Now that the second impeachment trial has completed, I ask the question in the premise because examining that question could be enlightening about the difference between legislation and implementation.
The trial is the defacto implementation of the charge from the House of Representatives and the verdict was as predictable as a sunrise due to the political nature of the impeachment charge itself even though the charge concerns an alleged crime that the President may have committed. To effect a proper verdict requires not just proof of wrong doing but political guile to convince a skeptical community of jurors to implement the desired act to convict the defendant. However, that will only work if enough members of the jury collude with each other to vote yes for conviction.
Well, employment discrimination works in a very similar way. The laws can be legislated by the Assembly and State Senate, but the implementation of those laws requires all private and state businesses to agree to follow them. That will only happen if the majority of private and state actors choose to do so. That will only happen if business owners see a benefit to doing so most do not. Examples of them not doing so are replete throughout our nation’s history.
The 14th Amendment, passed in 1869, declared that all citizens were entitled to due process for any crime against them yet
1) black men were denied the right to vote continuously even though they already had it by 1868.
2) women needed a later amendment just to get that same right that was granted to them 60 years earlier
3) Multiracial marriages were denied for another century
4)Gays could not legally marry for another 140 years
5) Women still are not paid the same as men for doing the same work
6)Age discrimination runs rampant in employment today
7)Gender discrimination is still prevalent
8) Sexual harassment is still ongoing
And lest anyone reading this thinks this discrimination is one direction only, with all apologies to the pop group, that is equally untrue.
1) Much of retail clothing is run by women with no need for men to apply. The excuse used is that most of their customer base is women so it is better to have women employees than men. Same excuse used by retail catering to men and retail in upper-class neighborhoods that discriminate against minority applicants. It is all communally accepted behavior even though technically against the law.
2)State offices run by women discriminate in their hiring against men for the same reason those run by men discriminate against hiring or promoting women. They accept applications from men (legally required) but will not hire them.
3)Private businesses run by women (law firms especially) reverse discriminate against men. They do this intentionally to show the world that women can be as powerful a group as men. This would make sense if they restricted their caseload to women’s health issues and similar topics, but they do not.
All because the community of business leaders has colluded to allow it to happen just as the GOP Senate colluded to allow Trump to get away with fomenting insurrection.
The implication in all of this should be clear by now. The reason all the above happens is due to the desire of the community of business owners as they see it as beneficial to their revenue stream or corporate goals. No different than what just happened in DC.
Now for the turnabout.
The unspoken question is, isn’t that ok? They are private business leaders, aren’t they? Shouldn’t they have the right to choose who to employ? The GOP Senate had the right to vote just as the jurors in the OJ trial did. Their votes are a legal part of the trial process just as private business leaders discriminating against whom they choose is a legal part of capitalism.
Seems an appropriate question to ask.