The Washington Times reports that “ChristianMingle.com,” an online dating web site, has just lost a lawsuit in the California courts for discriminating against gays. By not mentioning them. It must now change its interface and service to allow homosexuals to use it as well, and just as easily as heterosexuals: “men seeking men,” say, or “women seeking women,” have to be listed categories.
The ruling, the story adds, also applies to the company's companion sites, CatholicMingle, AdventistSinglesConnection, and BlackSingles.com. All must become fully and equally accessible to gays.
Wait a minute. Did you get that? BlackSingles is okay, but it must cater to gays. It is illegal to target a site to heterosexuals, but no problem targeting one by race?
This implies some kind of special privilege being extended to homosexuals, not any concenr with “equality.”
Indeed, what about the many exclusive sites for homosexuals for dating connections? It is also okay, it seems, to discriminate against heterosexuals, but not homosexuals.
Why all these special privileges for gays?
And why do gays—the ones who launched the lawsuit, at least—care? It is not as if, in a free market, anyone is particularly inconvenienced by a proprietor who chooses, for whatever reason, not to serve a particular clientele. There are always competitors who will—or if not, there's a beautiful business opportunity helpfully left wide open for some member of the excluded community.
So this thing, and this kind of thing generally, cannot be there to help gays—or blacks, or women.
It is there, and always there, to punish some other group; to discriminate against small business owners, or Christians, or heterosexuals. Some groups always MUST be served, other groups not. It aslo helps the ins stay in, and keeps the outs out, generally, by raising regulatory barriers to anyone entering a new business.
In this case, I presume the real point is to punish Christians for saying homosexual sex is wrong. They are quite pointedly, and in plain violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, taking away conscience rights from anyone with traditional moral sensibilities: Christian, yes, but also even Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, animist, or Confucian.
That's the First Amendment. As in fundamental. A fundamental human right. In favour of a newly-invented imagined human right to homosexual sex. And not just a right to homosexual sex, but to be generally aided and supported in its pursuit.
And behind that, the real subtext must be something else. Homosexuals are only about 3% of the population, by best estimates. Why are their concerns, even if legitimate, so prominent?
The real target is conventional morality itself. And what is generally offensive about conventional morality is its condemnation of casual sex more broadly. Hence, a Christian dating sight becomes a target.
The scarlet letter here, the real issue, is “A” – for Abortion.