The difficulty here is the collision between explicit discrimination by the state (prohibited in this case by the CA constitution) and de facto discrimination by private actors (see the significant under-representation of many different demographic groups in positions of power and wealth).
CA sought to use the power of the state to legislate some private behavior to reduce the negative impact of de facto discrimination by private actors. The judge has said "no, the CA constitution prevents you from doing this, since that would be explicit discrimination by the state".
If you accept for a moment that there is de facto discrimination arising from the actions of private actors, and you believe that this is a net negative for society, how would you go about reducing or elimination it?
Of course, you may not accept that there is de facto discrimination by private actors, but then you need to explain the underrepresenation of different demographics, and likely in order to appear reasonably sane, your argument needs to be something other than "that's just the way it is". What argument is there to explain the underrepresentation that doesn't ultimately confirm that it is actually discrimination?
CA sought to use the power of the state to legislate some private behavior to reduce the negative impact of de facto discrimination by private actors. The judge has said "no, the CA constitution prevents you from doing this, since that would be explicit discrimination by the state".
If you accept for a moment that there is de facto discrimination arising from the actions of private actors, and you believe that this is a net negative for society, how would you go about reducing or elimination it?
Of course, you may not accept that there is de facto discrimination by private actors, but then you need to explain the underrepresenation of different demographics, and likely in order to appear reasonably sane, your argument needs to be something other than "that's just the way it is". What argument is there to explain the underrepresentation that doesn't ultimately confirm that it is actually discrimination?