Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


Are Supporters of Anti-Discrimination Laws GUILTY of Committing Discrimination?

There is a glaring and significant inequality going on in this country and the circumstances should shake the very foundation to the core.

With the signing of HB2 in North Carolina, that state is taking an aggressive approach that is sending shockwaves across the country: banning men from the women’s bathroom.

What was told to you in grade school as a simple rule, alongside washing your hands before eating, zipping up your pants, and putting your mittens on the correct way, is becoming a source of intense scrutiny.

The law is said to be anti-gay because, obviously, gay people are going to want to start going into the bathroom opposite their gender.

Governor Pat McCrory seems stunned at the attention being given to what he obviously sees as a common sense request from parents hoping their 12-year-old daughter doesn’t have to pee next to a 45-year-old man squatting in a dress in the stall next to them at the local library.

Celebrities and politicians are punishing the state of North Carolina, urging a travel stoppage, cancelling events there, and badmouthing all residents. Punishing all of the residents of North Carolina is obviously the fair and compassionate way to handle this, coming from the Democrat party and their fair and compassionate approach to everything.

But the protest has nothing to do with compassion or fairness or equality. It has to do with control.

Bryan Adams, who just got back performing in Egypt where the act of being gay is a definite prison sentence, cancelled his concert in the state. Had he been concerned about these things he would have not performed in Egypt.

The anti-establishment push of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump has just about sent the Communist-Democrat party over the edge, and the issue of bringing men into the women’s bathroom is a giant middle finger pointed right back at those who want to cut off the stream of Democrat voters and government dependents coming from south of the border.

Opponents are saying this is discriminatory and the White House is even threatening to cut off the “flow” of taxpayer money that the North Carolina taxpayers have been extorted through the federal process from returning to North Carolina.

Governors like Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania are signing executive orders disallowing discrimination, and there’s a certain push to make it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity, that is, what gender you’re feeling like today.

There is a terrible injustice though and it’s not even being discussed directly.

The Illinois Human Rights Act, similar to many across the nation, reads as follows: To secure for all individuals within Illinois the freedom from discrimination against any individual because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, order of protection status, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or unfavorable discharge from military service in connection with employment, real estate transactions, access to financial credit, and the availability of public accommodations.

All individuals should be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Discrimination is to treat one group of people differently because of something. To treat a gay person differently than a straight person, a black person differently than a white person, etc.

We all understand that clearly.

So what happens when a court drags someone in and charges them with a crime of discrimination?

The court is treating that gay person differently than the straight person, correct? Otherwise, there would be no case.

The court must identify that person, the “victim” who was disallowed access to the bathroom of the opposite sex, as different than a true member of the opposite sex, thereby admitting discrimination within the judicial system.

This discriminatory act, in the state of Illinois, is illegal. Should the court treat someone differently due to gender identity or sexual orientation, then the court is, in fact, breaking the law when doing so.

Even the anti-discrimination rule that is (appropriately) placed within the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010, barring anyone from “The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,” causes a serious question for the judge that acts on these “hate crime” laws that send a criminal to a violent end (like the electric chair). Of course the death sentence likely doesn’t fall under the laws defined as “violence” in the act, but should that matter?

The real question we have to ask ourselves is this: why should the judicial system be given the right to discriminate?

For how does a color-blind society, a gender neutral nation, and a free and equal people, be held as equal in the eyes of the law when the law itself doesn’t see them so?

Image: Courtesy of Marco Maas @

Share if you agree the anti-discrimination set appears to be guilty of practicing discrimination.

Ian Bayne

Ian Bayne is a former radio talk show host and political consultant. He is currently a small business owner living in central Illinois. Follow him on Twitter @ ianbayneisright

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *