The Plessy case has been viewed as against the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment. Eventually, the doctrine established therein was abandoned by virtue of the decision in Brown v. Board of education of Topeka (347 U. S. 483). In this case, the petitioner challenged the practice in school wherein the blacks were segregated from whites. The petitioner asserted that the segregation was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment as it deprives them of their equal right to education.
In resolving the issue, Supreme Court concluded that although the facilities afforded to all students are equal, the segregation is still a violation of the Constitution (347 U. S. 483). Interestingly, the Court stated that the education of the black student would be much affected because of the feeling of inferiority that the segregation might create in them (347 U. S. 483). Hence, the liberties afforded by the provision have extended to the eradication of racial discrimination in the society.
The provision has also its effect in the employment. In the case of Dothard v. Rawlinson (433 U. S. 321), the sex was no longer made as basis for hiring. In this particular case, Rawlinson applied as a correctional councilor in Alabama (433 U. S. 321). Unfortunately, she was denied application because of her gender, height, and weight as embodied in the Administrative Regulation 204 (433 U. S. 321). Rawlinson found the regulation as a violation of her right and so she sued. Supreme Court demanded the regulation be reviewed because it has specified male applicants only which denied the females applicant to decide whether to take the risk of danger attached to the nature of the job.
Furthermore, the law requiring particular weight an height was invalidated because such requirement was not a necessary factor in the performance of the duty of a correctional councilor (433 U. S. 321). In one of the controversial cases, the court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in the absolute. In the case of Lawrence v. Texas (539 U. S. 558), the court ordered the nullification of all existing sodomy laws in the land because it violates the private right and due process of individuals to choose their couple (539 U. S. 558).
This all started when the petitioner was found making sexual act with a person of the same sex. The authority arrested both for violating the sodomy law which punishes immoral acts. In deciding to nullify the sodomy laws, the Court held that morality issues are not within the court to decide. Rather, it upheld the right of a person to choose the person whom he wants to be with. The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed to every individual equal protection of rights. Such right includes private right to choose partner despite morality issues surrounding it.
By virtue of the decision of the court in this case, the gays and lesbians lobbied for their private right to marry. Eventually, same sex marriages flooded the hall of California. On the basis alone of the cases presented, it can be observed that liberties afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment are unlimited. The due process clause and equal protection clause have created several rights which were not expressed in the Constitution. The provision was interpreted in such a way that freedom or right asserted will be recognized, even if morality is at stake.
The provision is indeed powerful as it can create rights which were never recognized during the framing of the provision. Among corporations, the provision has also served its purpose by protecting their rights to profit. By virtue of the provision, corporations may protect their interest from arbitrary control of government or from monopoly of a certain business. Part of the equal protection is the right of the business owners to compete in the market fairly.