3 ms·
> Would you use the same logic to argue in favor of California updating it's law to remove listing race, sex, color, and ancestry from the list of explicitly de
by bigstrat2003 3y ago
> Would you use the same logic to argue in favor of California updating it's law to remove listing race, sex, color, and ancestry from the list of explicitly defined prohibitions?
If, as you have indicated, those provisions are already redundant under California law - of course I would. You seen to be asking this question as if you expect to catch someone in a contradiction, but I don't think you're going to find people support one situation but not the other.
- ribosometronome 3y agoMmm, sure. I ask because I expect folk would balk at removing explicit protections for race, sex, and the like because it could be liberally interpreted from other protections listed, as seems to be Gavin's argument here. Prior to this thread, I didn't really think folk would be up in arms in making the language of law being explicit in barring something we apparently all agree it does bar and should bar rather than leaving it ambiguous and reliant on judges not construing the law slightly less liberally than Newsom thinks they should. In other contexts, replacing the explicit callouts with ambiguous, broadly interpretable ones seems like the opportunity for harm is obvious.