I'm not sure if you noticed, but there are already legal protections for discrimination on basis of race and religion.

> There's a vast array of prejudices and grievances in most cultures. Are you going to enumerate them all?

Are you going to enumerate them all in defense of caste discrimination on the faulty logic that we have to eliminate every other possible injustice before we tackle caste discrimination?

What would cover discrimination based on religion if religion was not in that list?

The argument here is that ancestry already covers caste so it’s unnecessary.

Adding caste, assuming Newsom’s argument is correct, would then be the equivalent of adding religious denomination because an Evangelical Christian is concerned a Catholic is discriminating against them.

And most likely that would never even see the light of day because people would reasonably argue that’s already covered under discrimination based on religion.

> The argument here is that ancestry already covers caste so it’s unnecessary.

It seems that there is caselaw in California indicating that courts do not believe ancestry covers caste (?)

It's unclear really; nobody in this thread has posted any caselaw either way. It could be that the issue is so unsettled that maybe it would make sense for advocates of the law to first try to establish that ancestry covers it--or build up some clear precedent that ancestry is inadequate in the process.