Mass. Republicans looking to repeal 1933 anti-discrimination laws?

I was checking in at leading Republican blog Red Mass Group earlier today and there are times when I just can't figure out if they intentionally don't get it, or if they just can't bother with the details.

In a very popular post over there about the evils of H. 1728 (derisively known as the "Bathroom Bill"), one of their editors argues against a law that has been on the books in Massachusetts for 77 years.

The editor thinks that H. 1728 is being written so broadly that it infringes on freedom of speech. For instance, this gem:

Section 24 specifically bans the the type of content that can 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" by private citizens in direct conflict of our first amendment rights.  To be clear:  I am not talking about government publications.  These are regulations on us as private citizens not employed by the government.  They want to ban what we can write in books. 

He either doesn't realize or is not willing to acknowledge that the law he quotes was passed by the legislature in 1933. That's right. Massachusetts' leading Republican web site opposes anti-discrimiation statues that have been on the books since the 1930s.

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 local Republicans. Do you guys really support a repeal of the anti-discrimation act of 1933, or do you just not read the bills you oppose?