California will now require more diversity on company boards

How does this work with the Civil Rights act of 1964?

>Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin

Also what if a board member is LGBT but has only come out to close friends or co-workers, or simply doesn't want to announce it to the world, wouldn't they face unfair pressure to go public with their sexuality?

I’m living in Europe and the general consensus is these rules have cause more harm than benefit. You cannot force diversity quotas without hurting everything about the freedom of starting your own business.

While I think the intent of a law like this is noble, I fear it will throw fuel on the "leaving California for X state fire".

Wouldn't it be better to financially incentivise doing this, than simply force it?

That way, leadership positions can be an equation of balancing financial benefit from government incentives against financial loss from having a low quality candidate take up valuable space just because they tick a diversity box.

I'm all for diversity, I would know. I'm LGBTQ. But how CSR is often done in the corporate world is rather stultifyingly and 'token' at best.

I still think this is good - do prove me wrong - just saying it could be done better.

Why isn’t it based on performance.