11 ms·

I'm legitimately confused about the strength of opposition to the measure. It seems like it should be a small, uncontroversial, update to protected categories.

I'm legitimately confused about the strength of opposition to the measure. It seems like it should be a small, uncontroversial, update to protected categories. Are people opposing the term "caste" appearing in U.S. law? Is the concern that the law will cause other Americans to judge Indian/Nepalese/Sri Lankan communities? If anyone here can explain the emotional significance of the bill to someone who is not South Asian, I'd appreciate it!

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
margalabargala 3y ago
What's mentioned in the article is that as caste is a primarily SE Asian phenomenon, this is a bill that targets SE Asians. People tend not to like being singled out on the basis of their race. Mentioned in the article was one person who tried to address this by banning discrimination "on the basis of ancestry, including caste" which seems to me to be a completely reasonable adjustment.
- ghodith 3y ago
  > Mentioned in the article was one person who tried to address this by banning discrimination "on the basis of ancestry, including caste" which seems to me to be a completely reasonable adjustment. The bill has already been modified to use that verbiage. "Eventually, Wahab agreed to place caste under “ancestry” rather than list it as a standalone category" So it seems that those still opposed to the bill are not satisfied with that amendment.
  - margalabargala 3y ago
    For sure, which to me says that the targeting issue wasn't actually the real problem, which of course it wasn't. Discrimination based on ancestry shouldn't be allowed regardless of whether it's on a short timeframe (caste) or a long timeframe (race). What we're seeing now is what happens when people in positions of nonzero power who are used to getting to discriminate, are told not to. We saw the same thing in the American south when people were told they had to stop discriminating against people of African ancestry.
  - chargingmarmot 3y ago
    The bill is opposed by the Hindu American Foundation. They give their rationale for opposing the bill in: https://www.hinduamerican.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/HAFs-Opposition-Letter-to-Amended-SB-403-.pdf https://www.hinduamerican.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/HAF... They claim: "We share the admirable goals of protecting civil rights and eliminating all forms of prejudice and discrimination, including based on caste. As such, the question is not whether we deal with allegations of caste discrimination, but how. If and when caste discrimination allegations emerge, they should be adjudicated under the existing protected class of ancestry, just as the state of California did in California Department of Fair Employment Housing v. Cisco Systems, Inc." In https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0jxQY_cLti2XP3nEw0d9OBanbKEwEhMB3Yqj05rQvc/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0jxQY_cLti2XP3nEw0d9OBa... they state: "There is only one legal case on the issue of caste-discrimination in the United States to date. It involves an allegation of caste-based discrimination in the US." and give some facts related to that case. ( from https://www.hinduamerican.org/press-statements https://www.hinduamerican.org/press-statements )
    - hef19898 3y ago
      So, the problem is also the fact the whole concept of caste, not just discrimination based on it, risks being painted in a bad light. I am reading between the lines so. Would be a stretch to speculate about the caste make-up of said association?
    - PawgerZ 3y ago
      Some information about the caste according to the Hindu American Foundation a few years back: >In 2010, HAF issued a report titled "Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste" alleging that Christian missionaries were able to push their proselytizing agenda only because of the prevalence of caste discrimination in India; it went to argue that caste cannot be considered to be an intrinsic definitional aspect of Hinduism—due to a lack of theological sanction in its most sacred texts—and urged for reforms led by Hindus themselves. This led to a flutter in conservative Hindu circles of India and the next year, HAF toned down their report; they cautioned against the trend of passing resolutions against caste discrimination adopted by various global organizations and held caste to be an internal affair of a sovereign India. HAF has since portrayed castes as occupational guilds which had brought stability to premodern India before being reified under British colonialism; it has vehemently opposed drawing parallels between caste-discrimination and racism, and even any depiction of the caste-system as a rigid birth-determined pyramid of hierarchy. They started off fighting against the caste system, until the elites in India told them no. Ever since, they've minimized the impact the caste system had and still has -- not just in India.
- amluto 3y ago
  > What's mentioned in the article is that as caste is a primarily SE Asian phenomenon, this is a bill that targets SE Asians. People tend not to like being singled out on the basis of their race. That seems weak. One should not (and legally may not) discriminate on the basis of being Indian, which is a South Asian phenomenon. One should not discriminate on the basis of having Native Hawaiian ancestry, which is a Hawaiian phenomenon. And one should not discriminate on the basis of how many of someone’s ancestors happen to have been slaves in America, which is an American phenomenon (although there are surely analogues elsewhere). edit: SE -> South.
  - margalabargala 3y ago
    I don't disagree. It's just something the people who benefit from getting to discriminate focused on to try to get to keep discriminating. But IMO it's fine, because banning discrimination based on ancestry in general is better than banning discrimination on the basis of ancestry only when caste is involved. Mrs. McCoy shouldn't be able to discriminate against Mrs. Hatfield on the basis of last name either.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rawgabbit 3y ago
    I thought Indians are South Asian?
    - amluto 3y ago
      Whoops, I, mindlessly copied the post I was replying to.
- tremon 3y ago
  Maybe caste discrimination in the US is primarily a SE-Asian phenomenon, but there's plenty examples of caste systems in African nations as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_systems_in_Africa?useskin=timeless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_systems_in_Africa?useski...
  - FreshStart 3y ago
    Question: Is social discrimination based on wealth via witchcraft banned? In Africa those who are entrapaneurial and socially stick out, get hammered in by traditional witchcraft religions..
    - hef19898 3y ago
      From what I read, it is rather "witches" that get hammered down, quite literally, instead of dpimg the hammering of poor entrepreneurs.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    Not just Africa, plenty of other places. Japan comes to mind, e.g. the Burakumin aka Japanese Untouchables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin > Burakumin (部落民, 'hamlet/village people', 'those who live in hamlets/villages') is a term for ethnic Japanese people who are believed to be descended from members of the pre-Meiji castes which were associated with kegare (穢れ, 'defilement'), such as executioners, undertakers, slaughterhouse workers, butchers, and tanners...Due to severe discrimination and ostracism in Japanese society, these groups came to live as outcasts, in their own separate villages or ghettos. After the caste system was abolished, the term burakumin came into use to refer the former caste members and their descendants, who continued to experience stigmatization and discrimination.
- proxiful-wash 3y ago
  I can confirm people are singled out everywhere in the tech industry from not being SE Asian. And when they are the caste then will prevent them from moving forward on any front. SE Asians like to hire SE Asians only its pretty horrific and unchecked.
- petesergeant 3y ago
  > is that as caste is a primarily SE Asian phenomenon South Asian, not South-East Asian.
  - margalabargala 3y ago
    You're right, my apologies. It is unfortunately too late to edit the original post :(
- Simulacra 3y ago
  Discrimination can be such an umbrella issue. Anything added to that, for example ancestry, has the potential to do more harm than good. What is ancestry? How to prove it? Could a southerner born in Alabama say they were discriminated against colleagues in New York City for his southern ancestry?
- numpad0 3y ago
  Nitpick, it's South Asia, which is euphemism for India/Pakistan. Southeast is regions culturally more connected to China than India.
callalex 3y ago
Most of the people I have talked to in person about this with are opposed because they still like the caste discrimination, they just don’t like being forced to openly admit it. Nonsense about social order and the way things are and whatnot.
KenArrari 3y ago
I do kind of get the argument that this creates a category of crime that only indians can be convicted (or even accused) of. At least, nobody is openly saying that they're opposing the law because they want to do caste discrimination but if someone wants to be taken seriously they need to give a good answer for how they'll be addressing it.
- mkoubaa 3y ago
  I get that argument but have no sympathy for it whatsoever
- superfrank 3y ago
  Does it? I couldn't find details in the article (I just skimmed it though), but what if a non-Indian with almost no understanding of the caste system wakes up and decides they want to take their bigotry to the next level and starts discriminating based on caste just for the hell of it? Wouldn't they still be guilty under this law?
  - borski 3y ago
    Of course; but that’s a pretty big leap. It is very unlikely that some non-Indian bigot decides to study up on castes and begin discriminating on their basis. On the other hand, it is a very short leap that someone who is Indian might. Thus, in reality Indians are much more likely to break this law.
    - superfrank 3y ago
      1. There are plenty of laws that, in practice, only affect certain groups. There are plenty of laws around reproductive rights and sexual assault that are written in a way that they effectively target only one gender. Certain professions such as doctors and lawyers have regulations around what they can and cannot do because of their professions. Certain taxes effectively target only certain socio-economic classes. 2. Opponents of this say that it only targets a certain group of people, but for the exact same reasons, it also only protects one group of people.
mutant_glofish 3y ago
[flagged]
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Sorry but your effort to conflate protected categories and aff am seems completely wrong to me.
  - mutant_glofish 3y ago
    To me, it seems that they are very closely related.
    - whats_a_quasar 3y ago
      Protected categories = you can't refuse to hire someone because they're not white Affirmative action = you can give someone an advantage in a hiring process because they're not white, with the intention of correcting historical discrimination They are closely related in that they deal with race, gender, and class distinctions. But the ethics of the two are quite different. Banning discrimination by protected categories is uncontroversial. People have a lot more disagreements about affirmative action.
      - mutant_glofish 3y ago
        [flagged]
        whats_a_quasar 3y ago
        No? Refusing to hire someone because they are white is unlawful discrimination based on race. Discrimination against whites is not a hot topic in America because of the historical and social context, but the law makes no distinction.
    - wwtrv 3y ago
      Could you try to explain how? Do you generally oppose all race/gender/etc. based anti discrimination laws?
jimbob45 3y ago
There’s a glaring absence of any polling on the matter in this article. Instead we get a count of the number of protesters (hundreds!) and descriptions of lines spilling out the door. I get the feeling the author is heavily pro-caste and is carefully selecting data to fit their narrative.
- mkoubaa 3y ago
  Agreed. Shame on the editor
slowmovintarget 3y ago
It appears that the South Asian community in California is angry that the bill would mean that caste discrimination exists, and there seems to be the implication that many in that community want to bring that aspect of their culture with them to America. The actual bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB403 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  *some people in the south Asian community No one I know supports the caste system and as a person with Indian parents living in California I cheer this bill happening. People from South Asia aren’t a monolith, and my understanding is that caste based discrimination is more common in the Bay Area than other parts of the state, but either way discrimination based on religion, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, income, or any sort of box you can end up in that you don’t choose to be in should be illegal under the civil rights act.
hindsightbias 3y ago
Large portions of the US and the courts believe we live in a post-racial society where similar protections are affronts to society and them personally. Even teaching about historical slavery and discrimination is opposed. Not sure why south Asians in general would be any more enlightened.
darkerside 3y ago
I think there is a case to be made against it. What is the difference between this and people allying up against any other perceived outsider? Which is something that I would say is wrong, but isn't something I believe should be illegal. It's disappointing that companies lack the ability to deal with this issue in a mature way because having a policy and culture of inclusivity _should_ be enough to address this. I realize this is all derived from an optimistic viewpoint, but I think it's still worth sharing.
blahblahblack 3y ago
I am an Indian who oppose this bill, because of multiple reasons. A good amount of Indian population here in America is form a Hindu background. And the majority of that population doesn't really believe in a caste system. I have never ever ill intentionally asked anyone their caste. But the way the bill is worded, It implies that anyone in my lineage can be sued based on my perceived caste (based on allegations of course) that is inherited to me against my will. That's is literally discriminatory law. The bill defines caste as: “Caste” means an individual’s perceived position in a system of social stratification on the basis of inherited status. My son who never ever knew the term caste, can be sued when he grows up if in his 40s he becomes a manager and promoted someone which not promoting someone else. Right or wrong aside, my son did nothing wrong to be automatically finding himself in a category of a "perceived caste" that can be sued for caste discrimination. Mankind should work against such categorizations including religions.
- mkoubaa 3y ago
  "But the way the bill is worded, It implies that anyone in my lineage can be sued based on my perceived caste (based on allegations of course) that is inherited to me against my will." Not a legal expert but this is extremely far fetched. You must have a great deal of contempt for the US legal system if you think this.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    More like "now under this bill, I cannot discriminate anymore based on my, and others, heritage that was opposed on us against their will, obviously this is against nature / the will of the gods..."
    - blahblahblack 3y ago
      Bhai, I've never discriminated against anybody ever or even thought about it. I'm an extremely liberal person who support all the liberal policies in America. People need to open their eyes and realize that this bill is meant for split and division, not unity. This is definitely a larger political game than me and you.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> confused about the strength of opposition to the measure I’m also genuinely surprised and frankly intrigued by how quickly this topic gets flagged off HN. It seems there is serious disagreement about this in the tech community.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

margalabargala 3y ago

What's mentioned in the article is that as caste is a primarily SE Asian phenomenon, this is a bill that targets SE Asians. People tend not to like being singled out on the basis of their race. Mentioned in the article was one person who tried to address this by banning discrimination "on the basis of ancestry, including caste" which seems to me to be a completely reasonable adjustment.

ghodith 3y ago
> Mentioned in the article was one person who tried to address this by banning discrimination "on the basis of ancestry, including caste" which seems to me to be a completely reasonable adjustment. The bill has already been modified to use that verbiage. "Eventually, Wahab agreed to place caste under “ancestry” rather than list it as a standalone category" So it seems that those still opposed to the bill are not satisfied with that amendment.
- margalabargala 3y ago
  For sure, which to me says that the targeting issue wasn't actually the real problem, which of course it wasn't. Discrimination based on ancestry shouldn't be allowed regardless of whether it's on a short timeframe (caste) or a long timeframe (race). What we're seeing now is what happens when people in positions of nonzero power who are used to getting to discriminate, are told not to. We saw the same thing in the American south when people were told they had to stop discriminating against people of African ancestry.
- chargingmarmot 3y ago
  The bill is opposed by the Hindu American Foundation. They give their rationale for opposing the bill in: https://www.hinduamerican.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/HAFs-Opposition-Letter-to-Amended-SB-403-.pdf https://www.hinduamerican.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/HAF... They claim: "We share the admirable goals of protecting civil rights and eliminating all forms of prejudice and discrimination, including based on caste. As such, the question is not whether we deal with allegations of caste discrimination, but how. If and when caste discrimination allegations emerge, they should be adjudicated under the existing protected class of ancestry, just as the state of California did in California Department of Fair Employment Housing v. Cisco Systems, Inc." In https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0jxQY_cLti2XP3nEw0d9OBanbKEwEhMB3Yqj05rQvc/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0jxQY_cLti2XP3nEw0d9OBa... they state: "There is only one legal case on the issue of caste-discrimination in the United States to date. It involves an allegation of caste-based discrimination in the US." and give some facts related to that case. ( from https://www.hinduamerican.org/press-statements https://www.hinduamerican.org/press-statements )
  - hef19898 3y ago
    So, the problem is also the fact the whole concept of caste, not just discrimination based on it, risks being painted in a bad light. I am reading between the lines so. Would be a stretch to speculate about the caste make-up of said association?
  - PawgerZ 3y ago
    Some information about the caste according to the Hindu American Foundation a few years back: >In 2010, HAF issued a report titled "Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste" alleging that Christian missionaries were able to push their proselytizing agenda only because of the prevalence of caste discrimination in India; it went to argue that caste cannot be considered to be an intrinsic definitional aspect of Hinduism—due to a lack of theological sanction in its most sacred texts—and urged for reforms led by Hindus themselves. This led to a flutter in conservative Hindu circles of India and the next year, HAF toned down their report; they cautioned against the trend of passing resolutions against caste discrimination adopted by various global organizations and held caste to be an internal affair of a sovereign India. HAF has since portrayed castes as occupational guilds which had brought stability to premodern India before being reified under British colonialism; it has vehemently opposed drawing parallels between caste-discrimination and racism, and even any depiction of the caste-system as a rigid birth-determined pyramid of hierarchy. They started off fighting against the caste system, until the elites in India told them no. Ever since, they've minimized the impact the caste system had and still has -- not just in India.
amluto 3y ago
> What's mentioned in the article is that as caste is a primarily SE Asian phenomenon, this is a bill that targets SE Asians. People tend not to like being singled out on the basis of their race. That seems weak. One should not (and legally may not) discriminate on the basis of being Indian, which is a South Asian phenomenon. One should not discriminate on the basis of having Native Hawaiian ancestry, which is a Hawaiian phenomenon. And one should not discriminate on the basis of how many of someone’s ancestors happen to have been slaves in America, which is an American phenomenon (although there are surely analogues elsewhere). edit: SE -> South.
- margalabargala 3y ago
  I don't disagree. It's just something the people who benefit from getting to discriminate focused on to try to get to keep discriminating. But IMO it's fine, because banning discrimination based on ancestry in general is better than banning discrimination on the basis of ancestry only when caste is involved. Mrs. McCoy shouldn't be able to discriminate against Mrs. Hatfield on the basis of last name either.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rawgabbit 3y ago
  I thought Indians are South Asian?
  - amluto 3y ago
    Whoops, I, mindlessly copied the post I was replying to.
tremon 3y ago
Maybe caste discrimination in the US is primarily a SE-Asian phenomenon, but there's plenty examples of caste systems in African nations as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_systems_in_Africa?useskin=timeless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_systems_in_Africa?useski...
- FreshStart 3y ago
  Question: Is social discrimination based on wealth via witchcraft banned? In Africa those who are entrapaneurial and socially stick out, get hammered in by traditional witchcraft religions..
  - hef19898 3y ago
    From what I read, it is rather "witches" that get hammered down, quite literally, instead of dpimg the hammering of poor entrepreneurs.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  Not just Africa, plenty of other places. Japan comes to mind, e.g. the Burakumin aka Japanese Untouchables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin > Burakumin (部落民, 'hamlet/village people', 'those who live in hamlets/villages') is a term for ethnic Japanese people who are believed to be descended from members of the pre-Meiji castes which were associated with kegare (穢れ, 'defilement'), such as executioners, undertakers, slaughterhouse workers, butchers, and tanners...Due to severe discrimination and ostracism in Japanese society, these groups came to live as outcasts, in their own separate villages or ghettos. After the caste system was abolished, the term burakumin came into use to refer the former caste members and their descendants, who continued to experience stigmatization and discrimination.
proxiful-wash 3y ago
I can confirm people are singled out everywhere in the tech industry from not being SE Asian. And when they are the caste then will prevent them from moving forward on any front. SE Asians like to hire SE Asians only its pretty horrific and unchecked.
petesergeant 3y ago
> is that as caste is a primarily SE Asian phenomenon South Asian, not South-East Asian.
- margalabargala 3y ago
  You're right, my apologies. It is unfortunately too late to edit the original post :(
Simulacra 3y ago
Discrimination can be such an umbrella issue. Anything added to that, for example ancestry, has the potential to do more harm than good. What is ancestry? How to prove it? Could a southerner born in Alabama say they were discriminated against colleagues in New York City for his southern ancestry?
numpad0 3y ago
Nitpick, it's South Asia, which is euphemism for India/Pakistan. Southeast is regions culturally more connected to China than India.

callalex 3y ago

Most of the people I have talked to in person about this with are opposed because they still like the caste discrimination, they just don’t like being forced to openly admit it. Nonsense about social order and the way things are and whatnot.

KenArrari 3y ago

I do kind of get the argument that this creates a category of crime that only indians can be convicted (or even accused) of. At least, nobody is openly saying that they're opposing the law because they want to do caste discrimination but if someone wants to be taken seriously they need to give a good answer for how they'll be addressing it.

mkoubaa 3y ago
I get that argument but have no sympathy for it whatsoever
superfrank 3y ago
Does it? I couldn't find details in the article (I just skimmed it though), but what if a non-Indian with almost no understanding of the caste system wakes up and decides they want to take their bigotry to the next level and starts discriminating based on caste just for the hell of it? Wouldn't they still be guilty under this law?
- borski 3y ago
  Of course; but that’s a pretty big leap. It is very unlikely that some non-Indian bigot decides to study up on castes and begin discriminating on their basis. On the other hand, it is a very short leap that someone who is Indian might. Thus, in reality Indians are much more likely to break this law.
  - superfrank 3y ago
    1. There are plenty of laws that, in practice, only affect certain groups. There are plenty of laws around reproductive rights and sexual assault that are written in a way that they effectively target only one gender. Certain professions such as doctors and lawyers have regulations around what they can and cannot do because of their professions. Certain taxes effectively target only certain socio-economic classes. 2. Opponents of this say that it only targets a certain group of people, but for the exact same reasons, it also only protects one group of people.

mutant_glofish 3y ago

[flagged]

whimsicalism 3y ago
Sorry but your effort to conflate protected categories and aff am seems completely wrong to me.
- mutant_glofish 3y ago
  To me, it seems that they are very closely related.
  - whats_a_quasar 3y ago
    Protected categories = you can't refuse to hire someone because they're not white Affirmative action = you can give someone an advantage in a hiring process because they're not white, with the intention of correcting historical discrimination They are closely related in that they deal with race, gender, and class distinctions. But the ethics of the two are quite different. Banning discrimination by protected categories is uncontroversial. People have a lot more disagreements about affirmative action.
    - mutant_glofish 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - whats_a_quasar 3y ago
        No? Refusing to hire someone because they are white is unlawful discrimination based on race. Discrimination against whites is not a hot topic in America because of the historical and social context, but the law makes no distinction.
  - wwtrv 3y ago
    Could you try to explain how? Do you generally oppose all race/gender/etc. based anti discrimination laws?

jimbob45 3y ago

There’s a glaring absence of any polling on the matter in this article. Instead we get a count of the number of protesters (hundreds!) and descriptions of lines spilling out the door. I get the feeling the author is heavily pro-caste and is carefully selecting data to fit their narrative.

mkoubaa 3y ago
Agreed. Shame on the editor

slowmovintarget 3y ago

It appears that the South Asian community in California is angry that the bill would mean that caste discrimination exists, and there seems to be the implication that many in that community want to bring that aspect of their culture with them to America. The actual bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB403 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Shawnj2 3y ago
*some people in the south Asian community No one I know supports the caste system and as a person with Indian parents living in California I cheer this bill happening. People from South Asia aren’t a monolith, and my understanding is that caste based discrimination is more common in the Bay Area than other parts of the state, but either way discrimination based on religion, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, income, or any sort of box you can end up in that you don’t choose to be in should be illegal under the civil rights act.

hindsightbias 3y ago

Large portions of the US and the courts believe we live in a post-racial society where similar protections are affronts to society and them personally. Even teaching about historical slavery and discrimination is opposed. Not sure why south Asians in general would be any more enlightened.

darkerside 3y ago

I think there is a case to be made against it. What is the difference between this and people allying up against any other perceived outsider? Which is something that I would say is wrong, but isn't something I believe should be illegal. It's disappointing that companies lack the ability to deal with this issue in a mature way because having a policy and culture of inclusivity _should_ be enough to address this. I realize this is all derived from an optimistic viewpoint, but I think it's still worth sharing.

blahblahblack 3y ago

I am an Indian who oppose this bill, because of multiple reasons. A good amount of Indian population here in America is form a Hindu background. And the majority of that population doesn't really believe in a caste system. I have never ever ill intentionally asked anyone their caste. But the way the bill is worded, It implies that anyone in my lineage can be sued based on my perceived caste (based on allegations of course) that is inherited to me against my will. That's is literally discriminatory law. The bill defines caste as: “Caste” means an individual’s perceived position in a system of social stratification on the basis of inherited status. My son who never ever knew the term caste, can be sued when he grows up if in his 40s he becomes a manager and promoted someone which not promoting someone else. Right or wrong aside, my son did nothing wrong to be automatically finding himself in a category of a "perceived caste" that can be sued for caste discrimination. Mankind should work against such categorizations including religions.

mkoubaa 3y ago
"But the way the bill is worded, It implies that anyone in my lineage can be sued based on my perceived caste (based on allegations of course) that is inherited to me against my will." Not a legal expert but this is extremely far fetched. You must have a great deal of contempt for the US legal system if you think this.
- hef19898 3y ago
  More like "now under this bill, I cannot discriminate anymore based on my, and others, heritage that was opposed on us against their will, obviously this is against nature / the will of the gods..."
  - blahblahblack 3y ago
    Bhai, I've never discriminated against anybody ever or even thought about it. I'm an extremely liberal person who support all the liberal policies in America. People need to open their eyes and realize that this bill is meant for split and division, not unity. This is definitely a larger political game than me and you.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> confused about the strength of opposition to the measure I’m also genuinely surprised and frankly intrigued by how quickly this topic gets flagged off HN. It seems there is serious disagreement about this in the tech community.