Here is a classic attack post -- where the argument posits impossible logic.

"Does the Supreme Court Hate Racial Equality?"

It needs rebuttal.

Compare to Romer v. Evans 517 Or 620 (1996).

I tend to think that the problem there included a reference in the state constitutional amendment of a restraint on the judiciary to offer a minority-protecting remedy. See reference to Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 US 1 (1948) therein.

Can any racial class (or any describeable class) be branded as biased; by a majority supported legislative act? It really is a logically impossible proposition. Suppose that I claim that I do not represent the ideology of the KKK . . . where a (racist?) black person is dismissive of that argument in total because I am White . . . and thus I must be a racist?

The structure of equal rights arguments governs society-wide rules for interaction between government and citizen.

Look also, for contrast, to a purely private interaction between two individuals. If someone initiates a conversation with an attack it places the opposing side in a defensive posture to rebut the attack. From a computer programmer type perspective (purely rational logic), in a non-homogeneous population, the only agreeable route out of an infinite loop argument is the notion of excluding racial discrimination of any sort -- at least in legislative acts where the judiciary can still vigorously retain the power to play a minority-protecting role relative to the majority role played by legislative bodies.

There are many facets (or factual contexts) where the principal can be applied. The role of the judiciary is uniquely designed (of necessity) to protect the interests of a single individual against the world. The problem (logic-wise) is still how best to measure the subjective existence of bias of some particularized group such that it would necessitate a remedy -- against "state action" (see Shelly case). The Romer v. Evans case should be instructive too, I would think.