The U.S. Constitution and its Amendments can be challenging to interpret, especially to those that wish the text was different, but despite some areas that would have benefited from a healthy dose of clarity, the overall document is simple to read and understand. The cleverly numbered First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

We stipulate that “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” applies to all legal activities other than just street protests — and “legal” is implied, not stated. However, the second part of the clause reads “and petition the government for a redress of grievances,” and could be interpreted as freedom of assembly applying only to anti-government demonstrations. But if that is the case, all backyard BBQs, Bruce Springsteen concerts and NFL sporting events are unconstitutional and hereby cancelled.

The U.S. Constitution does not state that people must assemble with other people against their will, regardless of activity — from a coffee shop to little league. Actually it summarily states that people have the right to choose whom they play poker with, and people cannot be forced into commercial or employment relationships with anyone. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” such as denying a person’s retained right to a discriminating palate, even though it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Thus, all non-discrimination laws are unconstitutional because they violate the First Amendment, unless there’s an Amendment that repeals the First’s right to freedom of assembly. The only complicated matter is that government represents everyone, and the founders never anticipated diversity at the welfare office or Congress. The Fifteenth Amendment addresses “race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” but only as it relates to the right to vote.

Law degree not required.

But as the cries of unfairness will emanate from the usual halls of righteousness, here are two constitutionally compliant examples of the freedom of assembly. Cal State LA “Opens Black Living-Learning Community,” or technically segregated housing that ironically validates what the Confederacy stood for, and highlights the abundance of intellectual confusion. Cal State did say that the community is open to everyone, with a quote from a student shining a light on intellect.

“They see something that says black housing, and they automatically equate it with black only,” said student Jonathan Thomas. “It can be for anybody.”

Leave it to academia and their brainwashed minions. Brilliant!

Then to further illustrate the people’s constitutional right to discriminate, “San Francisco State To Launch Afro-Themed Dorm Floors,” which is rather silly on its face unless IKEA is the sponsor. Please do not ask whether the theme is North African or Sub-Saharan, and there’s a huge difference.

But there’s always the culture clause, the overused umbrella of last resort that explains all questionable things not covered by law or good sense — and common sense is no longer common. Culture appeals to the artsy, unicornical emotional being, and is used when justifying the need for a minority racial/ethnic group to assemble, to the exclusion of everyone else. The culture clause has proven over time to be a ruse as shown by socio-techno-economic achievement, and was lightly addressed in “Loud Music, Noise Pollution And Lower Intellect.”

Signs indicating skin color preference were taken down many decades ago, but now they’re making a comeback to accommodate the yearning for cultural affirmation by non-white people. Maybe they’re simply claiming their constitutional right to freedom of assembly.

But the overlooked fact is that if white people want to exclusively assemble with their racial/ethnic peers, the unavoidable ranting about diversity is heard across the galaxy. Obviously white people cannot claim the cultural clause.

In short, freedom of assembly is acceptable as long as white people are excluded from the practice, because Europeans and their descendants must endure their dose of daily anxiety, fed by self-imposed and socially sponsored racial guilt, due to the sins of the past. But is it about historic wrongs or envy of socio-techno-economic achievement? Oh, “White Privilege: If Only Caucasians Were Extinct.”

The concept that people must not be forced to join any group against their will can be viewed as unfair and offensive, but that’s how the ecosystem functions. Nature determines that tigers live with tigers, and lions with lions, although they’re both species from the Panthera genus. But if some tigers want to assemble with some lions, and vice-versa, it’s perfectly constitutional.

---