The Modern-Day Leftist Inversion of a Notoriously Horrible Concept
In 1896, the US Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that segregation was legal, so long as the segregated party (American blacks) had equal facilities. This case is mostly remembered by the simple phrase “separate but equal” - a ruling and a phrase that have rightfully been bashed and derided as one of the worst high-profile SCOTUS rulings of all time.
Today, however, we see “separate but equal” constantly, and by demand; perhaps a better phrasing would be “equal but separate”, however, as this concept has been inverted and subverted by American leftists to their advantage, not to hold one demographic down, but to legislatively place a preferred demographic above the rest of society
Demonstrating this right now in Wyoming is HB230, the so-titled “Enhancing Quality Employment Law”.
Sounds innocuous and entirely justified, right? Of course it does. That’s how horrific bills are always presented. For example, on December 31st, 2011, then-President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which, well, sounds entirely fine. Except it allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens who are never charged with a crime, so long as the government (y’know, those totally unbiased folks like Clinton, Trump, Schumer, Pelosi, Comey, McConnell, etc.) decide that person is somehow guilty of anything to do with terrorism. It essentially codified thoughtcrime, a la Orwell. That might have not passed were it called the “You Have No Rights, Habeas Corpus Doesn’t Exist, and We Can Make You Disappear Like it’s the USSR” bill.
Now that we’ve established bill titles are generally deceptive at best, and outright lies at worst, let us delve into this bill, and elucidate precisely why such an innocent-sounding bill is, in fact, incredibly deceptive and existent entirely for the promotion of a special-interest group.
The gist of the bill is that nobody can discriminate against someone “because of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or pregnancy”.
Wait a minute….that kind of just sounds like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, passed way back in 1964. All of that already is entirely illegal, codified, and defended in courts at every level countless times...except for the bit about “gender identity, sexual orientation”.
This is an LGBTQ-wants-more-attention bill, and that is ALL it’s being sold as by every legislator behind it, and every organization supporting it. This is special legislation exclusively to say “Hey, we’re special, give us attention”. The rest of the classes tucked into the text of the bill? Only present to make it seem as if the goal here is actual equality.
Well, that’s funny. Because Wyoming is called “The Equality State”, and here’s Section 2 of the Wyoming Constitution:
“Equality of all. In their inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all members of the human race are equal.”
It’s almost like Wyoming settled this back in 1889, a full 75 years before the rest of the US even caught up. But, still, this surfaces. And the waters have been tested over the last few years at local levels, emboldening the always-attention-seeking LGBTQ activists to pursue this at a state level. In 2015, an identical bill was proposed at the state level and shot down. In 2016, activists got the town councils of Cheyenne, Douglas, Gillette, and Jackson to pass “resolutions” saying “Hey, guys, don’t discriminate against LGBTQ people, thanks”, and Casper passed one in late 2018; for the record, a resolution is, literally, a meaningless statement, carrying absolutely zero legal weight whatsoever. A resolution is absolutely nothing more than a gold star sticker for a crying toddler who craves attention above all else. This is what the LGBT community is at this point in time - just in case that wasn’t obvious from the fact that they’re constantly demanding gigantic parades where the entire route is covered in trash and glitter and beads because everyone else can clean up their mess - they’re special, after all.
Finally, proving discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is, realistically, impossible, unless the plaintiff in such a case would have a recording in which the defendant stated the words “I am not hiring you because of your sexual orientation/gender identity”. Any employer can simply say “I didn’t like the way so-and-so interviewed”, and that’s the end of that. Even passed, this legislation is unenforceable and a complete waste of time in most instances; it’s a public relations move, and a cry for attention. The one place it will apply, is in a situation similar to the various bakers who have refused to bake wedding cakes for gay couples - their right as private business owners, whether anyone likes it or not - and were then hit with lawsuits/fines. While the famous Masterpiece case was overturned narrowly by the Supreme Court, it was on a technicality that has since been corrected for, and, should another such case reach SCOTUS, it would likely be ruled the other way, even with the latest appointees. In essence, the only difference this bill could EVER make is to trample the individual religious and business rights of anyone who happens to morally disapprove of anything LGBTQ. Whether anyone likes it or not, it is nobody’s right to legislatively punish someone else’s beliefs under any circumstance so long as there is no direct illegal financial or physical manifestation of said beliefs.
In a similar cry for attention, HB289 is essentially amending current marital rights legislation to appease the LGBTQ community, and mostly consists of crossing out words like “father” in exchange for “parent” and “paternity” for “parentage” (even when it’s entirely referring to male parentage, which can be hetero or homosexual, by definition).
This legislation would not actually help anyone, but would violate property rights and it would infringe on free speech and religious beliefs, while acting as a gateway to further, more imposing legislation in the foreseeable future. The modus operandi of the left in the United States has ALWAYS been to take everything in very small increments, because it works. A frog only boils when initially dropped in a lukewarm pot of water, and that is precisely the nature of “progressive” legislation - if pieces are taken in small enough increments, nobody seems to ever notice until it’s too late. While a few years ago more than half of Americans had absolutely no qualms with anyone LGBTQ, polls show that percentage of those tolerant of LGBTQ people is actually decreasing, and I would contend the reason is precisely because the LGBTQ activists/leaders are the most pot-stirring, accusatory, rambunctious, attention-seeking people in the world today. While few people actually care if someone happens to be homosexual, or transgender, or really do anything they want at all behind closed doors, most sane human beings very much mind having their streets dirtied by unnecessary parades that shut down major thoroughfares, constant accusations of LGBTQ-phobia at every turn for any and every action that angers anyone in that demographic regardless of legitimacy, and the endless complaining and self-victimization of the louder side of the LGBTQ community.
Equal but separate, indeed. Drawing attention to something is good. A toddler who suddenly begins crying should always be looked over. But a toddler that cries endlessly for attention and is constantly handed the cookies it’s whining for will only ever cry louder; it’s high time society as a whole stops handing out cookies for tantrums, and it’s imperative the Wyoming legislature recognizes this.
Vote ‘no’ on HB230 and HB289, Wyoming.
This bill has been defeated.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views held by The Liberty Block or any of its contributors or members.