I have a question.
What is the litmus test for prejudice?
What I mean is: how can I be certain the prejudice I’m exhibiting is correct and honorable and justified?
Wha? You say I don’t seem to be making any sense? I completely understand. I’m also confused. But here, let me try to elaborate so that we might be confused together…
Let’s say I started a business and made it clear from the outset that the very purpose of my company was to support a pro-male agenda. The company’s mission would be to provide extra support and increased resources to men. In an effort to avoid legal problems, we would not turn away women; we just wouldn’t actually do anything for them. Were I to follow this plan, I could expect some very well-meaning people to attack me, insisting my anti-female business model is unacceptable. Interestingly, these detractors would not be all female and many of them would even be Christians.
So I change course and decide to open up a company just for white people. Same result. I would be shut down after numerous legal battles defending my all-Arian corporate stance, even though I never actually refused service to a minority. And again, many of those demanding I apologize and desist would be both conservative and non-white. Certainly, such an outcome would not be even remotely surprising; it would actually be expected.
Undaunted in my quest to base a business on bigotry, I start a company dedicated to helping heterosexual people. It becomes my biggest success yet! But then, you guessed it, some bleeding-heart faggot steps up and sues me for discrimination. What’s the world coming to when a tendentious white man can’t build an empire on false piety and elitism?
But wait! There’s something different about the outcry this time: the Republican voices are notably lacking from the din of the fray. In fact, some of the internet’s biggest right-wingers slowly begin to support my prejudicial tactics until, even despite my astronomical hate-to-intelligence ratio, I am able to discover the chink in the liberal chain-mail and even come to learn the name of the metal from which that weak link was fashioned: Homophobia. I further find it is an element as dense as lead but, thankfully, also just as soft and tractable. I need only learn how to manipulate it to my purpose. So even as I realize I will be soon required to either stop using my newest business to discriminate or forced to stop doing business altogether, I am buoyed by the fact I have found a common thread of cowardly hatred from which I can garner the support of a large political faction. You can bet dollars to drama-queens the next corporation I launch will be a work of sectarian brilliance – a monumental testament to dogmatic idiocy.
OK. Now, having taken that to its sickening but inevitable conclusion, I ask the question again: What is the litmus test for prejudice? In other words, how could I have known ahead of time not to bother with sexual or racial prejudice and go straight for the more acceptable discrimination of gays?
The stunningly disingenuous answer comes from the conservative poster-child for brainless inflammatory rhetoric, Michelle Malkin, who floats this intellectual air-biscuit our way:
New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks — heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide… Don't like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else… [eHarmony’s] capitulation will only yield a worse, entirely predictable outcome: more shakedowns of private businesses that hold views deemed unacceptable by the Equality-at-All-Costs Brigade.
SOURCE: The eHarmony Shakedown
Hum. I wonder if she realizes her suffrage is also something that was, at one time, never meant to be provided to certain people, including women like herself. She flippantly invokes the name of Rosa Parks, but I’m left with the distinct feeling she has deliberately ignored the racist atrocities of our country’s checkered past. Would she have told Ms. Parks to simply find another way to get home if she wasn’t happy sitting in the back of the bus?
*looks directly into camera* Nope, sorry Michelle. Your arguments are as shallow as your brainpan and the witlessly derisive label “Equality-at-All-Costs Brigade” betrays your conceit and fearful animosity of basic equality for all. If you feel Eric McKinley is a “bully” for demanding fair treatment, I must assume you’d classify the tireless efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X as “uppity”.
If it makes you feel any better, your flawed reasoning was precisely the kind of pig-ignorant bullshit I expected from someone who took full advantage of the Fourteenth Amendment and then grew up to be one of the biggest haters of “anchor babies”.
Endnote: Many sincere thanks go out to a sweaty, bloated lump of magisterial hypocrisy right here at VOX for pointing me toward that Malkin article. It was a treat to read and gave me an even clearer view of how you homophobic freaks think.