I have a question that I've wondered about literally for decades. And, in this piece, you have strolled right up TO it, without actually acknowledging the issue:
Over time, how have the courts squared anti-discrimination statutes and decisions, on the one hand. with the "freedom of association", on the other? I understand that "freedom of association" is an "inferred right" - one that arises logically from some combination(s) of the four enumerated rights in the First Amendment. But is that all there is to it? It seems like prohibitions on discrimination are almost always major restrictions on one's freedom of association, but is the "magic" here that since both freedom of association and freedom from discrimination are "inferred" rather than explicit, and even the rights that ARE explicit are not absolute, then "all bets are off", and things have to be weighed and balanced? Or is there some other rationalization for what appears (to me, anyway...) to be a straight-out contradiction? I mean, if one can't "discriminate" based on some factor, one really has no "freedom of association" when it comes to the that potential criterion of discrimination. How have the courts rationalized this over the years?
Turning the law against itself is a specialty of this administration. Affirmative action was based on the wisdom that many qualified people of color were denied positions because of their race. They are reversing that. The administration is simultaneously trying to erase the history that brought us to that understanding.
I have a question that I've wondered about literally for decades. And, in this piece, you have strolled right up TO it, without actually acknowledging the issue:
Over time, how have the courts squared anti-discrimination statutes and decisions, on the one hand. with the "freedom of association", on the other? I understand that "freedom of association" is an "inferred right" - one that arises logically from some combination(s) of the four enumerated rights in the First Amendment. But is that all there is to it? It seems like prohibitions on discrimination are almost always major restrictions on one's freedom of association, but is the "magic" here that since both freedom of association and freedom from discrimination are "inferred" rather than explicit, and even the rights that ARE explicit are not absolute, then "all bets are off", and things have to be weighed and balanced? Or is there some other rationalization for what appears (to me, anyway...) to be a straight-out contradiction? I mean, if one can't "discriminate" based on some factor, one really has no "freedom of association" when it comes to the that potential criterion of discrimination. How have the courts rationalized this over the years?
Turning the law against itself is a specialty of this administration. Affirmative action was based on the wisdom that many qualified people of color were denied positions because of their race. They are reversing that. The administration is simultaneously trying to erase the history that brought us to that understanding.