Discrimination in the Private Sphere. A subjective Right or a Legal Abuse. An European North American Legal Comparative Study

1" " DISCRIMINATION"IN"THE"PRIVATE"SPHERE."A"SUBJECTIVE"RIGHT"OR"A"LEGAL"ABUSE."" AN"EUROPEAN"NORTH"AMERICAN"LEGAL"COMPARATIVE"STUDY" " José"Manuel"de"Torres"Perea" Assistant"Professor"of"Civil"Law" University"of"Málaga" 1.J"Spanish"background" 2.- North"American"background" 3.J"Conclusion" " INTRODUCTION" Human"beings"love"to"join"with"members"of"their"group."People"tend"to"pair"up"with" individuals"of"similar"characteristics."If,"in"a"multiJracial"country"like"the"USA,"all"the" population"decided"to"be"married"irrespective"of"the"race"of"the"partner,"in"only"two" generations" the" racial" problems" would" be" solved." Therefore," should" the" authorities" impose"interracial"marriage?"Obviously"they"couldn’t"do"so"because"individuals"have"the" right"to"choose"their"spouses1."" In"fact,"some"scholars"affirm"that"the"word"“discrimination”"has"two"different"meanings," and"therefore"can"be"used"in"a"neutral"or"pejorative"sense."Originally"it"connoted"the"act" of"distinguishing"between"several"things,"but"not"necessary"to"the"disadvantage"of"one" of"them2."The"underlying"problem"is"of"major"importance,"and"cannot"be"only"simplified" to"distinguish"between"moral" and"immoral"behaviours,"rather"it"refers"to"a"collision" between"two" fundamental" rights," a"collision"in"which" only" one" can"prevail"over" the" other." " 1.J"SPANISH"BACKGROUND" J"Private"autonomy"and"equality"principle" There"is"a"unanimous"agreement"that"the"fundamental"rights"bind"the"public"powers" (art."53"Spanish"Constitution)"but"it"is"not"clear"how"these"fundamental"rights"can"impact" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1"See"Edward,"David,"“NonJDiscrimination"as"a"Legal"Concept”,""in""Non$discrimination-in-EuropeanPrivate-Law,"ed."By."Reiner"Schulze,"Tübigen,"2011,"p.3." 2"Edward,"David,"“NonJDiscrimination…”"p.3." 2" " the"relations"between"individuals."Our"private"legal"system"is"based"on"the"liberty"to" choose"the"person"to"enter"into"a"contract"with."Therefore,"it"is"affirmed"that"nobody" could"argue"discrimination"when"or"if"the"landlord"chooses"another"person"as"a"tenant." The"reason"is"simple,"the"landlord"has"the"right"to"decide"freely"with"whom"he"enters" into"a"contract,"and"with"whom"not,"without"giving"any"reasons."In"the"same"way,"it"is" said"that"the"owner"of"an"apartment"could"use"racist"or"sexist"reasons"to"deny"admission" to" third" parties" in" his" home3." The" right" to" privacy" would" legally" protect" him." Nevertheless," the" law" establishes" limits" to" be" observed" by" individuals" in" their" relationships."The"question"is"to"determine"which"could"be"the"limits"to"this"liberty"to" choose"freely"the"person"to"contract"with."" In"this"scenario"we"could"find"a"collision"between"the"right"to"privacy"and"the"right"to" equality."Both"rights"are"deemed"as"superior"values"by"the"first"article"of"the"Spanish" Constitution"(SC)4."Moreover,"article"14"SC"considers"the"right"to"equality"as"a"principle" and"the"article"18"SC"deems"the"right"to"intimacy"as"a"fundamental"right."In"any"case,"it" is"not"possible"to"establish"a"general"order"of"priority"between"them."On"the"other"hand," private"autonomy"is"not"a"fundamental"right,"even"though"it"derives"from"the"of"free" development"of"personality"contemplated"by"article"10"SC5."However,"article"10"SC"is" projected"onto"the"fundamental"rights,"in"fact"respect"of"dignity"is"the"essence"of"the" fundamental"rights." Private" autonomy," as" an" expression" of" the" right" to" the" free" development" of" the" personality,"enables"us"not"only"to"regulate"freely"our"relations"with"other"individuals," """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 3"Not"all"the"scholars"agree."Some"of"them"believe"that"in"no"circumstances"could"be"alleged"racist"or" sexist"reasons"to"justify"a"behavior,"therefore"it"all"comes"down"to"a"problem"of"evidence."Some"scholars" affirm"that"the"word"“discrimination”"has"two"different"meanings,"and"therefore"can"be"used"in"a"neutral" or" pejorative" sense." Originally" it" connoted" the" act" of" distinguishing" between" several" things," but" not" necessary"to"the"disadvantage"of"one"of"them."Edward,"David,"“NonJDiscrimination"as"a"Legal"Concept”,"" in"Non$discrimination-in-European-Private-Law,"ed."By."Reiner"Schulze,"Tübigen,"2011,"p.3." 4"First"Article"of"Spanish"Constitution:"Spain-is-hereby-established-as-a-social-and-democratic-State,-subjectto-the-rule-of-law,-which-advocates-as-the-highest-values-of-its-legal-order,-liberty,-justice,-equality-andpolitical-pluralism" 5"Art." 10" SC:" The" human" dignity," the" inviolable" and" inherent" rights," the" free" development" of" the" personality,"the"respect"for"the"law"and"for"the"rights"of"others"are"the"foundation"of"political"order"and" social"peace."" CODERCH,"Salvador,"in"the"introduction"of"Asociaciones...,-p.22." 3" " but" to" choose" the" person" you" wish" to" contract" with." As" Professor" Alfaro" has" said," individuals"do"not"have"the"right"to"require"others"to"contract"with"them,"in"spite"of"the" fact"that"perhaps"they"could"have"contracted"in"advance"with"another"person"in"the" same"circumstances."The"fact"that"reasonable"available"alternatives"exist"implies"that" there"is"a"general"right"to"refuse"the"offer,"and"from"the"point"of"view"of"certain"scholars," determines"that"the"principle"of"equality"is"unnecessary"between"private"parties."In"fact," it"is"said"that"to"claim"its"application"between"individuals"would"be"unconstitutional6."" We"must"not"forget"that"private"autonomy"has"been"described"as"the"active"and"positive" side"of"the"personality;"the"area"where"the"human"being"can"act"independently"on"his" own" responsibility," and" where" the" individual" is" not" reduced" to" a" simple" mean" of" achieving"collective"targets7." !" Direct"or"indirect"horizontal"application"of"the"fundamental"rights?" The"next"step"is"to"decide"how"to"link"the"right"to"equality"with"the"principle"of"party" autonomy."In"order"to"do"so"it"may"be"useful"to"apply"the"so"called"Drittwirkung"theory."" This"German"approach"to"the"problem"tries"to"explain"how"fundamental"rights"affect"the" horizontal" relations" between" individuals," therefore" it" refers" to" a" case" of" horizontal" application"of"fundamental"rights8."" We"can"distinguish"two"different"doctrinal"lines"within"the"German"scenario"where"this" doctrine"was"created."Part"of"the"legal"opinion"considered"that"fundamental"rights"only" link"the"public"powers"and"not"the"relations"between"private"parties."In"other"words," they" affect" the" vertical" relations" but" not" the" horizontal" ones" (this" means" that" the" Constitution"imposes"on"authorities"to"apply"the"fundamental"rights,"but"not"on"the" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 6"ALFARO,"Jesús,"“Libertad"e"igualdad"en"el"derecho"de"asociación”,"AAVV,"Los-alardes:- una-perspectiva-jurídica.-Libertad-e-igualdad-en-las-relaciones-entre-particulares,"2000," p.129." Furthermore,"CODERCH,"Salvador,"in"the"introduction"of"Asociaciones,-derechos-fundamentals-yautonomía-privada-by"Von"Münch,"Ingo,"Coderch,"Salvador"and"Ferrer"I"Riba,"Josep,"Madrid"1997,"p.23," affirms" that" currently" and" historically" there" is" not" a" real" constitutional" order" that" deny" the" private" autonomy." 7"HESSE,"Konrad,"Verfassungsrecht-und-Privatrecht,"Heidelberg,"1988,"p.35" 8"Some"scholars"prefer"to"name"it"the"privatization"of"fundamental"rights,"what"is"not"really"correct"as"we" apply"Constitutional"law."MÜNCH,"Ingo,"Asociaciones…"p.32." 4" " individuals)."Only"through"the"action"of"a"judge"could"indirectly"impact"the"constitutional" principles"on"the"concrete"case"to"be"solved."On"the"other"hand,"it"was"stated"that"the" fundamental"rights"generate"a"direct"effectiveness"on"the"private"sphere,"although"in"a" relative"manner."Finally,"the"position"of"the"German"Constitutional"Court"prevailed"over" the" position" of" the" German" Federal" Labour" Court," and" therefore," the" indirect" Drittwirkung"prevailed"over"the"direct"Drittwirkung"theory9."This"indirect"Drittwirkung" theory"has"been"adopted"by"the"Spanish"Constitutional"Court10." It"has"been"said"that"the"unmittelbare-Drittwirkung"(the"direct"one)"ignores"the"function" of"the"lawmaker,"who"is"replaced"by"the"judge."Therefore,"critics"have"pointed"out"that" is" not" the" role" of" a" judge" to" apply" directly" constitutional" rights" rules" to" private" relationships."What"a"judge"could"do"instead"is"to"raise"the"issue"of"unconstitutionality" before"the"Constitutional"Court11." In"accordance"with"the"majority"position"the"role"of"a"Constitutional"Court"should"be"to" protect"individuals"when"a"public"authority"has"undermined"one"of"their"fundamental" rights." However," these" Courts" have" adopted" an" active" position" by" considering" their" actuation" also" possible" when" the" judge" fails" to" provide" adequate" protection" to" an" individual"whose"right"has"been"infringed"by"another"private"party."We"refer"to"a"right" with"constitutional"significance."However,"this"action"of"the"Constitutional"Court"could" be"only"justified"when"the"judge"had"ignored"absolutely"the"protection"guaranteed"by" fundamental"rights."In"this"point,"some"Spanish"scholars"believe"that"the"function"of"the" judge"is"to"channel"fundamental"rights"in"the"application"of"the"general"clauses,"which" are"undetermined"concepts"of"the"positive"law,"to"a"particular"case."If"the"court"fails"to" do"so,"they"will"be"considered"to"have"caused"an"infringement12."" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 9"Nevertheless,"both"approaches"to"the"Drittwikung"theorie"coincide"in"affirming"that"nobody"could"be" obliged"to"organize"his"life"in"accordance"with"the"constitutional"principles."This"is"expression"of"the"right" to"individual"selfJdetermination."BILBAO"UBILLOS,"362" 10"SALVADOR"CODERCH,"Pablo"and"FERRER"I"RIBA,"Josep,"en"Asociaciones,-derechos-fundamentales…"p.93." 11"SALVADOR"CODERCH,"Pablo"and"FERRER"I"RIBA,"Josep,"en"Asociaciones,-derechos-fundamentales…"p.96." 12"The"general"clause"is"a"mechanism"used"by"the"legislator"to"allow"the"judge"to"build"the"norm"to"be" applied"to"the"specific"case."MIQUEL"GONZALEZ" 5" " In"conclusion"the"majority" of" scholars" believe" that" a"direct"horizontal" application" of" fundamental"rights"in"the"relationships"between"individuals"is"not"possible."It"is"said"that" while" the" State" cannot" infringe" the" equality" right," individuals" can" be" married" in" accordance"with"their"religious"beliefs,"or"make"a"last"will"in"accordance"with"their"sexual" preferences"or"become"members"of"one"political"party"and"not"another.""However,"even" those"scholars"believe"that"an"indirect"application"of"the"fundamental"rights"is"possible" in"some"cases,"and"that"the"effects"of"these"rights"in"the"private"sphere"are"different" depending" on" the" type" of" private" relationship" affected." " In" fact," while" labour" and" consumer"laws"are"areas"where"fundamental"rights"have"a"clear"impact,"in"other"cases" their"influence"is"poor"(e.g.:"right"to"marry)."Moreover,"we"must"underline"that"usually" the"more"socially"powerful"that"one"of"the"parties"of"the"relationship"is,"the"stronger" effect"of"the"fundamental"rights"over"such"a"relationship." !" Should"this"matter"be"classified"as"a"collision"between"rights"or"as"an"abuse"of" right?" In"order"to"set"out"a"rule"to"channel"these"types"of"conflicts"between"individuals,"part"of" the"doctrine"affirms"that"the"limit"to"the"private"autonomy"is"not"the"respect"of"the" equality"principle"but"the"respect"of"human"dignity."Therefore,"only"when"a"behaviour" is"contrary"to"the"dignity"of"a"person,"in"other"words"when"it"involves"a"vexatious"conduct" against"other"person,"could"it"be"deemed"as"a"discriminatory"one."Since"this"doctrine" proposes"to"address"this"type"of"problem"as"a"case"of"abuse"of"right,"the"conduit"for" challenging"this"discriminatory"act"would"be"article"7.2"of"the"Spanish"Civil"Code13." These"authors"believe"that"these"groups"of"cases"could"be"analysed"from"the"perspective" of"human"dignity."We"refer"to"such"situations"in"which"the"renunciation"undermines"the" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 13"ALFARO," Jesús," “Autonomía" privada" y" derechos" fundamentales”" ADC," 1993JI" p.71." and" PRIETO," Derechos"fundamentales,"p.217."He"proposes"to"analyze"the"following"case"from"the"perspective"of"the" abuse"of"right:"If"the"owner"of"a"discotheque"or"a"bar"deny"access"to"a"person"due"to"his"race,"the"judge" could" apply" the" article" 7.2" CC," which" from" a" constitutional" interpretation" prohibit" such" degrading" behavior,"which"is"contrary"to"the"dignity"of"the"person."" 6" " human"dignity."They"think"that"these"problems"can"be"classified"as"a"collision"between" the"private"autonomy"and"the"right"to"dignity14."" Article"10"of"the"Spanish"Constitution"refers"to"dignity,"in"fact"all"human"rights"derive" from"the"dignity"and"worth"inherent" in" the" person" as"stated"by" the" decision" of" the" Spanish"Constitutional"Court"of"11of"April"(STC"53/1985)."Human"dignity"implies"the" right" of" the" individual" to" decide" freely" and" consciously" his" way" of" life," and" to" be" respected"by"others."Therefore,"it"cannot"be"renounced,"or"be"the"object"of"disposal," and"has"to"be"always"respected"by"the"Law15." As"such,"this"degrading"or"vexatious"behaviour"that"consists"of"treating"a"person"as"if"he" were"not"a"human"being"cannot"be"permitted16.""In"this"context,"we"could"compare"the" situation"of"a"majority"who"by"a"vexatious"behaviour"refuses"to"contract"with"a"minority," with"the"situation"of"an"individual"in"a"monopolistic"situation"who"refuses"to"contract" with" another" person." It" has" been" said" that" the" person" rejected" lacks" a" reasonable" alternative"to"recover"the"social"status"that"the"rejection"provokes17."Let"us"think"about" the"available"alternatives"of"the"black"population"when"the"white"establish"an"apartheid" regime." These"scholars"conclude"that,"as"a"rule,"in"the"private"sphere"it"is"licit"to"discriminate" against"anyone,"because"it"is"licit"to"choose"the"person"to"contract"with."The"problem" arises"when"the"refusal"to"contract"affects"a"fundamental"right"that"can"be"undermined." In" fact," normally" we" have" to" decide" which" right" should" be" prioritized" in" a" collision" between"two"fundamental"rights."" Notwithstanding,"sometimes"a"discriminatory"act"which"could"affect"the"dignity"of"one" of"the"contracting"parties"could"be"justified"by"another"right,"for"example"the"right"to" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 14"Article"10"of"the"Spanish"Constitution:""The"dignity"of"the"person,"the"inviolable"rights"which"are" inherent,"the"free"developJ"ment"of"the"personality,"the"respect"for"the"law"and"for"the"rights"of"others" are"the"foundation"of"political"order"and"social"peace."" 15"María"Merino"Norverto,"“Sípnosis"del"artículo"10"CE”." "http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/sinopsis/sinopsis.jsp?art=10&tipo=2" See"SSTC"120/1990,"of"27"of"June,""57/1994,"of"28"of"February,"242/"1994,"of"20"of"June,"107/1984,"of"23" of"November"and"99/1985,"of"30"of"September." 16"ALFARO,"Jesús,"“Autonomía…”,"p."107J108" 17"ALFARO,"Jesús,"“Autonomía…”"p.113" 7" " privacy"could"justify"not"entering" into" a" contract" with" a"person"of"different"gender." Finally," we" should" analyse" a" particular" case" to" decide" if" a" discriminatory" behaviour" should"be"considered"wrong."What"we"have"laid"out"are"the"tools"to"realize"such"analysis," but"these"tools"can"only"be"used"when"the"collision"happens." I"disagree"with"the"above"mentioned"scholars’"opinion"for"different"reasons."First,"I"do" not"think"that"this"matter"can"be"reduced"to"a"case"of"abuse"of"law."In"fact,"in"these"types" of"cases"there"are"conflicts"between"two"different"fundamental"rights,"or"the"equality" principle"and"a"fundamental"right,"and"after"weighing"the"circumstances"it"should"be" decided"to" give"priority"to" one"of" them"over"the" other."Secondly,"the" same"type" of" conduct"can"be"considered"as"a"vexatious"one"or"not"in"the"light"of"the"circumstances" involved."For"example,"the"dismissal"of"an"employee"due"to"his"exercise"of"the"right"to" free"speech"is"surely"contrary"to"his"dignity,"but"can"be"justified"in"the"right"to"religion" or"the"right"to"create"private"educational"establishments"with"“centreJwide"ideology”." Finally,"in"spite"of"the"fact"that"the"respect"to"the"human’s"dignity"is"reflected"in"all"the" fundamental"rights,"the"approach"referred"to"above"is"wrong."The"dignity"is"too"nebulous" a"concept"to"be"used"as"the"cornerstone"of"a"theoretical"construct."In"fact,"it"is"extremely" difficult"to"distinguish"between"a"behaviour"that"goes"against"the"dignity"of"a"person"and" one"that"does"not."It"is"too"difficult"to"determine"what"the"principle"of"dignity"is,"or"the" limits"that"this"principle"imposes."A"better"approach"would"be"to"focus"the"study"on"the" concept"of"equality,"which"has"been"examined"in"depth"by"the"scholars." Therefore,"I"believe"that"it"is"not"correct"to"use"the"abuse"of"a"right"as"a"key"to"study"this" matter."If"we"want"to"find"a"limit"to"the"exercise"of"private"autonomy"it"is"not"article"7.2" SCC"we"should"look"at,"but"articles"1255"and"6.2"SCC"which"refer"to"public"order"and" morality"as"borderlines"of"the"human"conduct."However,"this"is"not"a"simple"problem"of" limits"to"the"exercise"of"private"autonomy,"but"a"problem"to"decide"which"one"of"two" fundamental"rights"prevails"in"case"of"collision."The"function"of"the"judge"should"be"to" weigh"the"two"rights"in"conflict." 8" " Be"that"as"it"may,"the"Spanish"Constitutional"Court"can"only"act"when"the"judge"does"not" protect" the" fundamental" rights" of" a" discriminated" person18." Nevertheless," there" are" different"possible"constitutional"interpretations"of"the"law;"therefore,"the"Constitutional" Court" should" respect" the" decision" of" the" judge" which" has" a" possible" constitutional" meaning.."As"we"pointed"out"previously,"in"a"case"where"a"judge"believes"that"the"law"to" be"applied"to"a"specific"case"is"contrary"to"a"fundamental"law,"he"should"bring"an"action" of"unconstitutionally"before"the"Constitutional"Court." !" Effects"of"the"fundamental"rights"on"the"relations"between"individuals" Analyzing" the" problem," we" find" that" the" next" step" is" to" evaluate" the" effects" of" the" fundamental"rights"on"the"relations"between"individuals."We"can"distinguish"between" two"types"of"cases."On"the"one"hand,"we"refer"to"the"freedom"to"negotiate"and"decide" the"content"of"a"contract,"and"on"the"other"hand"to"the"right"to"contract."" The"first"category"confronts"private"autonomy"with"a"specific"fundamental"right."We"can" approach"this"by"studying"a"specific"case."Could"a"prohibition"on"being"married"imposed" on"a"tenant"in"a"lease"contract"be"constitutional?"The"Spanish"doctrine"underlines"that" it"would"not"be"an"absolute"prohibition"established"by"the"authority19,"but"a"condition" freely"negotiated"by"the"parties."In"fact,"the"tenant"could"be"married"whenever"he"wants," but"in"such"a"case"he"should"lease"another"dwelling."Therefore,"in"that"case"such"a"clause" would"be"lawful"and"would"not"be"considered"as"source"of"wrongful"discrimination." Consequently,"what"must"be"studied"in"this"type"of"cases"is"whether"the"renunciation"of" a"right"in"a"specific"case"is"acceptable"or"not;"this"means"that"we"must"look"for"a"solution" to"a"particular"case,"but"not"a"general"or"abstract"rule.""""" The"second"category"refers"to"the"right"to"choose"the"other"contractual"party."When"one" party" is" in" a" monopolistic" situation," when" the" other" contractual" party" has" no" other" alternative,"when"there"are"no"competitors"who"offer"a"similar"service"or"good,"the" refusal"to"contract"is"not"an"option."Therefore,"contractual"freedom"does"not"work,"and" this"limitation"should"be"corrected"by"the"public"powers.""If"the"judge"does"not"do"so,"a" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 18"ALFARO," Jesús," “Autonomía" privada" y" derechos" fundamentales”" ADC," 1993JI" p.71." and" PRIETO," Derechos"fundamentales,"p.217."See"the"judgment"of"the"Spanish"Constitutional"Court"STC"55/83." 19"ALFARO,"Jesús,"“Autonomía…”"p.94." 9" " writ"of"“amparo”"could"take"place" before" the" Constitutional" Court." If" there" is" not" a" monopolistic" situation," any" contracting" party" is" free" to" contract" with" another" competitor."Therefore,"his"fundamental"rights"would"not"be"affected"by"a"limitation" imposed"by"one"of"the"possible"offerors."Nevertheless,"the"public"order"sets"up"other" controls."For"instance,"a"contract"in"which"one"of"the"parties"accepts"to"be"sold"into" slavery"would"not"be"protected"by"law."" Another" approach" is" possible" if" we" study" the" right" to" admission" in" the" context" of" associations."When"the"law"is"silent,"and"a"monopoly"situation"is"not"present,"is"the" association" free" to" decide" who" is" going" to" be" accepted" as" a" new" member?" Karsten" Schmidt"emphasises"that"in"such"a"case"it"is"important"to"value"the"economic"or"social" function"of"the"society20."This"can"be"also"applied"in"case"of"the"expulsion"of"a"member" when"the"association"is"not"in"a"monopoly"situation."This"case"was"studied"by"judgment" 96/1994"of"the"Spanish"Constitutional"Court"in"which"it"is"stated"that"the"judge"can" review"the"decision"to"expel"a"member"of"an"association"when"such"an"expulsion"may" cause"a"significant"economic"damage"to"the"associate."In"this"case"there"was"a"direct"link" between" the" expulsion" and" the" damage" suffered" by" the" member" due" to" economic" interests"linked"to"the"legal"relationship"existing"between"associate"and"association21." This"is"connected"with"the"ruling"of"the"Spanish"Supreme"Court"of"February"8th"2001,"in" which"the"decision"of"an"association"of"fishermen"to"reject"the"admission"of"two"women" as"members"of"the"association"due"to"their"gender,"was"considered"discriminatory"and" unacceptable."It"was"underlined"that"in"fact"they"were"being"prevented"access"to"a"job22."" Finally,"we"refer"to"a"sector"of"the"private"relationships"in"which"the"State"has"decided" to"intervene"in"order"to"regulate"the"limits"of"private"autonomy"in"relation"to"the"right" to"discriminate."The"first"European"statute"which"could"be"assimilated"to"the"NorthJ American"Civil"Rights"Act"of"1964"was"the"Directive"of"the"European"Union"2000/78,"of" November" 27" which" established" a" general" framework" for" equal" treatment" in" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 20"KARSTEN"SCHMIDT,"Gesellschaftstrecht,"Karl"Heymaanns,"Köln,"Berlin,"Bonn,"München,"1991,"p.592"" 21"CODERCH,"Salvador,"FERRER"I"RIBA,"Josep,"Asociaciones…"pp."71J72." 22"Judgment"of"the"Spanish"Supreme"Court"of"8"of"February"of"2001."(RJ"2001\544)"Reporting"judge:" Ignacio"Sierra"Gil"de"la"Cuesta" 16" " employment"discrimination"on"this"basis,"there"are"a"number"of"state"and"local"statutes" that"do"so." Moreover,"American"scholars"refer"to"an"indirect"class"of"discrimination,"they"normally" name" it" “disparate" impact”;" which" should" be" distinguished" from" the" direct" discrimination"or"facial"one."It"is"also"underlined"that"while"in"cases"of"“disparate"impact”"" it" is" not" necessary" to" prove" the" intention" to" discriminate," in" case" of" “disparate" treatment”"it"is"necessary"to"prove"it33."One"of"the"most"notable"examples"of"indirect" discrimination" is" the" case" Yick" Wo" v." Hopkins," 118" US" at" 359," in" which" due" to" an" Ordinance"of"San"Francisco"all"the"people"of"Chinese"heritage"were"forbidden"to"operate" laundries."In"fact,"the"Ordinance"required"an"authorization"to"operate"laundries"in"all"the" buildings"of"the"city"but"the"stone"or"brick"ones."In"1880"in"total"there"were"310"laundries" in"wooden"houses,"240"of"these"were"owned"by"people"of"Chinese"ancestry34."" Another"wellJknow"discrimination"case"is"Griggs"v."Duke"Power"Co"(Supreme"Court"of" the" United" States" 401" US" 424," 1971)." The" Griggs" principle" states" that" any" arbitrary" requirement"established"by"the"employer"in"order"to"justify"a"discriminatory"preference" in"favor"of"a"social"group"is"not"acceptable."In"this"case,"the"employer"decided"to"require" his" employees" to" take" an" intelligence" test" or" have" a" high" school" education." These" requirements"were"not"linked"to"the"tasks"to"be"carried"out"by"the"employees."However," in"this"way"the"employer"ensured"he"did"not"hire"black"people,"who"normally"had"a" worse" education." Neither" the" District" Court" nor" the" Court" of" Appeals" found" those" requirements"to"be"discriminatory,"as"they"did"not"see"a"clear"intention"to"discriminate," but"the"Supreme"Court"said"that"the"enactment"of"Title"VII"of"the"Act"of"1964"had"to"be" interpreted"to"avoid"artificial" preferences"for"some"social"groups,"and"against"other" groups35." """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 33"BEERMANN,"Jack"M."“The"unhappy"history"of"civil"rights"legislation,"fifty"years"after”,"34"Conn.-L.-Rev." 981,"p."1023"(2002)." 34"BERNSTEIN,"David"E."“Lochner,"Parity"and"the"Chinese"Laundry"Cases”,"41"Wm-&-Mary-L.-Rev."211,"217J 269"(1999)." However,"in"Washington"v."Davis"the"Supreme"Court"required"the"discriminatory"intent"as"requirement" sine"qua"non"to"prove"the"discrimination."(Supreme"Court"of"the"United"States,"426"US"229,"1976)." 35"See"KELMAN,"Mark,"“Concepts"of"Discrimination"in"General"Ability"Job"Testing”,"104,"Harv.-L.-Rev."1158," 1204J45,"(1991)." 17" " Moreover," the" 1991" Act" established" that" “Except" as" otherwise" provided" in" this" subchapter," an" unlawful" employment" practice" is" established" when" the" complaining" party"demonstrates"that"race,"color,"religion,"sex"or"national"origin"was"a"motivation"for" any"employment"practice,"even"though"other"factors"also"motivate"the"practice”"(23"USC" §" 2000eJ2" m)." In" fact," in" Desert" Palace," Inc" v." Costa" the" application" of" this" rule" determined"that"the"different"treatment"given"to"a"female"employee"was"considered" unjustified."Two"workers"were"involved"in"physical"altercation,"one"of"them,"who"was"a" woman,"was"severely"disciplined,"the"other"one,"who"was"a"man,"not."Therefore,"the" woman"filed"a"lawsuit"against"the"company."However,"it"was"alleged"that"the"difference" between"both"workers"was"that"she"had"a"large"disciplinary"record,"and"he"a"clean"one." Consequently,"the"judge"was"instructed"on"a"mixedJmotive."After"this"case,"could"be" assumed"that"a"plaintiff"only"needs"to"use"any"relevant"direct"or"circumstantial"evidence" of"one"of"the"discriminatory"factors"to"take"legal"actions"against"the"employer36." American" scholars" underline" the" parallelism" between" cases" of" employment" discrimination," which" are" contemplated" by" the" law," and" other" cases" of" private" discrimination"that"theoretically"are"permitted"by"law,"in"spite"of"not"being"accepted" from" the" moral" point" of" view." In" fact," it" has" been" proposed" to" distinguish" between" commercial"discrimination,"which"is"ruled"by"law,"and"private"discrimination,"which"is" not"regulated"by"law.."The"commercial"discrimination"comprises"not"only"the"Civil"Rights" Act" of" 1962," but" also" the" Federal" Civil" Rights" Act" of" 1866," which" prohibited" racial" discrimination" in" independent" relationships," and" bar" business" considered" as" public" accommodations"from"different"types"of"discrimination"against"customers."Moreover," the"States"have"ruled"different"regulations"to"prohibit"labour"discrimination."Critics"have" pointed"out"that"the"differences"between"so"called"“commercial"discrimination”"and"the" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 36"See"HARPER,"Michael"C."“The"Causation"Standard"in"Federal"Employment"Law:"Gross" v.FBL"Financial"Services,"Inc.,"and"the"Unfulfilled"Promise"of"the"Civil"Rights"Act"of"1991”," 58"Buff.-L.-Rev."112J132,"2010." 18" " “private"discrimination”"are"not"justified,"and"that"a"whole"regulation"of"both"categories" should"be"done37." This"different"treatment"could"be"founded"in"the"fact"that"one"affects"the"privacy"of"a" person,"his"more"intimate"choices,"and"the"other"usually"affects"economic"decisions" normally"adopted"by"companies."In"addition,"this"means"that"the"former"is"difficult"to" prove"and"the"latter"easier,"due"to"the"number"of"persons"involved"and"the"way"in"which" such"decisions"are"evidenced"(for"example,"the"procedure"to"hire"a"new"employee)." However,"American"scholars"believe"that"it"is"necessary"to"find"a"stronger"argument"to" justify" the" different" legal" treatment" of" the" so" called" “private”" and" “commercial”" discrimination." This"search"for"a"stronger"argument"could"be"achieved"if"we"consider"the"consequences" of"the"discrimination."It"has"been"said"that"commercial"discrimination"may"affect"the"job" a"person"needs"for"his"living,"and"in"case"of"monopoly"may"deprive"the"individual’s"access" to"basic"goods." We"could"consider"whether"the"factor"behind"this"distinction"is"the"social"impact"of"the" commercial"discriminatory"conducts,"due"to"the"economic"or"social"damage"inflicted" upon"the"victims." However," Professor" Matt" Zwolinski" affirms" that" the" value" of" autonomy" is" not" significantly"greater"in"a"private"than"in"a"commercial"context,"therefore"he"thinks"that" we"should"not"appeal"to"interests"in"autonomy"to"justify"differential"regulation38."Prof." Donald"A."Dripps"criticizes"this"approach."He"afraids"the"consequences"if"a"legal"system" would" be" to" attempt" enforcement" of" a" prohibition" on" private" discrimination." He" considers"that"banning"private"discrimination"as"a"symbolic"matter,"and"waiting"for"a" controversial" judicial" nomination" does" not" make" sense." " He" concludes" that" the" law" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 37"Zwolinski,"Matt,"“Why"not"regulate"Private"Discrimination?”,"43"SanDiegoL.- Rev." P.1043,"Fall"2006." 38"ZWOLINSKI,"Matt,"“Why"not…”"p.1068." 19" " should"not"command"the"impossible,"the"law"cannot"impose"a"type"of"husband"or"wife" to"anyone39." There"is"another"key"element"referred"to"by"the"American"scholars"that"we"must"not" forget." I" refer" to" the" respect" for" the" dignity" of" the" person." It" has" been" said" that" discrimination"involves"biases40.""This"type"of"discrimination"happens"when"somebody" considers" another" individual" inferior" because" they" are" a" member" of" another" group." Conversely"discrimination"based"on"prejudice"means"that"a"person"is"deemed"to"be" unworthy"for"a"job"due"to"a"specific"characteristic"that"is"shared"between"the"members" of"his"group.""" Discrimination"based"on"bias"seems"to"be"more"widespread"in"the"private"than"in"the" commercial" sphere." This" can" provoke" social" isolation," psychological" effects" and" stigmatization."In"fact,"private"discrimination"may"be"more"unjust"and"more"harmful"that" the"so"called"“commercial"discrimination”41."" Professor"Nussbum"offers"another"approach"to"the"concept"of"dignity"in"relation"with" the"collision"of"fundamental"rights."She"understands"that"any"case"of"conflict"between" two"fundamental"rights,"is"in"fact"a"case"to"be"analyzed"from"the"perspective"of"human" dignity."For"example,"she"considers"that"if"we"seek"to"respect"dignity,"we"must"guarantee" the"right"of"an"individual" to" exercise"his"religious"beliefs"and"the"right"of"not"being" unfairly"discriminated"against"by"an"employer."On"both"sides"human"dignity"means"to" protect"the"right"to"exercise"a"fundamental"right,"but"those"rights"collide."In"such"a"case" Nussbum"responds"that"each"case"deserves"a"different"solution"and"that"it"is"not"possible" to"establish"a"hierarchy"between"rights42."" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 39 DRIPPS, Donald A. Is the Privilege…” p.1065-1067." 40"ALEXANDER,"Larry,"“What"Makes"Wrongful"Discrimination"Wrong?"Biases,"Preferences,"Stereotypes" and"Proxies,"141"U."PA.-L.-Rev."141,"158J163"(1992)" 41"LOURY,"Glenn"C.,"The-Anatomy-of-Racial-Inequality,"95,"(2002),"believes"that"private"discrimination"in" contract"can"be"very"daming." 42"NUSSBAUM,"Martha"C.,"Women"and"Human"Development:"The"Capabilities"Approach."Advocating"a" new"approach"for"how"governments"should"treat"the"rights"of"citizens,"2001,"p.72J81"(*Quoted"by"Sonu" Bedi,"p."1184J1185*)" 20" " Moreover,"Professor"Dripps"explains"that"the"privilege"for"private"discrimination"indeed" tends"to"track"a"widelyJfelt"sense"that"autonomy"has"special"value"in"some"spheres"of" human"life,"also"the"nonJregulated"behaviors"can"be"considered"as"cases"of"wrongful" discrimination."Therefore,"these"cases"should"be"controlled"by"the"State"if"not"directly," at"least"indirectly." He"adds"that"throughout"the"developed"world,"freedom"of"speech,"freedom"of"religion," and"sexual"privacy"enjoy"more"respect43,"legally"and"socially,"than"the"right"to"contract," to"own"weapons,"or"to"consume"intoxicants."And"that"this"hierarchy"of"liberties"may"turn" out"to"be"arbitrary,"but"it"prevails"so"widely"that"we"should"assume"it44."" However,"if"the"prohibition"to"discriminate"can"affect"not"only"the"commercial"sphere" but"the"private"one,"and"if"relations"between"individuals"can"be"controlled"even"when" they"are"not"regulated"by"the"law,"what"is"the"mechanism"and"what"are"the"criteria"to" decide"when"those"discriminatory"actions"are"wrong?" The"first"question"was"answered"in"Shelley"v."Kraemer,"334,"US"1"(1948)"as"we"have" discussed"above."In"order"to"answer"the"second"question,"Professor"LippertJRasmussen" states"that"there"is"a"right"to"engage"in"private"discrimination"if"and"only"if"it"is"not"the" case"that"there"ought,"morally"speaking,"to"be"a"law"that"prohibits"engaging"in"such" activities."He"explains"that"it"is"a"moral"approach,"this"means"that"the"differentiating" element"should"be"the"qualification"of"the"discriminatory"conduct"as"just"or"unjust45." However,"the"concept"of"justice"can"be"abstract"and"unattainable"in"this"particular"field." Therefore,"he"distinguishes"between"private"discrimination"that"is"morally"wrong,"and" what"is"not."""In"each"case,"he"studies"the"cases"in"which"there"could"be"a"legal"duty"not" to"engage."From"this"standpoint,"a"legal"duty"not"to"engage"in"a"case"of"wrongful"private" discrimination,"would"be"when"an"employer"pays"women"less"than"men"for"doing"the" same"job,"which"is"obviously"forbidden"by"law."On"the"other"hand,"his"opinion"is"that"a" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 43"See"Hudnut"v."Am."Booksellers"Ass’n,"771"F.2d"323,"330"(7th"Cir,"1985)." 44"DRIPPS"Donald"A.,"“Is"the"Privilege"of"Private"Discrimination"an"Artifact"of"an"Icon?,"43"San-Diego-L.-Rev." 1063,"2006"(1063J1069)"p.1064."He"sums"up"that"the"priviledge"liberties"turn"out"to"protect"the"same" zones"of"life"that"enjoy"the"privilege"of"private"discrimination." 45"LIPPERTJRASMUSSEN,"Kasper,"“Private"Discrimination:"A"Prioritarian"DesertJAccommodating"Account”," 43"San-Diego,-L.-Rev."817,"2006."(817J856)"p.851." 21" " legal"duty"not"to"engage"in"private"discrimination"that"is"not"wrongful"could"be"the"case" of"sectarian"donations,"which"are"acts"that"bring"about"more"moral"value"than"would"be" brought"by"not"donating,"but"that"can"fuel"social,"ethnic"or"religious"tensions."In"its"view" the"law"should"enforce"a"pattern"of"nonsectarian"donations"that"would"be"a"collective" good"from"the"point"of"view"of"all"donors46."" Finally,"the"European"terminology"has"been"embraced"by"the"American"scholars,"who" use"it"when"they"distinguish"between"horizontal"and"vertical"discrimination."Therefore," it"is"said"that"a"vertical"effect"constrains"state"or"governmental"power,"this"means"that" a"right"is"violated"only"when"a"political"body"acts"in"a"certain"way;"and"a"horizontal"effect" constrains"nonJstate"or"private"sector."This"means"that"an"individual"may"not"violate"the" rights"of"another47."Moreover,"North"American"scholars"also"distinguish"between"direct" and"indirect"horizontal"effects"(since"the"case"Griggs"vs."Duke"Power"Company48),"and" they"say"that"a"direct"effect"occurs"when"the"constitutional"right"is"applied"directly"to" the"dispute" and"the"indirect" one"is"where" it"is" used" to"interpret" or"limit"an" already" existing"legal"dispute49.."" " 3J"CONCLUSION" "In" conclusion," we" see" parallels" between" American" and" European" Law" when" they" approach"the"problem"of"discrimination"between"individuals."In"both"cases"the"starting" point"is"the"consideration"of"a"direct"impact"of"fundamental"rights"in"public"powers,"but" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 46"LIPPERTJRASMUSSEN,"Kasper,"“Private"Discrimination…”"p."855."He"adds"the"following"possibilities:" Legal"duty"to"engage"in"wrongful"private"discriminations,"which"would"be"the"case"in"which"the"State" adopts"an"immoral"discriminatory"law,"such"as"the"one"that"oblige"the"majority"to"discriminate"against"the" minority."Legal"right"to"engage"wrongful"private"discrimination,"such"as"the"case"of"the"persons"who" discriminate"in"the"basis"of"race"or"religion"in"their"choice"of"spouse."Legal"duty"or"permission"to"engage" in"private"discrimination"that"is"not"wrongful,"for"example"the"case"of"affirmative"action"programs"at" private"universities"and"companies"to"lead"to"a"society"with"less"discrimination."This"means"to"redistribute" resources"to"badlyJoff"people." 47"BEDI,"Sonu,"“The"Horizontal"Effect"of"a"Right"NonJDiscrimination"in"Employment:"Religious"autonomy" under"the"US"Constitution"and"the"Constitution"of"South"Africa”,"95"B.U.-L.-Rev.(Boston-University-LawReview),"1181J1204,"1185,"2015."TUSHNET,"Mark,"Weak-Courts,-Strong-Rights,"196J99,"2008."GARDBAUM," Stephen,"“The"Horizontal"Effect"of"Constitutional""Rights”,"102"Mich.-L.-Rev."387,"393,"2003." 48"Griggs"vs."Duke"Power"Company,"(1971)"401"US"424"91"S"Ct"849." 49"BEDI,"Sonu,"“The"Horizontal…”"p.1187" 22" " not"in"the"relations"between"individuals."Nevertheless,"a"judge"cannot"ignore"the"unjust" discrimination"against"a"person"when"he"makes"a"ruling."If"he"does"so,"the"victim"could" ask" for" the" support" of" the" Supreme" Court" (US)" or" the" Constitutional" Court" (Spain," Germany),"which"will"be"obliged"to"correct"the"wrong"decision"of"the"judge"to"guarantee" the"right"of"the"victim"not"to"be"treated"wrongfully"discriminated."However,"in"order"to" define"the"limits"to"private"autonomy,"American"scholars"are"more"focused"on"morality" than"the"European"ones,"but"in"both"systems"the"respect"for"human"dignity"seems"to" hold" a" key" position." Moreover," the" distinction" between" the" so" called" “private”" discrimination"and"the"“commercial”"one"affirmed"by"American"scholars"has"not"been" contemplated"by"European"scholars,"and"perhaps"it"is"founded"on"unstable"grounds." Our"conclusion"can"be"summarized"in"two"pivotal"points:" First,"the"issue"of"whether"the"determination"of"wrongful"discriminatory"behaviors"is"a" matter"connected"with"the"abuse"of"right"as"a"limit"of"the"private"autonomy,"a"matter" relating"to"human"dignity"or"simply"is"a"question"to"decide"which"of"the"two"fundamental" rights"in"conflicts"takes"precedence"over"the"other."As"aforementioned"this"is"a"question" discussed"by"Spanish"Scholars.""My"opinion"is"that"this"is"neither"a"problem"of"abuse"of" rights,"nor"a"problem"of"human"dignity."In"fact,"it"is"a"case"of"a"collision"between"two" fundamental"rights"in"which"the"court"ought"to"waive"which"one"prevails,"as"a"result"of" balancing"all"the"interests"at"stake"in"the"light"of"the"circumstances"of"each"specific"case." Consequently,"the"key"element"to"decide"cannot"be"the"human"dignity."Human"dignity" is"too"nebulous"a"concept"which"can"be"clouded"by"individual"subjectivity."The"problem" is"the"difficulty"of"framing"and"delimiting"the"concept"of"dignity."We"think"that"the"best" approach"is"to"focus"on"the"concept"of"equality."Moreover,"the"concept"of"equality"has" been"subject"to"deep"scrutiny"by"scholars."" In"a"specific"case,"if"there"is"conduct"in"breach"of"the"equal"treatment"principle,"what" should"be"taken"into"consideration"is"the"fundamental"right"which"should"be"protected" from"this"behaviour."And"only"after"inJdepth"examination"of"the"circumstances"could"it" be"decided"if"such"a"behavior"deserves"legal"protection."As"an"example,"the"case"in"which" a"private"religious"educational"center"hires"a"teacher"that"later"acts"against"the"centerJ 23" " wide"ideology"could"be"used."The"European"Court"of"Human"Rights"has"affirmed"that"the" dismissal" of" a" worker" by" a" church," due" to" difference" in" religious" ideology" from" the" doctrine"of"that"church,"was"not"a"violation"of"the"right"to"a"private"life."We"refer"to"the" case""Obst"v."Germany50,"in"which"the""European"Court"of"Human"Rights"decided"that"the" dismissal" of" the" European" director" of" public" relations" of" the" Mormon" church" for" adultery,"was"not"a"violation"of"the"right"to"privacy."The"Court"said"that"in"consideration" with"the"position"held"by"Mr."Obst,"not"being"fired"would"adversely"affect"the"credibility" of"the"Mormon"church."In"fact,"adultery"is"strongly"condemned"by"this"church51."The" European"Court"considered"that"the"autonomous"existence"of"religious"communities"is" indispensable" for" pluralism" in" a" democratic" society," and" affirmed" that" the" right" of" religious"communities"to"an"autonomous"existence"is"at"the"very"heart"of"the"protection" that"the"article"9"of"the"ECHR"affords"52."Therefore,"this"example"illuminates"us"about" how"things"work:"there"is"a"collision"between"two"fundamental"rights,"right"to"religion" and"right"to"privacy,"and"according"with"the"interests"at"stake,"the"court"decided"that"in" a" specific" case" the" right" to" religion" should" prevail" over" the" right" to" privacy," and" consequently,"that"the"behavior"of"the"employer"seek"protection"from"a"fundamental" right,"in"spite"of"the"fact"that"in"other"circumstances"it"could"be"considered"a"wrongfully" discriminatory"conduct." " Secondly,"I"conclude"that"to"limit"the"effects"of"fundamental"rights"to"vertical"relations" (relations"between"public"authorities"and"individuals)"and"not"apply"them"to"horizontal" ones"(relations"between"individuals)"implies"to"opt"for"a"partial"and"biased"view"of"our" legal"system"and"constitutional"order." The"idea"of"justice"and"the"supremacy"of"the"fundamental"principles"of"the"law,"that" illuminate"the"whole"legal"system,"should"prevail"in"the"application"of"the"law.""In"fact," """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 50"Judgment"of"the"European"Court"of"Human"Rights"in"Obst"v."Germany"of"23"of"September"of"2010." 51"See"Gerhard"Robbers"(2010)"“Church"Autonomy" in"the"European"Court"of"Human"Rights"–" Recent" Developments"in"Germany”"(2010),"Journaly-of-Law-and-Religion,"26,"pp.281J320." 52"Art.9.1."ECHR:"Everyone"has"the"right"to"freedom"of"thought,"conscience"and"religion;"this"right"includes" freedom"to"change"his"religion"or"belief"and"freedom,"either"alone"or"in"community"with"others"and"in" public"or"private,"to"manifest"his"religion"or"belief,"in"worship,"teaching,"practice"and"observance."" 24" " the"first"article"of"the"Spanish"Constitution"states"that"“Spain"is"hereby"established"as"a" social" and" democratic" State," subject" to" the" rule" of" law," which" advocates" freedom," equality"and"political"pluralism"as"highest"values"of"its"legal"system”."Therefore,"the"first" article"of"the"Spanish"Constitution"imposes"the"equality"as"fundamental"premise"to"be" always"applied"in"the"legal"system."This"means"that"not"only"public"authorities,"but"also" individuals"are"directly"linked"to"this"mandatory"norm."It"is"true"that"article"53"of"the" Spanish"Constitution"states"that"“The"rights"and"freedoms"recognised"in"Chapter"2"of" the"present"part"are"binding"on"all"public"authorities”,"but"as"it"has"been"said"by"a"part" of"the"doctrine53,"this"article"only"provides"an"addition"to"what"has"been"stated"by"the" first"article."Consequently,"this"implies"that"the"application"of"the"fundamental"rights"are" not"limited"to"the"relations"between"the"public"powers"and"the"individuals,"but"also"to" the"relations"between"individuals." In" any" case," it" does" not" make" sense" to" deny" the" horizontal" direct" effect" of" the" fundamental" rights," whilst" simultaneously" recognising" the" right" of" any" citizen" to" effective"legal"protection"if"a"court"infringes"his"fundamental"rights,"thereby"resulting"in" discriminatory" treatment." We" should" remember" that" the" majority" of" European" and" American" scholars" affirm" that" an" individual" has" the" right" to" appeal" before" the" Constitutional"or"Supreme"Court"if"a"judge"has"not"protected"his"fundamental"rights" when"giving"a"judgment." With"this"approach"we"hope"to"offer"a"reasonable"legal"explanation"about"the"way"in" which"fundamental"rights"work"in"the"relations"between"individuals."This"is"an"approach" which" does" not" open" dangerous" gaps" where" the" right" to" discriminate" might" seem" unimpeded."Therefore,"it"is"necessary"to"extend"directly"the"effect"of"fundamental"rights" to"horizontal"relations."In"this"way,"it"can"no"longer"be"possible"to"affirm"that"in"the" private"sphere"it"is"legal"to"adopt"decisions"based"on"racists"or"macho"behaviours,"for" example"when"a"landlord"refuses"a"person"as"a"tenant"saying"that"he"does"not"want"to" have"a"gipsy"or"an"African"as"a"tenant."In"any"case,"if"the"law"protects"the"conduct"of"an" individual,"it"should"be"due"to"other"considerations,"but"not"because"such"an"individual" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 53"NARANJO"DE"LA"CRUZ,"Rafael,"“Los"límites"de"los"derechos"fundamentales"en"las"relaciones"entra" particulares:"la"buena"fe”."Centro"de"Estudios"Políticos"y"Constitucionales,"Madrid,"2000,"*" 25" " could"have"the"right"to"discriminate"another"person"without"restriction."To"place"these" horizontal"relations"under"direct" judicial" control" is" vital" in" order"to" properly" protect" individuals"in"their"social"relations,"particularly"when"there"is"no"contract"between"the" parties."From"this"perspective"it"is"clear"that"a"good"model"to"follow"is"the"one"included" in"the"constitution"of"South"Africa." "