4 ms·

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 majorit

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.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Ah, pardon? In case caste based discrimination isn't a thing, this bill won't make a difference. And it wont devide anyone. The title was, that it hit a nerve, that bill. It seems that truely is the case...
- blahblahblack 3y ago
  It's not just about legal system being abused. I would like to see casteism dissolved from the world. Grew up in India and I was taught to be caste agnostic. I have seen my parents being friends with and working with people of all castes. I grew up pretty liberal. This bill is trying to attack on a problem that does not exist on the same scale as any of the other discriminatory issues that we ever talk about here in America. We are creating a problem out of our imagination. The kind of arguments that I see from people on internet including this forum are hilarious. People say that The people of highcast would say vegetarians only for the room advertisement or someone can be denied of a marriage proposal based on their caste. That's all really stupid talk. Being a vegetarianism is a global phenomena. Just because I'm a Hindu doesn't mean I am trying to discriminate against someone who eats non vegetarian because they are low caste and I'm not a low caste (again in perception only). For a matter like marriage, it is extremely personal and people are allowed to decline on proposals based on their personal choice.
  - tremon 3y ago
    the bill is trying to attack on a problem that does not exist on the same scale as any of the other discriminatory issues This is an invalid argument. You are effectively defending a practice based on the argument that it's not widespread. That's the same as saying that we don't need to protect transgender issues because they hardly ever get discriminated against. No -- for one, you cannot say for certain how widespread the practice is (and "I'm transgender myself" does not make you an authority on that), and second: low prevalence is not a reason for not prohibiting something. What's next? We shouldn't make laws against police violence because they kill less than 100 people/year? If you really want to see casteism dissolved, you should not oppose laws trying to codify exactly that.
  - sn9 3y ago
    With that logic, the fact that I can find people who were raised in liberal environments and taught not to discriminate at all is sufficient grounds to get rid of anti-discrimination laws altogether. That's absurd. The laws aren't for people who wouldn't discriminate. They're for the people who demonstrably do.
crazygringo 3y ago
The problem with that argument is that it's the same one used to justify not having laws against racial discrimination or gender discrimination. E.g. you can be a white manager and not a racist and promote a better-qualified white employee rather than a less-qualified black one, and then be sued. "Just because I automatically found myself being white!" The solution is simply to have good documentation around the reasons for who you're promoting, and then the suit will lose. (In 99.99% of cases, the suit won't happen in the first place because no lawyer would take it if there isn't hard evidence of actual racial discrimination.) This kind of documentation is generally pretty easy, and it's good business practice besides. This has worked pretty well at making a big dent in race-based discrimination. Why should it be any different for caste-based discrimination?
- blahblahblack 3y ago
  They have been literally infinite issues related to gender and race discrimination before such protections were in the law. Regarding the caste-based issue, there is literally just one case that was in the courts. And the case was pulled back (not settled). There is Zero evidence of any caste-based discrimination across the Americas in workplace today. You can not get away from your race. But you can get away from religions and caste. I would like to get away from my religion and caste. This bill makes it impossible.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    > There is Zero evidence of any caste-based discrimination across the Americas in workplace today. That seems to be factually untrue. And you can't cite the lack of court cases as evidence, because court cases aren't brought unless there's a law in the first place. > I would like to get away from my religion and caste. This bill makes it impossible. No, the bill is a path to do precisely that. What you're saying makes as much sense as "passing anti-racism laws makes it impossible to get away from race as issue". That's not how it works.
catlover76 3y ago
I think you have some misunderstanding about how anti-discrimination laws actually work. Others probably have more expertise than me, but I would highlight the following points: 1) The only way such a lawsuit would be successful is if he actually did something to indicate some decision was based off of caste. 2) Everyone can already be sued based off of attributes they have inherited against their will. People can be sued for discriminating against the opposite (or even the same!) gender, people can be sued for discriminating on the basis of race. Your son didn't choose to get born Indian, but he could still be sued for promoting Indians over Hispanics or something. 3) It is not only higher caste Hindus that can be sued for caste discrimination if that's a protected status. A manager of no religion or any religion could also be theoretically sued for discriminating against low-caste Hindus--or descendants of Japanese butchers, which, to my knowledge, constitute a low caste in Japan.

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.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Ah, pardon? In case caste based discrimination isn't a thing, this bill won't make a difference. And it wont devide anyone. The title was, that it hit a nerve, that bill. It seems that truely is the case...
blahblahblack 3y ago
It's not just about legal system being abused. I would like to see casteism dissolved from the world. Grew up in India and I was taught to be caste agnostic. I have seen my parents being friends with and working with people of all castes. I grew up pretty liberal. This bill is trying to attack on a problem that does not exist on the same scale as any of the other discriminatory issues that we ever talk about here in America. We are creating a problem out of our imagination. The kind of arguments that I see from people on internet including this forum are hilarious. People say that The people of highcast would say vegetarians only for the room advertisement or someone can be denied of a marriage proposal based on their caste. That's all really stupid talk. Being a vegetarianism is a global phenomena. Just because I'm a Hindu doesn't mean I am trying to discriminate against someone who eats non vegetarian because they are low caste and I'm not a low caste (again in perception only). For a matter like marriage, it is extremely personal and people are allowed to decline on proposals based on their personal choice.
- tremon 3y ago
  the bill is trying to attack on a problem that does not exist on the same scale as any of the other discriminatory issues This is an invalid argument. You are effectively defending a practice based on the argument that it's not widespread. That's the same as saying that we don't need to protect transgender issues because they hardly ever get discriminated against. No -- for one, you cannot say for certain how widespread the practice is (and "I'm transgender myself" does not make you an authority on that), and second: low prevalence is not a reason for not prohibiting something. What's next? We shouldn't make laws against police violence because they kill less than 100 people/year? If you really want to see casteism dissolved, you should not oppose laws trying to codify exactly that.
- sn9 3y ago
  With that logic, the fact that I can find people who were raised in liberal environments and taught not to discriminate at all is sufficient grounds to get rid of anti-discrimination laws altogether. That's absurd. The laws aren't for people who wouldn't discriminate. They're for the people who demonstrably do.

crazygringo 3y ago

The problem with that argument is that it's the same one used to justify not having laws against racial discrimination or gender discrimination. E.g. you can be a white manager and not a racist and promote a better-qualified white employee rather than a less-qualified black one, and then be sued. "Just because I automatically found myself being white!" The solution is simply to have good documentation around the reasons for who you're promoting, and then the suit will lose. (In 99.99% of cases, the suit won't happen in the first place because no lawyer would take it if there isn't hard evidence of actual racial discrimination.) This kind of documentation is generally pretty easy, and it's good business practice besides. This has worked pretty well at making a big dent in race-based discrimination. Why should it be any different for caste-based discrimination?

blahblahblack 3y ago
They have been literally infinite issues related to gender and race discrimination before such protections were in the law. Regarding the caste-based issue, there is literally just one case that was in the courts. And the case was pulled back (not settled). There is Zero evidence of any caste-based discrimination across the Americas in workplace today. You can not get away from your race. But you can get away from religions and caste. I would like to get away from my religion and caste. This bill makes it impossible.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > There is Zero evidence of any caste-based discrimination across the Americas in workplace today. That seems to be factually untrue. And you can't cite the lack of court cases as evidence, because court cases aren't brought unless there's a law in the first place. > I would like to get away from my religion and caste. This bill makes it impossible. No, the bill is a path to do precisely that. What you're saying makes as much sense as "passing anti-racism laws makes it impossible to get away from race as issue". That's not how it works.

catlover76 3y ago

I think you have some misunderstanding about how anti-discrimination laws actually work. Others probably have more expertise than me, but I would highlight the following points: 1) The only way such a lawsuit would be successful is if he actually did something to indicate some decision was based off of caste. 2) Everyone can already be sued based off of attributes they have inherited against their will. People can be sued for discriminating against the opposite (or even the same!) gender, people can be sued for discriminating on the basis of race. Your son didn't choose to get born Indian, but he could still be sued for promoting Indians over Hispanics or something. 3) It is not only higher caste Hindus that can be sued for caste discrimination if that's a protected status. A manager of no religion or any religion could also be theoretically sued for discriminating against low-caste Hindus--or descendants of Japanese butchers, which, to my knowledge, constitute a low caste in Japan.