> You can have equality of rights under law (yes please!) without infringing on other's rights to live as they please

I think I may need firmer definitions of terms to accept this assertion. Because unless I've misunderstood your meaning, it sounds like this is unworkable. Every law is a curtailment of an otherwise-existant naturally occurring right to do something; the law says, in the universe of all possible things you could do, here is something you must do or must not do, yes?

But for the law, I could keep all my money, but we pay taxes.

But for the law, I could steal all my neighbor's stuff, but we have property rights.

Etc.

Social contract theory (a false story of how we got to governments and civilization, but a useful fairy-tale for thought-framing purposes) tells the story of the rights / protections tradeoff, but the first step of the tradeoff is we give up some liberties. So clearly, individual liberty isn't the most important concern; if it were, we'd have solved the problem by never forming a government.

Rather, the Constitution appears to lay out several overlapping goals alongside "secur[ing] the blessings of liberty." "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The blessings of liberty are important, but so is the general welfare, domestic tranquility, common defense, and a more perfect Union, etc.

> The point is that you can jettison racism (or any other kind of inequality) while leaving the racists alone. All people need to be is equal under law.

Again, we may be talking past each other if we're operating from different definitions, but how do you do that? The racist wants to operate a business where black people need not apply, nor may they sit at the table. How on Earth do we respect their liberty while preserving the right of every citizen to operate as a citizen? If I understand your meaning correctly, I predict your answer is "one cannot," in which case I direct us back to the Constitution and the note that there are other sometimes-competing objectives alongside the preservation of liberty (it's hard, we discovered, to preserve tranquility or have a more perfect union if a huge chunk of our population just gets to pretend some of our citizens aren't equally citizens in private affairs, not only before the eyes of the law. Hard to the point of unworkable. Violence-in-the-streets unworkable).

> Being free doesn't mean you're entitled to relationships (personal or professional) with others

Quite true. But it is entirely possible that being a citizen obligates such relationships, in specific contexts, at specific times, and there's a compelling reason to force such relationships (under the very narrowly-tailored privilege of "Owning one's own business," for example).

> Just like every other free person, you are born with nothing

Goodness is that ever untrue. For example, you're born with your skin, whether or not it will provide you some net advantages or disadvantages because of the complex sociopolitics that already existed before you came into the world. You don't get to choose it; it's just your birthright.