That being said, it does provide some recourse for those who can show they’ve been discriminated because of their caste against the perpetrator. It doesn’t fix the root of the issue, and cases might be difficult to prove, but seems like a net good to add this protection. Might force discrimination on these grounds to be more subtle, but that means blatant discrimination would have consequences. Which again, seems better than the status quo.

Better to have the law then to not have it sure.

But from a practical perspective all of this is already done and kept on the DL even before the law was in place. The social pressure already stops the blatant treatment from occurring.

Nonsense. People respond to incentives all the time. I recommend reading up on "zero-determinate strategies": all it takes to change someone's behavior is changing your behavior in response in ways that impact their payoffs.

We are rationalizing creatures, not rational creatures. Once racism, sexism or caste discrimination stop being strategic, people stop buying into them. The book "Pax Ethnica: Where and How Diversity Succeeds" describes several instance where this worked. Voluntary legal protection of minority rights by a historically-dominant group has repeatedly dismantled long-standing ethnic conflicts.

Nonsense my ass. What fantasy incentive are you talking about? There's no incentive preventing someone from not hiring someone because of their caste and then completely fabricating a different reason.

>We are rationalizing creatures, not rational creatures. Once racism, sexism or caste discrimination stop being strategic, people stop buying into them.

Sure but the point is, it will never be "not strategic".

It's only strategic when it incurs social rewards from some people and no countervailing social condemnation from others.

It's up to us to be that countervailing social condemnation. Even imposing that cost of making up a totally different reason raises the cost of discrimination, and raising the cost of something means people will do it less.

Promoting cancel culture? Personally I find cancel culture too reactionary and too extreme and irrational. Additionally cancel culture often gets shit wrong and ruins the lives of the wrong people. I would say in this case if you participated in such a mistake you should be the one that's put down.

But let's disregard that. For this specific case you can't even know who to socially condemn. If the law can't determine it how can you?

Where is cancel culture when you need it.

20 transexual people who identify as furries applied to my job post. I didn't hire any of them because they didn't have the technical skills to perform the job.