Here is the original text of the ACT TO PREVENT ADVERTISEMENTS TENDING TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PERSONS OF ANY RELIGIOUS SECT, CREED, CLASS, DENOMINATION OR NATIONALITY BY PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, RESORT OR AMUSEMENT, passed into law on April 6, 1933:
Section 92 A. No owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or another, publish, issue, circulate, distribute or display, or cause to be published, issued, circulated, distributed or displayed, in any way, any advertisement, circular, folder, book, pamphlet, written, or painted or printed notice or sign, of any kind or description, intended to discriminate against or actually discriminating against persons of any religious sect, creed, class, race, color, denomination or nationality, in the full enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges offered to the general public by such places of public accommodation, resort or amusement, provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the mailing to any person of a private communication in writing, in response to his specific written inquiry.
Emphasis added to show that the language Red Mass Group finds so offensive has not changed since the original 1933 act.
As you can see, the law is on the books not to "ban what we can write in books," but to keep business owners from putting up signs that say "Whites Only", or from including "No Irish need apply" in a newspaper advertisement. It's an anti-discrimination statute, period.
Over the years, the section has been amended to include sex, sexual orientation, and disability among other reasons that one cannot suffer discrimination.
That is what H. 1728 does: it adds bisexual and transgender to the definitions of those protected from discrimination. It doesn't take away anyone's right to free speech, right to use the bathroom, or anything else.
So, a question for Red Mass Groupies that also post here. Do you guys really support a repeal of the anti-discrimation act of 1933, or do you just not read the bills you oppose?
…many at RMG do not want to go back to 1932…they want to leapfrog past the Progressive Era until the way Back machine brings us to the old Gilded Era of the 1870s and ’80s.
They hate laws over there, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they hated anti-discrimination laws too. As far as they’re concerned, they should be allowed to do every single thing they might ever want to do, and even things they might never want to do.
..bisexual and transgender. Neither should face discrimination in the written word, as per the above. Plus, once you close the stall door, who cares (now, should urinals also have stalls? Inquiring minds want to know.) I think of a certain senator’s problem and maybe stalls around urinals would be a good idea.
Even pre-Senator Craig ones.