It certainly has nothing to do with American history. It is a fundamental principle.
Meanwhile, the ERA and EEA have basically everything to do with American history. We tried letting people self-organize into not being racist and misogynistic (and later, homophobic). They did not. And because denying people an opportunity to work or own property or start a business based on race (or, for that matter, gender or sexual orientation) is counter to the principles of equality America pursues, we tied the right to own a corporation to respecting those principles. America has never recognized a "right to incorporate," or a "right to be one's own boss;" it's neither enshrined in the Constitution nor mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (you could loosely lump it under "pursue happiness," but there's plenty of things in that category that aren't fundamental rights, so it' a weak justification at best).
Other countries have different histories of racism (or misogyny or homophobia) so arrived at different conclusions. The law is path-dependent.
(TBH, you seem pretty hung up on what my country does in this regard for someone who isn't even beholden to these laws).
Right to be one's own boss: it is called freedom. It doesn't have to be written in the constitution with those exact words. I don't think the US is a socialist country just yet.
And your narrative of letting people self-organize seems wrong. There were laws mandating segregation. That is not self-organization, but government interference.
Obviously murdering people and burning down businesses is and should be illegal.
Why?
> Right to be one's own boss: it is called freedom.
That has never been any kind of guaranteed right. And, I cannot stress this enough, you can do that and be compliant with all of these laws if you just work for yourself and don't have many employees. Most of these laws don't even kick in for firms under a certain size.
> There were laws mandating segregation.
So once those laws were rendered unenforceable, why do you think they then needed an Equal Rights Act in addition? Check the history.
> Obviously murdering people and burning down businesses is and should be illegal.
Of course, and it was, but if the law is unenforced it might as well not be.
That's why the federal government stepped in, because the states were not protecting the rights of citizens.
This is the crux of our disagreement. I can say nothing to this other than you are wrong and have failed to grasp American history and the effects of the law of averages.