If my exercise of my rights is restricted then it hardly matters how much respect or recognition I find in some verbiage - in practical terms, I am denied those rights.
This is unfortunately common, so that most freedoms cannot actually be realized without the help of law and the judicious use of institutional force, far beyond what I or almost any citizen can personally wield. And it is not even vaguely exceptional that the source of the problem is coming from non-governmental entities.
Law is much more than "a set of people."
I think it's fairly clear that the Constitution is also intended to restrain non-Governmental entities from violating personal rights. Otherwise, the 13th Amendment would only make Government slavery unconstitutional while reserving it to the states or the people, which would be nonsensical and useless.
The rights of plantation slaves have surely existed all along, but they didn't make any difference until a lot of blood was spilled to change things.
I think it's fairly clear that the Constitution is also intended to restrain non-Governmental entities from violating personal rights
That's question-begging a bit. If I hire you for my radio show and you say something stupid on the air, am I not allowed to fire you, lest that be a violation of your personal right to free speech? If I refuse to sell you a gun, am I denying you your right to bear arms?
Otherwise, the 13th Amendment would only make Government slavery unconstitutional while reserving it to the states or the people, which would be nonsensical and useless.
That seems to argue against point. If the whole Constitution was meant to restrict non-governmental actors, then they wouldn't have limited it just to slavery.
Also, the Fourteenth Amendment generally applies the restrictions on the Federal government to State governments. I'm unaware of any restrictions it places on non-goverments.
This is unfortunately common, so that most freedoms cannot actually be realized without the help of law and the judicious use of institutional force, far beyond what I or almost any citizen can personally wield. And it is not even vaguely exceptional that the source of the problem is coming from non-governmental entities.
Law is much more than "a set of people."
I think it's fairly clear that the Constitution is also intended to restrain non-Governmental entities from violating personal rights. Otherwise, the 13th Amendment would only make Government slavery unconstitutional while reserving it to the states or the people, which would be nonsensical and useless.
The rights of plantation slaves have surely existed all along, but they didn't make any difference until a lot of blood was spilled to change things.