What a shitty clickbait title. Makes it sound like this is a bad thing, even though the article doesn’t paint it in that way. I’m sure people who only read the title will stir up a bit of outrage over nothing.
Before anyone says it, I know the title is the same as the article. I’m aiming my criticism at that, not the post.
“Because discrimination based on caste is already prohibited under these existing categories, this bill is unnecessary,” he said in the statement.
Just to highlight the reason for the veto.
So he didn’t want to add another bullet point to the states penal code?
*slow clap*
The penal code? No one goes to prison for discrimination. It’s a civil matter.
When I read a title that sounds completely ridiculous, I tend to ignore it. Certain politicians, however, really vex me by being such ridiculous people in the first place that it turns out headlines about them are true. Thusfar, Newsom isn’t one of them.
This article isn’t about nothing. I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do know that there are types of discrimination that aren’t clear from the outside looking in. California in particular has a bunch of newly emigrated Indian residents that may be brining over their old prejudices to the state.
I’m guessing you can’t tell which job applicants are Dalits are which aren’t just from the names of the applicants. There are plenty of people in positions of power who can.
Is that all that was in the bill? I completely mistrust …“vetoed bill that sounds like good stuff” statements as bills are never that clean, there are nearly always poison pill attachments when that seems to be the case.
