Hardy said that "When we create classes, we create that same separation that we're trying to unfold somehow... By continuing to create these laws that are what I call segregation laws, it puts one class of a person over another. We are creating classes of people through these laws."
I don't know if I even understand what Hardy is implying, probably because I don't speak asshole. (I just write it pretty well.) Is he saying that antidiscrimination laws assume that straight cis people are in a better class than queer people and that's why queer people need protection? Queer people aren't in a worse class; in fact they totes lucked out in getting Cher as their professor. Antidiscrimination laws don't exist because one class is "over
another," but rather because one group is more privileged systemically. The main mystery with this Hardy boy is what the hell he is talking about.
"I strongly oppose laws to hold back, or advance, a person strictly based upon a label or grouping...The truth is, I support workplace laws that reward those who do the best job regardless of who they are. Any suggestion otherwise is simply not true."
It stinks strongly of old men who don't support affirmative action because it's giving special treatment to non-white people. And if you were wondering what that stinks like, it's kinda like leftover breakfast burrito forgotten for three days when you went out of town and left it in your room instead of in the refrigerator. (Hypothetically.)
It's ridiculous that Nevada's Cresent Hardy thinks laws that laws banning discrimination are somehow enforcing segregation. Laws banning discrimination help protect people from subjugation and inherent prejudices in the system.
What happens in Nevada should stay in Nevada.
