Generally no, but when such behavior has no logical justification and is arguably against the public interest, then I think government does have the right to intervene.
This is a bot of mixed bag. Employers generally know what they pay you, but they generally cannot know what you make if you have another job, or supplemental income. Where you live is not private in any meaningful sense. You can Google almost anyone who owns a house, and not only see how much they paid, when they bought the house, and a street view picture, but you can also often see pictures of the inside of the house via websites like Redfin and Zillow. Marriage records are often public too.
That’s a good reason, but I think, more generally, employers should have at the very least, and demonstrable rationale for discriminating against prospective employees. Doubly so when such a policy has broad distortive effects.
So your proposed solution to the problem of laws that you don’t like is not to repeal them but to prevent their enforcement (exactly what you accused liberals of doing) by passing not only another law, but a super-law that would itself be very difficult to repeal or amend, and would almost certainly have enormous unintended consequences, and has absolutely no evidence showing it would benefit society. If you think your idea is so great that it should be enshrined in the Constitution, why not just convince people to ask their legislatures for fewer/different laws instead of creating an enormous limitation on the freedom of citizens to enact laws that reflect their actual desires and interests?