I am amazed at the stupidity of the statement,
'It's a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement,' Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. 'There are no exemptions to that.'Just think about this for a minute. It is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I cannot imagine that a statement such as this can be legally defensible.
The third meaning from the Free Dictionary's Thesaurus function
From Princeton's Wordnet, the first and third definitions of the verb and the adjectival definition,
discriminatory - capable of making fine distinctionsdiscriminating - showing or indicating careful judgment and discernment especially in matters of taste; "the discriminating eye of the connoisseur"
- S: (v) discriminate, know apart (recognize or perceive the difference)
- S: (v) discriminate (distinguish) "I could not discriminate the different tastes in this complicated dish"
And again from Princeton's Wordnet, the second definition of the noun,
I've included several definitions of discriminatory. Please note, discriminating is not a universally negative thing. We discriminate every time we make a choice. Every time we hone a statement to eliminate confusion. Every time we choose between right and wrong behavior.
I prefer wheat bread, please.Come and get me, Ms Haynes. I dare you. Sock me with a big discrimination suit.
This store is too expensive. Let's go to Goodwill.
No, no, please don't hit sister.
Obviously Ms Haynes takes this to heart. She is incapable of discriminating between various nuances of the word, "discriminatory". Every homophone must from henceforth remain ambiguous.
I can see I'm going to have problems with this. I've always prefered clarity. Oops, there I've blown it already.