"Fair", "reasonable", and "non-discriminatory" all have clearly defined legal definitions, which are not necessarily aligned with commonly understood or dictionary-defined definitions.
The only thing that ultimately matters is the letter of the law. If the letter is contrary to the spirit, the law should be rewritten.
reasonable. Not extreme. Not arbitrary, capricious, or confiscatory. Public Service Com, v Haverneyer, 296 US 506, 80 L Ed 357, 56 S Ct 360.
"What is reasonable depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances. It is an elastic term which is of uncertain value in a definition." Sussex Land & Live Stock Co. v Midwest Refining Co. (CA8 Wyo) 294 F 597, 34 ALR 249, 257.
* I assume you mean the USA when you say America, as both the North American and South American continents have many countries.
America exists because we couldn't stand Europe, and we've had to go back there at least several times to fix the mess y'all keep dispensing before we just said "Fuck it." after witnessing WW2 and made our presence permanent for the forseeable future.
Now that I got the snark out of my system, I personally prefer a legal system everyone will agree on even if not everyone will like it.
The legal system here is mind-blowing compared to the US. My son got beat up by some thug-teenager for being from the US (the teen was Afghan, so makes sense why he would feel that way, but to take it out on a 6 year old is kinda fucked up). Anyway, watching that play out was very interesting.
Even just dealing with employee background checks is interesting in that only certain crimes (relevant to the work you are asking them to do) show up. So if an embezzler wants to go into childcare, nothing would show up (probably, I haven’t actually done that, so I have no idea for this specific example, it’s just an example).
It’s so fascinating… but if you are ever looking for a way out of the US: Dutch-American Friendship Treaty is a way.
So, guess which ideology generated that German/Austrian monster.
Thank Jim Crow for that.