Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 192 posts

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#41

Post by catlover76 »

tekla wrote: post #22
locofocos wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. I'm trying to understand the resistance in good faith, but the article didn't explain their position very clearly. "It's already prohibited" - so why the fierce opposition? "Passing a law against discrimination of X will stigmatize X" - Imagine someone was making this argument for an existing federally protected class.

People do not want to import this shit into the US. They left these systems behind, and making a law codifies the system into law, which is kinda fucked up. 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 pr…

This makes so little sense I can't really tell whether or not this is in good faith.

> People do not want to import this shit into the US.

You realize people discriminating on this basis are the ones "importing this shit into the US", right?

> I REALLY do not want the Govt to literally categorize me into a bucket I do not give a shit about

You realize that this law wouldn't involve the government compiling a list of the caste background of every Hindu in America from ahead of time right?

> now everyone wants to codify a system that I would rather just fade away into time.

How does it "codify" the caste system to allow people who are being discriminated on its basis to have a better shot at obtaining legal redress for the wrong being done to them?

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#42

Post by ribosometronome »

function_seven wrote: post #20
tpmoney wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's the argument (correct as it turned out) that was used in arguing against the bill of rights. That the specific enumeration of certain classes would be interpreted as raising those above other unenumerated classes. As it happens it's still probably a good thing that the bill of rights exists, and maybe being explicit is better than not, but it's undeniable that enumerated cases in law get much more solid stand…

I can see hiring managers avoiding Indian candidates if they think it would add risk of future lawsuits from that candidate’s subordinates in the future. (“Don’t hire him, he might use caste-ist decision-making when building his team.”) In practice, only other South Asians would likely run afoul of this law, so they now have baggage that workers of other national origins would not have.

If the law already covers it, why would explicitly enumerating its coverage add risk of lawsuit?

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#43

Post by olliej »

tekla wrote: post #22
locofocos wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. I'm trying to understand the resistance in good faith, but the article didn't explain their position very clearly. "It's already prohibited" - so why the fierce opposition? "Passing a law against discrimination of X will stigmatize X" - Imagine someone was making this argument for an existing federally protected class.

People do not want to import this shit into the US. They left these systems behind, and making a law codifies the system into law, which is kinda fucked up. 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 pr…

What are you talking about?

The whole point of caste based discrimination is that people are putting you, as you say, in a bucket and then discriminating on that basis. By having such discrimination be legal you ensure that such discrimination is (a) legal, and (b) gets to be entrenched in the US.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#44

Post by emmelaich »

ethanbond wrote: post #2

The large and vocal constituency activated against the bill is good evidence that in fact it is not already accounted for under existing civil rights law.

There's a vast array of prejudices and grievances in most cultures. Are you going to enumerate them all?

I reminded of that scene in "Mad Men" where Pete Campbell is denied a sale by a McDonald.

You know, because of the 1692 Massacre at Glencoe and related. https://www.ccsna.org/the-campbells-and-macdonalds.

Then there is the Balkans ....

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#45

Post by belltaco »

olliej wrote: post #39
tpmoney wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not it is already accounted for under existing law, this sort of reasoning is about as valid as "the large and vocal constituency against a bill requiring everyone to pledge allegiance to the US is evidence that people aren't loyal to the country" Better evidence would be someone who would have been eligible to bring a case under the new law having been denied justice under the existing laws.

You mean the many documented examples of caste discrimination who have been unable to do anything because caste discrimination is legal?

> many documented examples

Source(s)?

Should be easy to link if there are many, and they're documented as you say.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#47

Post by singlow »

olliej wrote: post #39
tpmoney wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not it is already accounted for under existing law, this sort of reasoning is about as valid as "the large and vocal constituency against a bill requiring everyone to pledge allegiance to the US is evidence that people aren't loyal to the country" Better evidence would be someone who would have been eligible to bring a case under the new law having been denied justice under the existing laws.

You mean the many documented examples of caste discrimination who have been unable to do anything because caste discrimination is legal?

I think he means it would be better proof if you simply gave an example case which was dismissed because a Judge ruled that it didn't qualify as a civil rights violation.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#49

Post by chmorgan_ »

Do we need laws against every specific thing if another law already covers it? I'd argue no, we don't need to call out special groups as protected, then there is precedent for doing so for every special group. Keep our laws general and comprehensive, with as few special cases as possible, especially when it comes to protecting rights.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#50

Post by bradleyjg »

function_seven wrote: post #35
theogravity wrote: post #5

> “not only target and racially profile South Asian Californians, but will put other California residents and businesses at risk and jeopardize our state’s innovative edge.” How? Because south asians can't be caste-ist against others now?

They would be the only group “exposed” to this law. The vast majority of non-Indian people in California have very little idea how caste works, and how to identify membership, etc. So now there’s this new law that de facto only applies to a specific ethnicity of Californians. I guess you could argue that all Californians—regardless of their ethnicity—are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of caste. But to me…

But to me that sounds a lot like “all Californians, both rich and poor, are prohibited from sleeping under a bridge.”

In the saying (by Anatole France) the point is not so much that the poor get arrested while the rich don’t, it’s that the poor need to sleep under the bridge because they have no where else to sleep.

If non South Asians aren’t being targeted by the law because they aren’t discriminating—-that’s a good thing. No one wants more discrimination so that laws against it can be fairer.

Post reply on HN