3 ms·
> But additionally, the law prohibits discrimination based on "genetic information" That sounds specific to using DNA tests for things like health insurance or
by belltaco 3y ago
> But additionally, the law prohibits discrimination based on "genetic information"
That sounds specific to using DNA tests for things like health insurance or work fitness. In most of the cases you don't need to swab DNA to find someone's race, sex or ancestry. You can find those by other means. So that law won't prohibit discrimination based on sex, race and ancestry.
- ribosometronome 3y agoMy interpretation could be and probably is wrong. I'm not sure it's super important to the point I'm trying to make, though, especially given that Newsom's explicit argument is that this is unnecessary because we already can liberally interpret some categories to cover this. I'm more getting at why value conciseness over clarity? Even if "genetic information" doesn't cover them presently, there's no reason it couldn't to achieve Gavin Newsom's new goal of not having laws be overly explicit.
- belltaco 3y agohttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/30/anti-sharia-laws-trump-muslims https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/30/anti-sharia-...