How would you reply to this post?

Based on my understanding of the Equal Protection doctrine established by the Supreme Court, I would support this proposed amendment of "No organization shall provide any additional benefits to any person based on race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation."The main reason is that it is basically what we have as law in the U.S. already in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which protects applicants and employees from discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin. Making it Constitutional law makes perfect sense. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, is the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." InUnited States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), Virginia (Military Institute) was found to have violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy. Basically, this proposed amendment is meant to stop undo favoritism in private companies and public organizations. Additional benefits based on performance are allowed, however, justification must be "exceedingly persuasive"for giving the company's Red Sox Monster seats to Robert every season when they play the Yankees instead of giving them also to coworker Sandra