>The law itself thinks it's covering a hole in existing protections I don't think that was quite the argument. Per Sen. Wahab: >It’s largely believed that Cali

>The law itself thinks it's covering a hole in existing protections I don't think that was quite the argument. Per Sen. Wahab: >It’s largely believed that California’s civil rights law does cover caste to some degree, because some people will put it under the concept of ancestry or race. But caste is very specific; it encompasses more than just those two factors. We are just trying to clarify the law to explicitly include protection against discrimination based on a person’s caste, which we define as a system of social stratification, in which people are characterized by hereditary status, social barriers and other forms of segregation. The intent seems to be to ensure no future confusion based upon something we all presently read in the law. Given how Gavin Newsom has recently been publicly at odds with judges over the interpretation of laws and that we've seen interpretations change radically over time (2nd amendment!), it's hardly without precedent. >predictable second-order effect of this explicit enumeration... and those doing the accounting will find the easiest path through it. Rather than comparing to consumer labeling laws, what about comparing to other presently enumerated forms of discrimination (and information collection requirements). Do you think we are presently harming minorities with these same second order effects from explicitly listing race and requirements to measure race in hiring? Or that non-heterosexual folk were harmed by explicitly adding sexual orientation (courts had previously inferred it based on prohibiting sex based discrimination)?