Right now in America, you can refuse Muslims entry, gerrymander against the black vote, and deny service to homosexuals on fictional religious grounds. Let's keep in mind that all of this is coming out of SCOTUS and that all these narrow 5-4 decisions could have gone differently if the GOP hadn't essentially stolen a court pick. Their theft began when a moderate, Sandra Day O'Connor, was replaced with the court's most constitutionally constipated mind in Samuel Alito. It continued for eight years under Obama, with the Senate GOP obstructing his US District and Circuit court picks at historic levels, creating a judicial crisis in order to rig the system. Then of course was the court's lack of willingness to even hold a hearing for the incredibly qualified Merrick Garland, which would have restored the court's moderate center. Trump then filled that seat and has filled many other lower seats, now that Republicans feel like holding hearings again.
I daresay that for the next 30 years, judicial decision making will not be what it ought to have been, based on the fair accounting of nominees from elected Presidents, but will reflect a constitutional theft.
In writing for the majority's decision to uphold the travel ban, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that "it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order [Japanese internment] to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission [aka the travel ban]".
While I agree that there are differences, in that Japanese internment was explicit and the travel ban is not, let us make clear the other cases where laws have failed to exhibit an explicit bias, yet have had an unconstitutionally biased effect. Laws requiring a poll tax to vote applied to all people, in theory. Laws requiring a literacy test to vote applied to all people, in theory. Effectively, the Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kennedy wing of the court is endorsing Jim Crow policy, as it was "facially neutral". They may argue that they would not support such policies, but as they would do so we would surely note that they have struck down major portions of the Voting Rights Act, have allowed Texas's racial gerrymanders, and have decided that corporations have more rights than homosexuals. We needed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act for these exact reasons...because if your ill intent to discriminate is done so cleverly, through a "facially neutral policy", then it's damned hard to fix and we need an HONEST court to act as a safeguard for our rights in the face of such discrimination.
This court has become a pitiful mockery of the great courts of America's past, which stood for justice and rights against popular opinion and against the power of the other branches. When was the last time we had a court so committed to rolling back rights and shielding those who would abuse the rights of others, albeit in "facially neutral policy"? This is sad and pathetic.