I'll bite. At their heart, all antidiscrimination laws are based on the idea of equalizing power.
The law doesn't care if people with one set of genitals doesn't want to hang out with people of another set. What it is concerned about is if a given group has significant power to prevent another group from pursuing life, lib, and happiness.
Viewed from that angle, it becomes clear why antidiscrimination laws favoring AA in traditionally Cauc challenges are legal, but the reverse would not be true.
Note that, for example, Hooters Rest. lost a discrimination case against males on the grounds that the hiring criteria was unfairly weighted (power applied) towards women (given their ostensible marketing strategy).
if a given group has significant power to prevent another group from pursuing life, lib, and happiness.
Viewed from that angle, it becomes clear why antidiscrimination laws favoring AA in traditionally Cauc challenges are legal
I'm not sure it's a good idea to enshrine the idea that "Cauc" have an inherent power over "AA" into law. This seems close to running afoul of Equal Protection.
The law doesn't care if people with one set of genitals doesn't want to hang out with people of another set. What it is concerned about is if a given group has significant power to prevent another group from pursuing life, lib, and happiness.
Viewed from that angle, it becomes clear why antidiscrimination laws favoring AA in traditionally Cauc challenges are legal, but the reverse would not be true.
https://www.acacamps.org/resource-library/campline/single-ge...
Note that, for example, Hooters Rest. lost a discrimination case against males on the grounds that the hiring criteria was unfairly weighted (power applied) towards women (given their ostensible marketing strategy).