4 ms·

law explicitly about granting preferential treatment to sex are against california constitution? what about law giving preferential treatment to race? i’m sure

by skyde 4y ago

law explicitly about granting preferential treatment to sex are against california constitution? what about law giving preferential treatment to race? i’m sure california already have diversity hiring quotas for race!

ss108 4y ago
Why are you sure? Do you have some evidence or sources on this? What about the proposed constitutional amendment/proposition to permit certain types of affirmative action currently prohibited, which was rejected by California voters?
- jimmygrapes 4y ago
  Other things were rejected by California voters yet put into law anyway, most notably in recent years the allowance of homosexual marriage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
  - ss108 4y ago
    Which fact does nothing to support the above poster's contention that "i’m sure california already have diversity hiring quotas for race!"
    - jimmygrapes 4y ago
      My apologies, I was not referring to that post but rather to the (inferred on my part) concept that popular vote on something should be the deciding factor for something becoming law. If I misinterpreted, my bad.
      - ss108 4y ago
        No worries. I agree with you in opposition to the notion that we should even have direct democracy for most, if not all, issues.
codefreeordie 4y ago
If you look above, I've provided the specific citations to the sub-sections of the California Constitution's Article I which codify the prohibition of preferential treatment based upon race. Indeed, there was a nearly-successful attempt in 2020 to amend the California Constitution to eliminate those clauses, because the state wished to engage in "positive" discrimination which is prohibited by the Constitution. A narrow majority defeated that amendment. As to whether the (very clear) Constitutional prohibitions are applied universally and equally, I will leave that as an exercise to the reader.

by skyde 4y ago

ss108 4y ago

Why are you sure? Do you have some evidence or sources on this? What about the proposed constitutional amendment/proposition to permit certain types of affirmative action currently prohibited, which was rejected by California voters?

jimmygrapes 4y ago
Other things were rejected by California voters yet put into law anyway, most notably in recent years the allowance of homosexual marriage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
- ss108 4y ago
  Which fact does nothing to support the above poster's contention that "i’m sure california already have diversity hiring quotas for race!"
  - jimmygrapes 4y ago
    My apologies, I was not referring to that post but rather to the (inferred on my part) concept that popular vote on something should be the deciding factor for something becoming law. If I misinterpreted, my bad.
    - ss108 4y ago
      No worries. I agree with you in opposition to the notion that we should even have direct democracy for most, if not all, issues.

codefreeordie 4y ago

If you look above, I've provided the specific citations to the sub-sections of the California Constitution's Article I which codify the prohibition of preferential treatment based upon race. Indeed, there was a nearly-successful attempt in 2020 to amend the California Constitution to eliminate those clauses, because the state wished to engage in "positive" discrimination which is prohibited by the Constitution. A narrow majority defeated that amendment. As to whether the (very clear) Constitutional prohibitions are applied universally and equally, I will leave that as an exercise to the reader.