That's right...what it did was constitutionalize and provide authority for the 1866 Civil Rights act...which enumerated the civil rights it protected...specifically the right "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
1866 Civil Rights Act
But those are positive rights...not natural rights or fundamental rights and they're not the Bill of Rights
That's right...what it did was constitutionalize and provide authority for the 1866 Civil Rights act...which enumerated the civil rights it protected...specifically the right "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
1866 Civil Rights Act
But those are positive rights...not natural rights or fundamental rights and they're not the Bill of Rights
Then why didn't they specifically write the 14th amendment to say that? Isn't that the arguement you used about it not mentioning the Bill of Rights directly?
18 USC 24Xs aren't limited to race. They protect the rights of all citizens regardless. That's explicit in some of them. It seems you have a problem with the rights protected and acknowledged in the BoRs and a strong desire to violate them as was done when the 14th was violated in Plessey vs Furguson.