<story><title>Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California</title><url>https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/07/newsom-veto-caste-discrimination-00120495</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>locofocos</author><text>Precisely. I&amp;#x27;m trying to understand the resistance in good faith, but the article didn&amp;#x27;t explain their position very clearly.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;It&amp;#x27;s already prohibited&amp;quot; - so why the fierce opposition?&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Passing a law against discrimination of X will stigmatize X&amp;quot; - Imagine someone was making this argument for an existing federally protected class.</text></item><item><author>ethanbond</author><text>The large and vocal constituency activated &lt;i&gt;against&lt;/i&gt; the bill is good evidence that in fact it is &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; already accounted for under existing civil rights law.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tekla</author><text>People do not want to import this shit into the US.&lt;p&gt;They left these systems behind, and making a law codifies the system into law, which is kinda fucked up.&lt;p&gt;I myself have seen discrimination in non obvious ways (not Indian but exact same idea where your birth dictates certain societal ideas about you) , and would be absolutely pissed if anyone made a law that protects against that because discrimination is already protected against.&lt;p&gt;I REALLY do not want the Govt to literally categorize me into a bucket I do not give a shit about, and now everyone wants to codify a system that I would rather just fade away into time.</text></comment>
<story><title>Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California</title><url>https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/07/newsom-veto-caste-discrimination-00120495</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>locofocos</author><text>Precisely. I&amp;#x27;m trying to understand the resistance in good faith, but the article didn&amp;#x27;t explain their position very clearly.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;It&amp;#x27;s already prohibited&amp;quot; - so why the fierce opposition?&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Passing a law against discrimination of X will stigmatize X&amp;quot; - Imagine someone was making this argument for an existing federally protected class.</text></item><item><author>ethanbond</author><text>The large and vocal constituency activated &lt;i&gt;against&lt;/i&gt; the bill is good evidence that in fact it is &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; already accounted for under existing civil rights law.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>dataflow</author><text>No idea what the actual reason is, but I could potentially understand the argument that passing such laws would suggest to courts that &lt;i&gt;other&lt;/i&gt; categories that they might&amp;#x27;ve thought were already intended to be protected perhaps actually weren&amp;#x27;t so.&lt;p&gt;Moreover, every new law carries a risk of having unintended consequences. So the argument may well be as simple as, if it ain&amp;#x27;t broke, don&amp;#x27;t fix it.&lt;p&gt;(That said, I don&amp;#x27;t get the impression everyone who opposed it did so for the same reasons.)</text></comment>