Then there are libertarians like Rand Paul, who take the view that anti-discrimination legislation in general is a bad idea because it infringes on the right of business owners to run their companies as they choose. When challenged, this school of thought often argues that left to its own devices, the market will eventually eliminate discrimination as customers avoid businesses with discriminatory practices. But the law is largely reactive, and as I remarked earlier, the sheer number of protected classes and amount of legislation suggests that the opposite is true; that the market gives businesses in general and recruiters in particular strong incentives to discriminate.
So while sympathizing with already overburdened HR professionals for whom it will make their jobs that bit more difficult, I welcome the proposed legislation. And if it doesn't pass? Well, there's always the maxim of the market, which says that if an employer chooses not to hire you because of some arbitrary reason such as your inconsiderate failure to have a paycheck, they probably weren't worth working for anyway. But then there's that other economic maxim: beggars can't be choosers. Better, perhaps, to work for an asshole: then at least you improve your chances of landing a slightly better job with a slightly lesser asshole.