Discrimination Could Maybe Use a Little Discrimination

Is there any end in sight to the inanity of Homosex discrimination claims? I have watched, befuddled, as my society has lurched like a drunken monkey along the road to recognizing the legal validity of the inherently absurd and self-contradictory notion of “gay marriage” (having had a front-row seat for one of the opening acts of the circus here in Massachusetts), and today Reuters is reporting that the online dating service eHarmony.com has been forced, via lawsuit, to offer dating services that meet the particular aims of homosexuals.

According to the article, there have been at least two suits brought against eHarmony by homosexuals claiming to be discriminated against by the company, which apparently matches up clients with other clients of the opposite sex. These claims are strikingly similar to many current arguments claiming that marriage laws, as they have existed for some thousands of years, are discriminatory – and though they are admittedly somewhat less absurd than the marriage law complaints, they are no more credible.

If discrimination claims, in general, have had us on the slippery slope for a while, we now appear to be on the very waterslide itself, heading straight into a cesspool of legal tyranny.

The point, of course, is that the service offered by the company was offered to all comers, without discrimination. Well, that is actually not quite true, as a quick perusal of the website reveals that the company in fact discriminates against people who are “married, separated, or dishonest.” Their stated goal is to help clients find partners for long-term relationships – especially marriage – and candidates who either misrepresent themselves, or who are already legally committed, are not considered appropriate matches for the other clients, so they are refused service. This, I say, is a good thing, and an example of the prudent exercise of discrimination – though I wouldn’t rule out a future lawsuit on behalf of either the married or the confessionally dishonest.

However, homosexuals, it appears, are not denied service via policy or practice, and any homosexuals who wanted to subscribe to the service and use it as provided by eHarmony.com would apparently be free to do so – as long as they were not currently married or separated, and did not misrepresent themselves.

The problem, as we well know, is that the service provided by the business is not the service that the homosexuals want, and they think they have the right, under the banner of “discrimination,” to force the business to provide their desired service – with no respect whatsoever for the rights of the business or the business owners to self determination. Unfortunately – and unbelievably – many dim-witted citizens, including far too many sitting judges, are succumbing to this pretzel logic.

One would think that discrimination, in its pejorative sense (and Lord knows how close we’ve come as a culture to losing the knowledge of its meliorative sense), would be understood as making an unfair differentiation between persons in the provision of or pricing of goods or services – which most clearly is not the case here. Instead, what we have is “discrimination” being used as an ill-defined bludgeon to advance the bald self-interest of the accuser, at the expense of justice. What we have is legal violence.

Does anyone think they have the right to sue McDonalds for discrimination against aficionados of Chinese food for their failure to serve Roast Pork Chow Mein? Do I have the right to sue my local supermarket for discrimination because they’ve stopped selling my favorite brand of Greek salad dressing? Can I sue Dunkin Donuts to bring back coconut-covered chocolate donuts? Can someone righteously accuse their local synagogue of discrimination for refusal to preach from the New Testament? If you’re not doing what I want you to do, you’re discriminating against me…WHAT??? Since when do individuals have the right to impose their personal agendas upon the freedoms of others to engage in the activities of their own choosing?

And why are so many people capitulating to this tyrannical nonsense?