[gentoo]

I'm not sure whether I agree with the CA policy. But this argument against it is extremely unconvincing. It's almost word-for-word what segregationists argued against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

e.g. https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/06/barry-goldwater-decla...

"The two portion so this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action in the area of so-called "public accommodations" and in the area of employment--to be precise, Titles II and VII of the bill. I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government..."

[hn_throwaway_99]

But this CA law is basically the exact opposite of the 1964 Civil Rights act, which says you can not discriminate based on gender or race in areas like housing and hiring.

This law is saying that you must take into account race and gender in your hiring decisions.

[gentoo]

I was responding to

> The state shouldn't have a say in who gets a job at a private (non owned by state) company.

that's exactly what the Civil Rights Act does. The state has been telling you how you are allowed to make hiring decisions for a while now.

edit:

And here's Strom Thurmond on the Civil Rights Act:

"This bill would take away the rights of individuals and give to government the power to decide who is to be hired, fired and promoted in private businesses."

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/debate-on-the-c...