [read more]
    -2
  • Jon from Maryland

    Discrimination sucks, get rid of it. Not much more needs to be said.

    -2
  • Victoria from Pennsylvania

    The constitution protects individuals against discrimination, whether it is for a gay boyscout or the racist construction man making slurs outside your house. In order for people to be protected there needs to be laws against wrongful human actions. There are laws if a gay boyscout leader molests a child just as their are laws characterizing racist acts as hate crimes. People have a right to believe what they want and to congregate with others, but wrongful human actions as a result must be punished by law.

    [read less]

    The constitution protects individuals against discrimination, whether it is for a gay boyscout or the racist construction man making slurs outside you…

    [read more]
    -2
  • S from Indiana

    The founding fathers wanted people to be equal. Yes, the the Constitution is important but not everything is as black and white as we’d like it to be. Times have changed and we need to end ALL forms of discrimination. The Constitution was for the people so let’s be a country for all the people.

    [read less]

    The founding fathers wanted people to be equal. Yes, the the Constitution is important but not everything is as black and white as we’d like it to be….

    [read more]
    -2
  • Thendral from New Jersey

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. Our Founding Fathers kept slaves when they wrote the Constitution, so they were not considering the idea of segregation back then. I wholly believe that segregation is incorrect.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. Our Founding Fathers kept slaves when they wrote the Constitution, so they were not considering the idea …

    [read more]
    -2
  • Prabhu from California

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. It is up to these laws to abolish discrimination. Even if people stop discriminating each other, these organisations and business firms will continue to do so. Personally, as an Indian, I have faced discrimination and I am completely against it. It isn’t right to discriminate in any way, even in movies and TV shows. This happens worldwide and I have witnessed several instances based on this subject. Towards the end, it only gets promoted and increases day by day. Every race needs to be treated equally. I believe in a future where discrimination doesn’t exist and I hope that one day, the world would become a better place for everybody.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. It is up to these laws to abolish discrimination. Even if people stop discriminating each other, these or…

    [read more]
    -2
    • Chelsi from Mississippi

      I agree with Parabhu for the simple fact that I’m an African American women in southern Mississippi. Discrimation is prominent here. Without these types of laws we will forever live in an unfair world. Until everyone can be treated as the equals that we are the world will never know true peace.

      [read less]

      I agree with Parabhu for the simple fact that I’m an African American women in southern Mississippi. Discrimation is prominent here. Without these typ…

      [read more]
      0
  • Kanishak from Texas

    The Anti-Discrimination Laws are constitutional because they were adopted based upon the idea that “All men are created equal” which is stated in the Declaration of Independence. But unfortunately, the practice of equality as preached by the founding fathers, was not extended to women, people from other races etc..So, when the Congress passed the Anti-Discrimination Laws, it was not unconstitutional because by doing so, Congress only ensured the protection of the fundamental human rights (guaranteed by US constitution)for a section of oppressed people in the society.

    [read less]

    The Anti-Discrimination Laws are constitutional because they were adopted based upon the idea that “All men are created equal” which is stated in the…

    [read more]
    -2
  • Natalia from Texas

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. The constitution is a flexible document that was designed specifically for these kinds of changes in our society. There have also been court cases that have already decided what can and cannot be said. This was seen in the “clear and present danger” in free speech. Hate speech has been known to cause violence in the past and due to the 14th amendment, we are all supposed to be equal under the eyes of the law. Under the equal protection clause, laws that stop discrimination are hereby constitutional.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. The constitution is a flexible document that was designed specifically for these kinds of changes in our …

    [read more]
    -2
  • olivia from Arizona

    everyone is created equal and should be treated as so, there should be no debate about it

    -2
    • Zia from Florida

      We are all humans so our race shouldn’t make us superior than the other. We should stand together because we all look the same on the inside and our physical appearance should not determine how we should be treated. It should be common sense to know they everyone should be treated the way they want to be treated no matter their skin color.

      [read less]

      We are all humans so our race shouldn’t make us superior than the other. We should stand together because we all look the same on the inside and our p…

      [read more]
      0
  • Justin from Florida

    Discriminating against people based on race, gender, or religion is unconstitutional and goes against us as a free country. However, discrimination is okay if it were like, say a town community club that only allowed residents of that town to join, then that is okay since it is not discriminating based on race, gender, religion.

    [read less]

    Discriminating against people based on race, gender, or religion is unconstitutional and goes against us as a free country. However, discrimination is…

    [read more]
    -2
  • Amelia from Pennsylvania

    Everybody has the right to certain things, and not allowing someone the rights to one thing or another is clearly unconstitutional. If America wants to be the melting pot and country of freedom it says it is, it cannot discriminate so much.

    [read less]

    Everybody has the right to certain things, and not allowing someone the rights to one thing or another is clearly unconstitutional. If America wants t…

    [read more]
    -2
  • ASHLYN from Texas

    The Constitution was written to set laws to protect the people. Although a lot of it is outdated, amendments are always being added to be applicable to our present society. But we have to be careful not to change the original purpose behind the Constitution. If we keep making exceptions for this or that, we will end up having to throw the Constitution away and start from scratch. I can’t imagine the chaos that would ensue. But on the other hand, I also believe an organization, such as in the case of Boy Scouts vs. Dale, has a right to set standards to protect the innocent.

    [read less]

    The Constitution was written to set laws to protect the people. Although a lot of it is outdated, amendments are always being added to be applicable t…

    [read more]
    -2
    • Deneisha from North Carolina

      Maybe a new constitution could be a good thing. We are in an entirely different era than that of our forefathers. The times have changed and our government should be adaptable to he changing times instead of trying to prevent them

      [read less]

      Maybe a new constitution could be a good thing. We are in an entirely different era than that of our forefathers. The times have changed and our gover…

      [read more]
      0
  • Madie from Michigan

    Slavery was abolished, women got the right to vote that’s race and gender then there is separation of Church and state which another way to keep religious discrimination to a low. I think we’ve taken things to a new level but yes.

    [read less]

    Slavery was abolished, women got the right to vote that’s race and gender then there is separation of Church and state which another way to keep relig…

    [read more]
    -2
  • Eleonor from Florida

    I find it absolutely ridiculous to suggest that anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional. When many people talk about America, they envision it as a place of equal opportunity, where anyone can succeed, however our nation’s history speaks to the contrary. Access to ‘success’ has been limited to all kinds of people, whether its due to their race, gender, sexual orientation, or socio-economic class. This is due to prejudices and discrimination in the work place. Many people claim that by making discriminatory practices illegal, or forcing companies to change hiring/wage practices violates some form of either freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or some other constitutional right. This is not the reality. The constitution should not be used as a justification or an excuse to practice hatred the workplace. People may have their own opinions but they should stay personal, but their work operations should remain open and democratic to everyone, regardless of who they are or where they come from.

    [read less]

    I find it absolutely ridiculous to suggest that anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional. When many people talk about America, they envision it a…

    [read more]
    -3
  • Eric from California

    Yes, it is not constitutional to discriminate.

    -4
  • Chinelo from Florida

    They are constitutional. The 14th Amendment clearly states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” With that being said, laws that prevent discrimination are ensuring people that they are being equally protected to the full extent of the law.

    [read less]

    They are constitutional. The 14th Amendment clearly states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunit…

    [read more]
    -4
    • Daniel from Arizona

      With that logic, the people who are discriminate are also worthy of protection under the Equal Protection Clause. People have the right to discriminate, the government does not.

      0
  • brandon from California

    there is no debate, you should not be able to legally discriminate

    -4
  • Arturo from California

    there is no debate, you should not be able to legally discriminate

    -4
  • Jabari from Georgia

    Considering the foundation of which the United States was built upon, it is clear that discrimination has no place in our society. Whether based on race, sex, age, etc. discrimination is and always will be unacceptable. So in regards to whether or not anti discrimination laws are constitutional, I would say that they are constitutional for a country cannot grow without change along the way.

    [read less]

    Considering the foundation of which the United States was built upon, it is clear that discrimination has no place in our society. Whether based on ra…

    [read more]
    -4
  • Ashley from Texas

    No comment necessary. This should be self explanatory.

    -4
    • Benjamin from Washington

      Then why was the question asked?

      0
  • Brooke from Iowa

    I believe today in this country that discrimination is really no longer a problem.

    -6
    • Isael from California

      prior to my previous comment everyone should be treated equally I forgot to add that

      0
    • Isael from California

      I’m new to this. Maybe I commented on a comment. Besides my opinion on this topic is you shouldn’t judge a race because everyone is different in that same race. If you are going to Judge, Judge the person. Not by it;s race stereotypes.

      [read less]

      I’m new to this. Maybe I commented on a comment. Besides my opinion on this topic is you shouldn’t judge a race because everyone is different in that …

      [read more]
      0
    • Daniel from Arizona

      Really? What about Affirmative Action? Does that not constitute discrimination?

      0
  • Matthew from Washington

    No, anti discrimination laws are not constitutional (at least when applied to private businesses). After reading through these answers, I’ve seen many people misinterpret the Constitution. People keep claiming that businesses cannot discriminate because of the “equal protection of the law” clause of the 14th Amendment. However, this is a ridiculous claim. The 14th Amendment’s protections against discrimination, along with the rest of the Constitution, only applies to limiting government. Businesses should reserve the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason based on two parts of the Constitution. First, the right to discriminate is protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The First Amendment does, in fact, protect offensive, distasteful and unpopular speech (such as flag-burning), and discrimination is nothing but symbolic speech. Next, the right to discriminate is protected by the 13th Amendment, which prohibited slavery. Forcing a private business to serve somebody they do not want to serve is, in fact, involuntary servitude. it infringes on private property rights, and ultimately conscripts the services of a business owner and/or their employees. In the end, we should keep anti discrimination laws. However, we should amend them and remove the parts that apply to private businesses, such as Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    [read less]

    No, anti discrimination laws are not constitutional (at least when applied to private businesses). After reading through these answers, I’ve seen many…

    [read more]
    13
    • Maura from New York

      The First Amendment does protect “offensive” and “unpopular” speech. However, it only protects the speech against the government, speech against a private institution is not protected. The First Amendment was created to protect a citizen’s right to criticize the government. The Founding Fathers had watched their land be destroyed because of their revolt and criticism against Great Britain. The purpose of the First Amendment was to allow political opposition to the government.

      [read less]

      The First Amendment does protect “offensive” and “unpopular” speech. However, it only protects the speech against the government, speech against a pri…

      [read more]
      0
    • Ian from Alabama

      I must oppose your claim about discrimination being protected speech. You are correct that “offensive, distasteful and unpopular speech” are protected under the 1st Amendment, but one person’s freedom cannot infringe on another’s, meaning that you can say all the racist comments you want but if you deny service to someone based on the color of their skin, religion, gender, etc. then you are infringing on their rights as well

      [read less]

      I must oppose your claim about discrimination being protected speech. You are correct that “offensive, distasteful and unpopular speech” are protected…

      [read more]
      0
    • Addie from Colorado

      With all due respect, the notion that forcing businesses to comply with anti-discrimination laws constitutes involuntary servitude is silly. This point is especially egregious when one realizes that the 13th Amendment’s ban on “involuntary servitude” was meant to end the bondage of certain specific groups — namely, African-Americans — who are the precise groups that anti-discrimination laws often serve to protect. Slavery is one of the most shameful parts of our nation’s past, and to diminish that horror by comparing it with anti-discrimination laws is ridiculous. It’s fully within the government’s power to regulate private businesses, and they do it all the time, because part of living in a functioning democracy means yielding a little power to the federal government so that they can enact legislation (like anti-discrimination laws) that helps realize the ideals our nation was founded on. Otherwise we would live in a Hobbesian nightmare — a nightmare that, without anti-discrimination laws, would be horrifyingly close to reality.

      [read less]

      With all due respect, the notion that forcing businesses to comply with anti-discrimination laws constitutes involuntary servitude is silly. This poin…

      [read more]
      0
    • Destinee from California

      I think you make a valid point even if it is an unpopular one.

      0
  • Patrick from Virginia

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional for one plain reason: the government has no Constitutional power to regulate how businesses in this country hire or interact with employees. The Supreme Court has ruled already ruled the right of a business to refuse service to customers, and a business also has the right to not hire someone on its own basis. It does not matter if we do not LIKE the right of a business to potentially treat someone poorly; the Constitution gives businesses that right because it prohibits the federal government from enacting such laws. But, as with every thing else that Washington D.C. passes, the Constitution is completely ignored and Congress passes whatever laws they are in the mood to pass.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional for one plain reason: the government has no Constitutional power to regulate how businesses in this co…

    [read more]
    4
  • Benjamin from Washington

    They are not constitutional, as Matthew mentioned, when private enterprises are concerned. Additionally, even though discrimination is evil, our Constitution is not capable of forming laws preventing discrimination as it limits the basic guarantee of freedom of speech and the right to hold any belief, no matter how controversial. Additionally, discrimination is, unfortunately, a natural response that occurs in varying levels in everybody when they encounter somebody who is different from them. The Constitution cannot prevent these thoughts or opinions from being made.

    [read less]

    They are not constitutional, as Matthew mentioned, when private enterprises are concerned. Additionally, even though discrimination is evil, our Const…

    [read more]
    3
    • Willow from Florida

      Yes, but Benjamin these laws can stop people from not having the same rights as others which will save us from having as many problems in the future. Although we can not change what people think we can still make sure that equality is still guaranteed to everyone.

      [read less]

      Yes, but Benjamin these laws can stop people from not having the same rights as others which will save us from having as many problems in the future. …

      [read more]
      0
  • David from Virginia

    While the original intent to discourage and prevent discrimination is completely constitutional, too many of the laws passed in order to prevent the disparagement of a minority group, attempt to achieve social equality by promoting discrimination against the majority class. Discrimination is wrong, no matter what group it’s against, and certain so-called “anti-discrimination” laws and practices, namely affirmative action programs, aim to force equality, effectively subsidizing the majority, and ironically, creating an even larger, more widespread, blanket of discrimination across the American population.

    [read less]

    While the original intent to discourage and prevent discrimination is completely constitutional, too many of the laws passed in order to prevent the d…

    [read more]
    2
  • Brady from Ohio

    Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional. While most Americans do not support or tolerate any type of discrimination, yet as Americans we are guaranteed the freedom of expression. If I choose to not employ someone with vastly different ideological beliefs, that is my right guaranteed to me in the Constitution. What if I own a business that sells a certain type of pork, would I hire a person that cannot eat pork due to religious reasons? No, that would be bad business. As a business owner I should not have to sacrifice my business because someone that cannot fulfill the requirements of the job. Sometimes discrimination is not done with malice, it is done because the Constitution protects every one, even those that may be discriminating. That is the beauty of it, you can vigorously disagree with it, yet it will still protect you.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional. While most Americans do not support or tolerate any type of discrimination, yet as Americans we are gua…

    [read more]
    1
  • Sarah from Washington

    I have personally experienced racial discrimination, but not in the way people might first think of. For a while, I attended a private school for a while growing up. The woman running the school was married to a Hispanic man. The majority of the school were her own children and nieces/nephews. Every day I was physically bullied simply because I was one of the only white kids in the school. The woman running the school would simply turn a blind eye because she didn’t care. This made it nearly impossible for my to learn or even attened school without the fear of being jumped when I turned a corner. I know that not a lot of discrimination on white people, but I believe that people should be able to go about their everyday lives without living in fear.

    [read less]

    I have personally experienced racial discrimination, but not in the way people might first think of. For a while, I attended a private school for a wh…

    [read more]
    1
    • Jhonice from District Of Columbia

      I certainly agree with you. I’m sorry you had to endure such terrors at such an early age. People should not be concerned with the outside of people but instead, their insides (morals). I’m a Black woman so I fully understand.

      [read less]

      I certainly agree with you. I’m sorry you had to endure such terrors at such an early age. People should not be concerned with the outside of people b…

      [read more]
      0
  • Ryan from Oklahoma

    In a country that practices capitalism and the free market such as ours we don’t need anti-discrimination laws. Everyone should be allowed to discriminate as they please. The natural flow of the market will dictate the success of failure of said organizations,businesses and so and so forth. For example, a business decides they do not wish to conduct business with people from East Europe. Due to this choice that business garners a rather nasty reputation for being close minded and bigoted. This reputation spreads and eventually the business looses all prospective customers and is forced to make a decision. Either reverse its policy to not serve Eastern Europeans or go bankrupt. They decide to hold fast to their beliefs. Thus their business sinks while other non discriminating businesses thrive. No government regulation needed at all and the less government we have involved in our daily lives the better. We don’t the government to regulate us and make us play nice together as if we were a bunch of children. Americans are fully capable of making their own decisions and these anti discrimination laws are just ploy for the government to exercise more control and authority over us as they swell to bigger and bigger proportions.

    [read less]

    In a country that practices capitalism and the free market such as ours we don’t need anti-discrimination laws. Everyone should be allowed to discrimi…

    [read more]
    1
    • Bryan from California

      It’s ironic actually, this country. Stating that one is for freedom and morality and ethics yet wanting to impose a law that does the complete opposite. A government is settled to create law and justice. If we were to go back in time to where people can discriminate and hate as they please, we would be separated once again even though we’ve made all this progress. People stating that some human beings should be able to judge other human beings with the exclusion of opportunity based on gender, color, or sexual orientation is unconstitutional, are moving two steps back. This is completely Un-American.

      [read less]

      It’s ironic actually, this country. Stating that one is for freedom and morality and ethics yet wanting to impose a law that does the complete opposit…

      [read more]
      0
    • Lou from Ohio

      To Amanda: I think you’re saying that certain people with money have power to sway public opinion and that under Ryan’s proposed system there is potential for those people to sway the public towards discriminatory tendencies. Assuming that certain people with this power exist (and I think some do exist but that they have less power than you think), suppose that this situation that you fear occurs. The powerful people sway the public to not like a particular group, and that group is not able to acquire necessary goods or services as a result of the public’s discriminatory practices, which stem from the opinions that came from the powerful people. Why then does the minority group not open their own business to provide for those necessary goods or services, or move to someplace that accepts them where they could be sold those goods or services?
      (Also, if we’re talking about today, 2016, seeing as how groups and individuals who are not actually discriminating are being accused of discriminating because what they are doing only looks like discrimination on the surface (but is not when the reasons for their actions are explained), I don’t think the ground is ripe for such manipulation/persuasion.

      [read less]

      To Amanda: I think you’re saying that certain people with money have power to sway public opinion and that under Ryan’s proposed system there is poten…

      [read more]
      0
    • Amanda from Washington

      I would argue that there is a sincere naivety in your belief that market demands would always be in favour for the anti-discrimination of demographics in the first place. Markets may swing in the favour of public opinion, and those public opinions heavily rely on cultural influences that are often set by standard of other very influential, powerful individuals or lobbyists. In other words, what may necessarily be relevant or important to the lives of the masses may be entirely unacknowledged or disregarded due to the portrayal in mass media of other particular priorities, primarily focused not on the betterment of communities, but marketing strategies for products of whatever nature.

      By considering who dominates media outlets and what kind of messages they are sending alongside with what kind of demographics actually hold the monetary and intellectual resources to sway public opinion, you would come to recognize those demographics will likely overlook and even engineer the miseries of others.

      [read less]

      I would argue that there is a sincere naivety in your belief that market demands would always be in favour for the anti-discrimination of demographics…

      [read more]
      0
    • Jhonice from District Of Columbia

      Though, I voted “yes” to discriminatory laws, you make a very good point! Thank you for this perspective.

      0
  • Jonathan from Pennsylvania

    Nobody supports discriminating against another group of people based on conditions which they have no control over. For example if I have a business I am going to discriminate against hiring people who do no meet my mission statement, business values, ethics, and other qualifications such as education.

    A neighbor of mine was a welder who traveled from place to place with his family for work. When he first began his career his children were young and in preschool. He had trouble getting jobs because his kids were so young and he was not willing to be gone for month after month on a job site. The company had every right to discriminate. He was not able to meet the demands of the job. Guess what? He found a company that was willing to make compromises with his lifestyle.

    The free market fixes 99% of these so called discrimination cases. You don’t like the Boy Scouts of America? Start or join another group. Mobility (federalism) and choice is one of our greatest freedoms in our Republic. If a company decides not to build a ramp they will loose business. If they decide not to make a cake for a gay wedding then let the market take care of it. If they don’t want a male elementary teacher then so be it.

    [read less]

    Nobody supports discriminating against another group of people based on conditions which they have no control over. For example if I have a business I…

    [read more]
    1
  • Esther from Washington

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional. Not only has it been explicitly stated in the constitution that all men are created equal, but several amendments have also been passed supporting this statement. Anti-discrimination has been enforced with the passing of the 13th and 14th Amendments. The 13th amendment abolished slavery(anti-discrimination against blacks). More general and referring to more ethnic groups, the 14th Amendment was passed to counter the “black codes” and ensure that no state “shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States… [or] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, [or] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Both the 13th and 14th Amendments support the statement the all men are created equal, a phrase that Americans are fond of hurling at each other and using frequently, and also flatly contradicts the statement that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional. Not only has it been explicitly stated in the constitution that all men are created equal, but severa…

    [read more]
    1
  • Deshone from Massachusetts

    No,anti discrimination laws are not constitutional. Due to the fact all americans have the right to free speech and freedom of expression so if a person decides to discriminate against a person then there free to do so. Some may say that it is wrong and that people should not be discriminated against but we must face the fact that it is the year 2016 and people will think the way they want and as an american citizen that is your right to do so. Thus making anti discrimination laws not in any since constitutional. Americans have the right to think, say, and believe in what ever they want thus the name the land of the free.

    [read less]

    No,anti discrimination laws are not constitutional. Due to the fact all americans have the right to free speech and freedom of expression so if a pers…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cory from Florida

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional. Disliking someone in a mental form is not a crime. Every human on this Earth is different and as a species we must live with and adapt to these grounds. The Boy Scouts of America is a PRIVATE organization, giving them grounds to rectify who may or may not join. In terms of public workplaces which require little experience such as Publix or Walmart, employees should not have to conform to any specificity in skill or demeanor. For those who consider the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments as anti-discriminatory are mistaken. These Amendments were made to limit the governments sway on voting. A private organization is private for a reason. Some organizations may prefer a certain look or manor for their disciples and as a private organization they should have the right to control that.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional. Disliking someone in a mental form is not a crime. Every human on this Earth is different and as a sp…

    [read more]
    0
  • Noell from New York

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional, especially when regarding private businesses. The government has(or should have) 0 say in how private businesses should operate. Sure it may not be “right” in the public’s eye for a private businesses to refuse to hire based off race, gender, or sexuality, but they hold that right. So no, anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional, as it violates the 1st amendment.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional, especially when regarding private businesses. The government has(or should have) 0 say in how private…

    [read more]
    0
  • Robert from South Carolina

    While equality on all levels would be nice, I feel that there are situations where discrimination has its place. For example, there have been situations where I was unable to rent an apartment based on my age. Now, there is good reason behind this in my opinion, because people who were my age at the time would commonly be destructive, and unlikely to pay rent. If I were the landlord, I would like the option to discriminate based on age.

    [read less]

    While equality on all levels would be nice, I feel that there are situations where discrimination has its place. For example, there have been situatio…

    [read more]
    0
  • Selena from Florida

    When it comes to anti-discrimination laws, we can see very clearly that it is a touchy subject. I mean, you wouldn’t want to discriminate or “hate” on others, would you? One problem with this philosophy, however, is that you end up silencing your own freedom of speech to please others. Any time you make a stand for a belief, there will be atleast one person who is offended. You can’t avoid that. I do not wish to believe that our founding fathers came all this way to this beautifully freeing country, only to have their descendants enslaved once again by the chains of being ‘politically correct.’ All men (and women) were created equal, but that doesn’t mean that we have to agree with everything our brothers and sisters say. Nor should another’s lifestyle be thrust down one another’s throats.

    [read less]

    When it comes to anti-discrimination laws, we can see very clearly that it is a touchy subject. I mean, you wouldn’t want to discriminate or “hate” on…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sarah from California

    All people are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. Unless the person would be directly harmed or could harm others they shouldn’t be banned from anything. In the subject of boy scouts, they should hire whoever is most qualified for the job, regardless of sexual orientation. Boy scouts are not a religious group and they have no right to discriminate against something natural, it is akin to segregation of race. I also do not believe businesses have any point in asking about a woman’s home life or children, so by refusing to hire her because of her children you’re discriminating against a person trying to feed their family.

    [read less]

    All people are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. Unless the person would be directly harmed or could harm others they shouldn’t be banned f…

    [read more]
    0
  • Andrea from Arizona

    I feel yes you shouldn’t be able to hire based on race, religion, ethnicity, and ethnic background. But then again, I think that the government has plenty of other things to worry about, like wars and our service members. Thanks to the American Revolution and many acts that have been put in place there no longer is a race issue as bad as it once was. There always is more equality now between genders, but with transgenders being brought it the political field all of that might change. Politics should stick to governmental issues, not to such small issues as these. They aren’t as big of an issue now as it was 50 years ago!

    [read less]

    I feel yes you shouldn’t be able to hire based on race, religion, ethnicity, and ethnic background. But then again, I think that the government has pl…

    [read more]
    0
  • Andrew from Colorado

    As odious as discrimination is, whether it relates to august institutions like the boy scouts or mundane business models like bakeries, a free country obliges us to tolerate the intolerance of others. The Constitution limits the power of government not private entities or individuals. The power of government does indeed include the fundamental providence of protecting all citizens’ natural rights, but if we were to assume that this includes passing legislation proscribing personal behaviors we walk a fine line. Naturally, we are not, nor should we be permitted to strike an individual that we disagree with outside of defending ourselves, but to say that we should be made to tailor our personal tolerances to the proclivities of others or even their appearance is ridiculous and anathema to the philosophical underpinnings of the first amendment. It’s become commonplace to overlap the purview of the Constitution in its necessary obligation to prohibit discrimination of all forms and the purview of a free society to figure it out on its own without an overbearing government telling it how to think and act. It’s putting the cart before the horse.

    [read less]

    As odious as discrimination is, whether it relates to august institutions like the boy scouts or mundane business models like bakeries, a free country…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sandra from Massachusetts

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional. Nowadays discrimination occurs in the form of speech and thought. Banning discrimination, as done by anti-discrimination laws, would be banning freedom of speech, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Thus, anti-discrimination laws are inevitably anti-constitution.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional. Nowadays discrimination occurs in the form of speech and thought. Banning discrimination, as done by …

    [read more]
    0
  • Kate from Pennsylvania

    As much as I hate to admit it, the government doesn’t have a right to influence hiring policies in private businesses. If we are looking specifically through the lens of the Constitution, the government has no role in private companies.

    [read less]

    As much as I hate to admit it, the government doesn’t have a right to influence hiring policies in private businesses. If we are looking specifically…

    [read more]
    0
  • rebecca from Texas

    anti-discrimination laws constitutional

    0
  • Tiffany from Colorado

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional. They are also not as effective as some hope. The equality we all search for is only being destroyed by the laws and regulations. America was not built on the principle that everyone should look equal, but rather the principle that people are born equal and should not be treated as sub-human. Economic, social, and education differences are to be expected and are very good for many reasons. They give us the incentive to work hard and compete to be the best in our fields of work, sports, and academics. The constitution was designed to protect the good, prosperous society we make for ourselves, not to give us goods and prosperity. By making anti-discrimination laws, we are encouraging those who do not work as hard to work even less and taking away the incentive for those who do work hard to continue to do so. If a university, for example, has to enroll a certain percentage of minorities every year into their programs, the clean cut lines for enrollment are skewed. Students who would have attended won’t, and students who would not have been chosen were, which makes even a bigger deal out of the race/ethnic differences we were trying to downplay.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional. They are also not as effective as some hope. The equality we all search for is only being destroyed b…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lexie from Georgia

    Although I do believe it is morally wrong to discriminate based on race, religion, or gender, I do not believe government has the right to intervene in the private sector’s employment practices. Government offices should not be subject to discrimination, but by attempting to enforce businesses to comply to this will simply waste tax dollars. Business owners who are absolute about discriminating against a certain group could simply just fabricate a reason as to why they will not hire a specific person, and forcing them to even provide any reason will be a difficult enough task. So although I personally am disgusted by discrimination, I do not believe the constitution can effectively battle the issue.

    [read less]

    Although I do believe it is morally wrong to discriminate based on race, religion, or gender, I do not believe government has the right to intervene i…

    [read more]
    0
  • JESSICA from Georgia

    I agree that certain laws may appear to contradict others, therefore, those laws should be amended. Congress does appear to appeal to/appease certain groups based off of the assumption that it could cause problems if “kid gloves” aren’t worn. It’s almost as if they appease “minority” groups without any opposition just to avoid future conflict.

    [read less]

    I agree that certain laws may appear to contradict others, therefore, those laws should be amended. Congress does appear to appeal to/appease certain …

    [read more]
    0
  • Amanda from Arizona

    While discrimination in any form is wrong and intensely hurtful toward the victim, it is not constitutional to dictate how others run their private businesses. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Discrimination will never cease to exist. Government gave Americans the right to be free, including the right to be free to choose who we do business with. I am not saying discrimination is right or justified, but I do not think the government should be able to pick and choose what and how we conduct our businesses.

    [read less]

    While discrimination in any form is wrong and intensely hurtful toward the victim, it is not constitutional to dictate how others run their private bu…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tori from Texas

    Choosing ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in this debate, specifically, is difficult. It isn’t as much unconstitutional as it is just a little backwards. The laws frustrate and divide the country instead of actually making anything better. I’m voting ‘no’ because if I were in office, I would advocate against the laws. I have believed that in anything leading through example and practice is much more effective than trying to forcibly change someone’s opinions and beliefs.

    [read less]

    Choosing ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in this debate, specifically, is difficult. It isn’t as much unconstitutional as it is just a little backwards. The laws frus…

    [read more]
    0
  • Bridget from Illinois

    Anti-discrimination laws are meant to equalize the different segments of society, but ends up playing favorites with the groups that were once marginalized. Hiring someone simply because they count as some sort of minority is actually discriminating against anyone who doesn’t, and stifles hiring based on competence at the given job. Laws will not make people any better to each other, and stand a chance of making the minorities listed in these laws more hated by the remaining population since they have a legally enforced advantage.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are meant to equalize the different segments of society, but ends up playing favorites with the groups that were once margina…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ogie from Georgia

    Truthfully we all want a better society to live in as citizens, but at the same time we rather to provide lip service (advocate for or against) on issues that ultimately affects us all than to actually walk the talk. Every situation varies when it comes on to the anti discrimination act so to say it is constitutional won’t be true. If it was, there wouldn’t be supreme court cases battling its credibility.

    [read less]

    Truthfully we all want a better society to live in as citizens, but at the same time we rather to provide lip service (advocate for or against) on iss…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brian from Indiana

    All men are created equal. But not all men are treated equal. This isn’t a question of morality, this is a question about the constitution. The United States was founded on the ideology that every man is entitled to their own opinion, and that under the law all men are to be created equal. Anti-discrimination laws are infringing the basic freedoms of the American people, discrimination may be wrong but each and every American citizen has the right to treat others how ever they please.

    [read less]

    All men are created equal. But not all men are treated equal. This isn’t a question of morality, this is a question about the constitution. The United…

    [read more]
    0
  • Melissa from Missouri

    Regardless of whether such laws are good and helpful (another debate entirely), anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional. The government has no constitutional ability to dictate to businesses how they will choose their employees.

    [read less]

    Regardless of whether such laws are good and helpful (another debate entirely), anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional. The government has no…

    [read more]
    0
  • Annisia from Texas

    I believe that there should be stronger anti-discrimination protecting the underprivileged and minors in america including women. The U. S. government needs to set new standards for public and private businesses.

    [read less]

    I believe that there should be stronger anti-discrimination protecting the underprivileged and minors in america including women. The U. S. government…

    [read more]
    0
  • Clara from Wisconsin

    Anti-discrimination laws are not always unconstitutional. But, these laws have gotten so specific, and the situation has gotten so out of hand that I believe anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional. Back when the Civil Rights movement was taking place, laws concerning the discrimination of race were very important in the progress of our society. However, today, there is so much diversity in our culture, whether that be diversity of race, gender, or so-called “sexual orientation,” that we should have no need for anti-discrimination laws. If everyone is treated the same – with no laws made about them – then there will be equality. In fact, I think that sometimes even anti-discrimination laws can create discrimination towards other groups.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are not always unconstitutional. But, these laws have gotten so specific, and the situation has gotten so out of hand that I …

    [read more]
    0
  • Shelby from Florida

    No, it is not constitutional as it can go against someones religious values. Because of freedom of speech and freedom of religion it can and would be considered unconstitutional to force people to muzzle their beliefs.

    [read less]

    No, it is not constitutional as it can go against someones religious values. Because of freedom of speech and freedom of religion it can and would be …

    [read more]
    0
  • David from Connecticut

    “Anti-discrimination” laws themselves discriminate, in that they promote “minority” groups above the majority. All laws should apply to all people the same way–a practice which has been lost among the promotion of the “minority” groups.

    [read less]

    “Anti-discrimination” laws themselves discriminate, in that they promote “minority” groups above the majority. All laws should apply to all people th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lisa from Texas

    It might sound bad, but discrimination is part of the free speech and life, liberty and happiness. When laws are passed that tell you you can’t take sexuality, race, or religious affiliation into consideration when you go to hire someone, that is hindering the freedoms we have.

    [read less]

    It might sound bad, but discrimination is part of the free speech and life, liberty and happiness. When laws are passed that tell you you can’t take s…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cameron from Texas

    Anti-discrimination laws are not only unconstitutional but also immoral when applied to the private sector. There are constitutional arguments out there, but I think it would be most effective to make a moral one. To enforce anti-discrimination laws a government would ultimately be forced to tell people what they can and cannot say, who they must serve, and ultimately who they must accept. The mechanisms necessary to do this are thought and action controlling mechanisms, and would be the same mechanisms used to control a political thought and discourse. That is not a power I wish to grant to the government, that is not a power I would give anyone over me, let alone others. There exist laws to prevent murder and theft because these unrightfully take from another what is rightfully theirs. Anti-discrimination laws, on the other hand, would prevent a person from being able to deny others what belongs to him/her because they don’t like one or another attribute about the person. The key here is that the laws would prevent a person from withholding a service, meaning that they would be forced to provide it, and I would not want to be forced to provide a service, so I will not expect others to be forced to either. So for those supporting the law this is the question I have for you: would you really give up your ability to service who you want and give up the sanctitude of your work to the government? Is this really what people want? Think carefully.
    Up to now I have not discussed the constitutionality of such a law, but I will do so now. The implications of such a law would be that a person would be forced to service a person who they do not, for whatever reason, wish to service. This would then violate the pursuit of happiness statement of the Declaration of Independence. On the constitutional side, though, because the power to prevent discrimination is not specifically provided for within it, it would be reserved to the states to make laws prescribing to it, unless the constitution were to be amended. Such an amendment would be so intrusive into my own thoughts that I would shudder at the thought of it even being presented. This is not to say that I would discriminate, but a law which would tell me who I would be forced to service would be absurd and is not a Federal power. It does not provide for the general welfare, it provides for the welfare of those discriminated against, and violates the right of the discriminators to pursue their own happiness how they see fit. Discrimination does not violate a person’s right to pursue happiness because if they are discriminated against they can pursue happiness elsewhere, but nowhere under such a law could a person pursue their happiness through discrimination.
    To summarize, no person has a right to what any other person produces, and every person has the right to decided who they wish to service and who they do not. Regardless of the reasons. To give up such a right would be to accept Big Brother to tell us who we must serve. Such laws are subversive to the individual’s right to think and act as they see fit while not violating other’s rights. The question I ask to the reader is this: would you really accept the government controlling who you must service? Would you give up your right to withhold your service for the dream of ending discrimination? Are your work and effort so valueless to you that there exist no people for whom you would withhold them? Is the dream of a utopia in which no discrimination exists worth the right to exist as an individual. Think carefully on this.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are not only unconstitutional but also immoral when applied to the private sector. There are constitutional arguments out the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Malik from California

    When discussing the preamble, one can say that it serves as a basic introduction to the constitution, which consists of the reasons that the original 13 colonies parted ways with their mother country (Great Britain). Several concepts that are displayed in the preamble are those such as, government, laws, peace, freedom, national security, and healthy communities. Our preamble starts with, “We the People of the United States”, ultimately shows how the constitution’s main emphasis revolves around its citizens. We the People is a phrase that continues to ring out to the people by stating Americans are in charge of their government. In the second part of the preamble is says, “In order to form a perfect union establishes justice” demonstrates the concept of making an efficient government with laws. Representatives are elected to protect the American citizens, taking an oath to never break the Constitution.
    The third line, “Insure domestic tranquility”, prioritizes the idea of peace in our homes. The fourth line, “provide common defense”, presents the concept of national security. Giving the federal government the power to maintain a military. The fifth line, “promote general welfare”, depicts the theme of creating healthy communities. So, the general welfare is the act of actively encouraging the widespread health, happiness and fortunes of Americans. The sixth line, “and secure the blessings of liberty”, has a main focus on the concept of freedom, it is a powerful expression of how elected officials should protect inalienable rights like Life, Liberty, and Property.
    The seventh line, “to ourselves and our posterity”, outlines our family and friends. Helping protect the countries for liberty, unjust law, and freedom from a monarchy system. The ninth line, “do ordain and establish”, simply means give authority, which also a concept within the constitution. The tenth line, “this constitution for the United States of America”, symbolizes the concept of the supreme law of the land. The last phrase of the Preamble is a powerful statement saying people made this document, and the people give the country its power.
    The seven articles of the U.S. constitution serve as a guideline for our government that depicts their duties. Article one gives Congress its powers and limits. Also makes the Senate and the House Representatives. The legislative branch has the authority to make laws for the United States. Within this branch lie both parts of Congress called the House of Representatives and the Senate.
    Article two creates the executive branch authorizes these laws being implemented by figures such as the President, Vice-President, Cabinet, and departments under the Cabinet. Article three brings the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court, who’s duty is to decide court cases. They have the authorization to decide criminal and civil cases depending on the laws (state, federal, local). Article four states have responsibilities the federal government has to each state. Article five states that by adding an amendment you can change the Constitution. The Twenty Seventh Amendment was the last to be added to the Constitution. Article six makes the Constitution the highest law and that all government officials have to uphold the Constitution.
    Last of it is Article seven and is the simplest states need to ratify the Constitution. Which means we as citizens need to give our approval towards the Constitution. When regarding power or coexistence between these three branches, the separation of powers divides the government’s responsibilities to specific branches. One of the main purposes of this concept of separation of powers is to ensure that not one branch has a leverage in power than any other branch (equality), which is then maintained through checks and balances. Do checks and balances effectively work? Is there an equal separation of powers between the governmental branches? Amendments 13, 14, and 15 are the Civil War Amendments. The 13th amendment “banned slavery and all involuntary servitude’. The 14th amendment “defined a citizen as any person born in or naturalized in the U.S., which overturned a court ruling saying that black people were not citizens. The 15th amendment “prohibits governments from denying U.S. citizens the right to vote based on race, color, or past servitude.” After the 13th amendment the Confederates passed the “Black Codes” which led to discrimination of African Americans now who were no longer slaves. This led to the passing of the 14th amendment to put a halt to the discrimination, the 15th amendment was then created to give African Americans the right to vote.
    These amendments allowed citizens of different backgrounds to be justly treated. The fight for women! The 19th Amendment allows women to vote. Finally! The 24th amendment lets all U.S. citizens to vote, even for Trump. The 26th amendment gives 18 year olds the right to vote. These amendments allow equal rights to vote to all citizens except people under the age of seventeen. After being passed, women have had a slight upgrade to have the same rights as men. Women are still fighting for same wages in the work force.
    The 24th Amendment states that no person should be required to pay any form of poll tax in order to vote. This was an issue, because a lot of lower class citizens were deprived of the right to vote because their income did not allow them this right. Amendment 26 also has to do with voting, in the way that it allowed anyone who was the age of 18 and older, the right to vote. Before this, most states only allowed those who were 21 years of age and older to vote.
    All of these Amendments have given the citizens, besides White Men, the right to vote because they previously were denied it. These amendments have made the United States Constitution be presented as equal to all citizens who were born and naturalized in the United States. There were many attempts to prevent the amendments brought on by the KKK and other groups which did not approve of the passing of these laws. Today, the United States is still trying to equal the rights of people who are of different race, color, and who are women. With the following being said, it is evident that these specific Amendments highly emphasize civil liberties and rights surrounding its citizens.
    The remaining Seventeen Amendments serve as a set of rights for all citizens especially those who are seen as inferior such as minorities and women. In regards to the addressed Amendments, are these set of Amendments flawed given as to how they have failed in the past. The 15th Amendment for instance, prohibits the exclusion of voting due to race, however during the post civil war era, there were still many ways to “cheat the system” and deny African-Americans the right to vote by establishing literacy tests in order to vote. This proved to be devastating as the very own government that swore to protect the people’s rights was now ignoring those in order to put a specific group of people at a disadvantage. I question if some of these Amendments are too easily flawed to the extent where the very own government can deceive these founding principles in order to achieve a personal benefit.
    Is there any way to strengthen or enforce these Amendments so that a future event like the one previously mentioned can be avoided? If we were all fully equal would the economy be different? How are we all supposed to be created equal? Do you think there will ever be a time that we are all considered equal?
    The constitution is a manual for the “Free World”, power regulation, and individual liberty in this country. It helps keeps the balance of our country thoroughly explains the fine detail and breakdown of our government. The Bill of Rights is more of a breakdown setting liberties that human beings have. The people also have the power to run things and whether adjustments are needed. Federal and state government allowing all states fair say and process of procedures.
    The country’s constitution is never modified only built upon with amendments. The constitution is the legal paper that used in every legal law, system, and government or state act in this country to ensure a true just independent country. The preamble is like an extra protection for the people making sure that they aren’t being been pushed over by the government. Making sure we have everything we need. The seven articles are here to keep the power is balanced and changes frequently to not have a totalitarian government.
    The first 10 amendments are the root of the Constitution. They are what give American Citizens rights, powers and protection. People gain the independence they need from the bill of rights and is a foundation that people can fall back on when there is conflict. In regards to the laws that extend the vote to those previously being denied we now live in a society where minorities, women, and people who are as young as 18 can vote. Although it seemed like an up and down battle for voting to be for a person of 18 years or older, there certainly is a possibility for laws to pass today that didn’t back then.
    When the constitution was written it said all men are created equal but slavery to multiply race continued throughout the years. Now we see an increase of minorities deaths by white police officers and citizens. Do you believe that own own government priority is not protecting it minorities?

    [read less]

    When discussing the preamble, one can say that it serves as a basic introduction to the constitution, which consists of the reasons that the original …

    [read more]
    0
  • Maximilian from California

    It is constitutional because the first amendment guarantees every individual a pursuit to be what every they wish to be and that can’t be taken away!

    0
  • Andrew from Colorado

    I know that issues have become gray over the last 200+ years, and maybe that’s a powerful argument for the success of the Constitution. One has to ask himself though if the rights identified and the consequent protections enshrined are to be a function of government or a limitation on it. I hold that the Constitution is a list of rights which are guaranteed to us as a function of limited government. It is convoluted to argue that the rights listed in the Constitution empower the government to usurp the rights of others. Instead I hold that the government itself is prohibited from violating any of these rights. If Dunkin Doughnuts doesn’t want to sell to midgets, then they have a right to do so. If the government at any level doesn’t permit midgets to serve in fire districts, then we have a problem. As with any other natural right, we are free to “enjoy” them even at the expense of others’ “enjoyment.” Clearly there are interactions which have nothing to do with this Constitutional conflict. One citizen does not have the “right” to strike another citizen. This is fundamentally a crime.

    [read less]

    I know that issues have become gray over the last 200+ years, and maybe that’s a powerful argument for the success of the Constitution. One has to ask…

    [read more]
    0
  • Shay from Washington

    Minority rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” trump the rights of businesses to discriminate. There was a time in America when systemic discrimination significantly detracted from the ability of minorities to participate equally and freely in American commerce.

    [read less]

    Minority rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” trump the rights of businesses to discriminate. There was a time in America when s…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lexi from Georgia

    People should be treated fairly and equally, regardless of anything. It is downright wrong to deny someone something merely because of something like that.

    0
  • Jessica from New York

    No, anti-discrimination laws are not unconstitutional. Discriminating against people interferes with their natural rights as humans. While some anti-discrimination laws cause reverse discrimination, not have these laws would be worse.

    [read less]

    No, anti-discrimination laws are not unconstitutional. Discriminating against people interferes with their natural rights as humans. While some anti-d…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jayson from Texas

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional because they limit a persons opinion and right to refuse. Now I do agree with many laws dealing with racial equality and women’s rights, but in all honesty, a business should have the right to pick its employees whether it is moral or not. For example, the gay man that was not allowed to lead his Boy Scouts is constitutional if the group decided against it as this would fall under the rights of assembly and well overall a persons comfort which should be taken into consideration. However a general law set in place stating “no gays” would not be constitutional due to discrimination. This does step into the issue of unemployment and putting down the minority as well, so it will always be up for debate.

    [read less]

    Anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional because they limit a persons opinion and right to refuse. Now I do agree with many laws dealing with r…

    [read more]
    0
  • catherine from California

    They are just creating loop holes and that is unfair what is the point of having one major law if other ones are going to be set so people dont have to follow the main law

    0
  • Destiny from Texas

    No why because we live in a country that tries to foreshadow anything constitutional with something biblical … The Anti – Discrimination Laws we designed upon the phrase that ” All men are crated equal ” . When that clearly isn’t the case we still live in a era of strong believers and nothing will ever be equal if there are limitation only on side rather than both .

    [read less]

    No why because we live in a country that tries to foreshadow anything constitutional with something biblical … The Anti – Discrimination Laws we…

    [read more]
    0
  • Michael from Pennsylvania

    I think that a mass majority of the people, myself included, here agree that anti-discrimination laws need to be interpreted in context, and often seem reasonable in which they pertain to. However, I would like to point out anti-discrimination laws in the specific field of college admissions. If a college admissions couselor were to be completely anti-discriminatory, they would not be able to fully understand a student’s background and thus understand and see if that particular student is what the college is looking for. On top of that, there are many differences in social and economic background in which some races might historically have an advantage, so in order to give everyone an equal chance, among the races, college admissions couselors must be discriminatory.

    [read less]

    I think that a mass majority of the people, myself included, here agree that anti-discrimination laws need to be interpreted in context, and often see…

    [read more]
    0
  • Daniel from Arizona

    No, anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional because they violate other liberties we hold. Take, for example, a pastor that is forced to marry a gay couple. People claim that refusing to marry a gay couple is bigotry and hate. In actuality, performing that ceremony would go against his beliefs and it would violate his religious liberty. Preserving our rights is much more important than a gay couple’s hurt feelings.

    In a perfect world, there wouldn’t be any discrimination, but we don’t live in a perfect world. I think most of us can agree that discrimination is bad, but anti-discrimination laws won’t stop that human behavior. While I don’t condone discrimination, it is the right of private citizens and businesses to discriminate because they have the liberty to do so.

    [read less]

    No, anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional because they violate other liberties we hold. Take, for example, a pastor that is forced to marry a …

    [read more]
    0
  • Robert from Georgia

    From the point of view of a potential employee, it is obvious that constitutionally protected anti-discrimination laws ought to be in place. Many people may not look at things from the employer’s point of view, for a variety of reasons. Corporations, for example, are often viewed in a negative light. Although employee’s rights need to be established and respected, the employers have rights, as well. Rejection of a potential employee should not be predicated upon factors such as religion, sexual orientation, sex, gender, political views, race, age, or disability. That being said, an employer should still have the constitutional right to hire or reject an employee based on that individual’s ability to perform his or her job properly.

    [read less]

    From the point of view of a potential employee, it is obvious that constitutionally protected anti-discrimination laws ought to be in place. Many peop…

    [read more]
    0
  • Joseph from Wisconsin

    I think that the best way to truly reach equality would be by treating each race the same way. This means that all races should have an equal amount of opportunity in jobs, and even in academic scholarships.

    [read less]

    I think that the best way to truly reach equality would be by treating each race the same way. This means that all races should have an equal amount o…

    [read more]
    0
  • G from Nebraska

    depending on the content of the case, and if it is a private organization versus a blanket group, like women.

    0
  • Hannah from Ohio

    Everyone should be treated equally. We have too much discriminatory behavior. You have to be African-American to get most of the scholarships, or come from a poor family, or people think all Indians are smart. We are all created equal and we should treat each other as such. Bad behavior is apparent in every race and it doesn’t matter what color you are, how old you are, or if you have any kids. If you have good morals and values, it doesn’t matter where you came from or who you can marry.

    [read less]

    Everyone should be treated equally. We have too much discriminatory behavior. You have to be African-American to get most of the scholarships, or come…

    [read more]
    -1
    • Benjamin from Washington

      While I’m of the same opinion as you are, please take some more time to qualify your opinions. Rants such as these are the reasons why arguments are lost.

      0
  • Martravious from Tennessee

    Because every one needs to be free

    -3
    • allison from California

      in the usa you can be free you have opportunities to do lot of things but in some country there not like that for example in some country there still sergeant. the color people are just enrolled in one school it cant be mix see that it mess up. they are denied to have oppurties to met someone diffrent. we need to met people from diffrent back grounds. some country need to be cover up lot they dont have the write to show them self. we need to have other contry be free just not usa

      [read less]

      in the usa you can be free you have opportunities to do lot of things but in some country there not like that for example in some country there still …

      [read more]
      0
  • Cassidy from South Carolina

    Although I support many anti-discrimination laws, I believe that it should be the businesses right to decide who they would like to work for them or represent them.

    -3