or something.

the usual political/legal meaning involves discrimination in in hiring/firing practices, equal treatment under the law, etc., on the basis of such things as race, religion, national origin, and gender.

the term has acquired a negative connotation because our society has deemed such things undesirable (and rightly so).


the non-political, non-legal, ordinary meaning is simply to distinguish one thing from another, usually to treat them differently. a discriminating palate, for instance, is one that can distinguish good food from bad food (i'm simplifying, chefs please don't flame me).

the key is that there's no negative connotation in this usage of the word. it's not a bad thing to discriminate when it comes to the food you eat or the clothes you wear, etc.


so the whole idea of this right-wing rhetoric trick is to take an example of the second usage (the government discriminating between law-abiders and law-breakers -- a good thing) and trying to appropriate the negative connotation from the first usage. they act as if it's a bad thing for the government to enforce anti-discrimination laws.