Mmm, 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 ot

Mmm, 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.