How would you reply to this post?

As I understand the question, it is whether or not I would support an amendment that would forbid private companies with more than 100 employees or public organizations to give extra benefits to a member or employee based solely on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Looking at this from a judge's perspective, I would support the amendment. To give an example, let's say a company has an Asian male worker and a Hispanic male worker, and let's say each of them was hired on the same date, with the exact same experience and qualifications. Due to the Equal Protection clause, I don't think it would be constitutional for the company to decide one ethnicity deserves an additional benefit that the other isn't entitled to. The Clause forbids states from allowing individuals to be discriminated against based on differences from others. In a literal sense, allowing one of the races in the earlier example to benefit over another, for no other reason than their race, appears unconstitutional. If the person who didn't receive the benefit were to file a suit, the state would be obligated to support them based on a clear lack of equality.

References

Legal Information Institute. (2022). 14th amendment. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved April 17, 2022, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv