South Asians Are Divided over a Pending Ban on Caste Discrimination
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Interested to hear from the SA members of HN on this one.
> Mr. Sinha told me that he was concerned that the addition would make South Asians like him more vulnerable to unfair accusations of discrimination.
Basically, most people can't be accused of caste discrimination, since they are completely unaware of caste markers. This understandably makes the people who could conceivably be accused of it less-than-happy because it's another thing they have to think about when hiring, promoting, etc.
The Constitution forbids the government establishing or promoting a specific religion, and civil rights laws protect people from discrimination based on their faith. But those laws don’t allow religious people or organizations to operate outside the law.
Americans can believe whatever they want and worship in their own way. They cannot mistreat other people because their religious tradition tells them to.
The traditions and rules in the Bible are somewhat more complicated than "every descendant of a slave is a slave," because the Bible (like Greek and Roman law) recognized different kinds of slaves, with different rights. As to your comment, see Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:1-36. For example: "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's..."
> Your comment seems very unhelpful in the context of how these things are decided in the USA.
The Constitution only prohibits the government establishing a state religion, or favoring any specific religion, as I stated in my original comment. It does not get into specifics like religious customs that conflict with secular laws. However US courts only recognize the secular laws of the US; Sharia, the Bible, Catholic Canon Law have no standing or force in US courts. The argument that the Hindu holy texts predate the US Constitution and American laws means nothing in US courts.
> The precedence that religious customs such as Sikhs wearing kirpans have been ruled in favor over anti-weapon laws.
Not sure what that means or what you refer to. The ruling regarding kirpans has to do with carrying a (ceremonial) knife into a Federal workplace. The decision to allow kirpans hinged on the same agency allowing other sharper and longer knives under their policy, not really a question of freedom of religion. In any case the issue was not can someone practice the Sikh faith in the US, but can someone carry a potential weapon into a workplace (or on a plane, or on a campus) just because their religion calls for carrying such a potential weapon. The answer is "it depends." If someone's religion says they have to carry a sharpened scimitar or a Glock 9mm they aren't going to get the same kind of allowance.
> The state can pass whatever laws it wants. It is up to the courts to decide these challenges.
At issue was an IRS workplace security policy, not a law enacted by Congress. But I get your point.
Regardless, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_...
Entirely correct. I just meant that as a catchall for the various actual legal protections that are meant to encapsulate that ideal.
So 25-50 years? That doesn't sound great for people affected today.
> If you codify it legally it’s going to drag on forever.
Why do you think codifying a ban would make the banned thing last longer? (Given you say it's naturally dying anyway)
Codifying it just makes it so people are required to remember their labels for the benefits that come from identifying as a victimized community and pass those labels on to their kids. It’s fucking terrible.
Why do you think you need to know your label? If someone thinks you're of a given caste and discriminates against you, that's still wrong, regardless if they got the label right.
For example, someone shouted some things at me (wrongly) assuming I was Jewish. That's shitty regardless and would be illegal in some circumstances.
None of those are included in the bill: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB403/id/2840105
But they were not prevented from happening without the bill either.
Source: the origins of political order, F. Fukuyama
What difference do the origins make, all that matters is if you have a generation that can’t tell the difference it all dies.
Having said that, it is very easy to discriminate against someone with a different skin color. But a different caste? I truly do not know how anyone who have any idea what caste a person belonged to, or comes from. But I am very curious.
"Your denial there is a problem proves how big the problem really is." - I've heard this trick before. I know nothing about caste discrimination in the US, and concede it may indeed be a real problem. But your logic is unsound.
"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
I had to fire a programmer once over this. I promoted a woman on my team over a man who wanted the job. She got the promotion because she deserved it, and the rest of the team respected her. The man told me “I can’t work for a woman, especially not one from a lower caste.” So I told him he should find another job.