The turkey thermometer just popped on the state of New Hampshire, and Americans can finally fess up to the tough truth that has been evident for many years. It’s reputation as the “Live Free or Die” state founded on bedrock granite principles of individual liberty and honoring one’s neighbor to exist free of meddling is done -- big time. The state legislature just passed a “genderless bathroom” mandate on private business, and, get this, it was pushed by Republicans, and, if it passes the Senate (which is likely) the governor, Republican Chris Sununu, will sign it in all its unctuous statist glory.
This is a thuggish, thoughtless, callous, and utterly illegitimate attack on the voluntary choices of others, an attack the core principle of which will be overlooked by the vast majority of the pop news media in their fawning attempt to appear inclusive and kind to all of the bazillion metastasizing so-called gender identities people keep imagining every new day.
The law is called HB 1319, or the “Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Gender Identity” bill, and, what a surprise, it amends an already unconstitutional law by adding “gender identity” to the list of things against which private business owners cannot “discriminate” – in their sales, hiring, or even their bathrooms.
There are three essentially important aspects to this debate, not the least of which is how the terminology and emotion of the issue of so-called “discrimination” is used like magical sleight of hand to distract observers from seeing the other two, more important, timeless points.
As a guy who has two male friends who are undergoing “transformation” to look more like women (even as their DNA and chromosomes manifestly dictate that they will still be male) I try to be fair to reality while being understanding of their personal issues. But one cannot overlook the fact that “discrimination” is not uniformly evil, and should not be punished by the state. “Discrimination” is merely the act of seeing differences between two or more things. We discriminate every dang day. The mere act of existence requires humans to discriminate all the time, and our choices are things from which we, and others, learn. When we “discriminate against” something, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. As economist Walter Williams has said, when he asked the woman who became his wife to marry him, he was “discriminating” against other women.
Heck, is every young lady who is asked out supposed to say “yes” to everyone? If one lives in a majority non-racist town, and there’s one KKK member who comprises the “minority”, does one have to offer him service at a store?
The freedom to associate requires the freedom to not associate, no matter how much emotional strife that causes the folks who are excluded. And, guess what? The market is the essential place to allow those who are offended to show their preferences by... yeah, you got it, discriminating against the offensive discriminator.
The key here is that by punishing people for showing their preferences, politicians push offensive thought under the rug, making prejudiced people hide their true beliefs. Wouldn’t you rather know if a business person was prejudiced, or racist, or sexist, or genderist, or ablest, or heightist so that you could withhold your own spending and not enable said “discrimination”? Don’t you need to be able to exercise your own ethics and discriminate in order to show your dislike for other forms of “discrimination”?
So the sleight of hand here makes people focus on the angering minutiae of the bathrooms, where politicians will make business people open their women’s bathrooms to guys dressed as women, and folks can imagine myriad instances where predators will claim they “identify” as women, just to gain access to areas that should be safe for ladies and girls to enter. The sleight of hand distraction brings minds to the frustrating reality that business owners will likely have to spend money to create entirely new bathrooms that protect everyone in this new, politically correct, politically mandated world of bathroom corrals that take in everyone.
But the overlooked issues here pertain to private property and the US and New Hampshire Constitutions. Despite what the "Public Accommodations" portion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act claims, this is private property. These politicians don’t own these businesses, they didn’t start these businesses, risk their own capital for them, or spend hours per day trying to make them appealing places for customers to visit. If the politicians don’t like how the businesses are run, they can start their own. And they can look at the NH Constitution, which, in Section Two, Article Eighty-Three, clearly only allows the NH government to regulate monopolies or companies that are collusively pricing.
To that, we might ask the NH legislature and Governor to read the US Constitution, the Contract Clause of which prohibits state politicians from interfering with private contract. This means that if a business owner and employee agree to terms of employment, including hourly pay, time off, and even bathroom breaks, no politician can change that agreement, or dictate the kinds of bathrooms in the business.
What is wrong with these politicians?
Perhaps, just perhaps, they have personality identity issues.
Yes. That could be it.
Maybe they have species dysmorphia.
They identify as demigods, rather than the officious, domineering busybodies their actions tell us they are.