> The argument here is that ancestry already covers caste so it’s unnecessary. It seems that there is caselaw in California indicating that courts do not belie

> The argument here is that ancestry already covers caste so it’s unnecessary. It seems that there is caselaw in California indicating that courts do not believe ancestry covers caste (?) It's unclear really; nobody in this thread has posted any caselaw either way. It could be that the issue is so unsettled that maybe it would make sense for advocates of the law to first try to establish that ancestry covers it--or build up some clear precedent that ancestry is inadequate in the process.