Arbitrary discrimination is the only way to promote fairness and equality

One of the many ironies about life in our mega-egalitarian, discrimination-obsessed country is that not only does discrimination abound, there may be more discrimination than ever before. Most of it is government mandated, whether in the form of affirmative action hiring programs, requirements that government hire minority contractors, numerous programs for the “traditionally disadvantaged” (such as having a Spanish — but not Portuguese! — surname), special “HOV” lanes giving advantages to people who have larger families, building code requirements that all the closest spaces in parking lots and shopping centers be reserved for people whose doctors have signed forms stating that they have a disability, and I could go on and on, but I think I made the point.

Our society tolerates, encourages, and often mandates a lot of discrimination. There is no consistent rule. I’m glad I don’t have a child, because if he asked me, “Dad, what is discrimination and why is it bad?” I wouldn’t know where to begin. Discrimination has become a basic government function of special privilege allocation. Whether it is public or private in nature, all decisions about who gets preferences, and who gets what ahead of whom are to be decided upon by the government. 

Occasionally a crank who doesn’t get it what really can’t be gotten will come along and complain about discrimination. A perfect example is the story Glenn linked earlier about the man whose lawsuit against “ladies night” was tossed out by the Supremes. 

A Manhattan lawyer who has filed a series of antifeminist lawsuits in recent years — with little success — has suffered his latest defeat: the United States Supreme Court refused to hear what he calls his “ladies’ night lawsuit.”

In 2007, the lawyer, Roy Den Hollander, filed a class-action suit against Manhattan nightclubs like Copacabana, China Club, Lotus and Sol, claiming that they discriminated against men by offering free or reduced admission to women on “ladies’ nights.” Mr. Den Hollander contended that these offers violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

The suit, filed in federal court, was dismissed, and so was a subsequent appeal. Mr. Den Hollander then submitted a petition to the United States Supreme Court on the same issue. He said he received word on Wednesday that the court had refused to hear the case.

“Of course, the three females on the court probably voted against it,” Mr. Den Hollander said on Thursday. “Fighting for the rights of men is not very popular thing to do in America these days.

Mr. Hollander said that the basis of his case is that feminism is a religion. “The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that religion is a belief system that occupies the same space in a person’s activities as a traditional religion like Catholicism or Protestantism – a system that dictates your ethical and moral standards and activities.”

“The feminists have taken control over every institution in this country — they want to take control over men,” he said. “I’m going to fight them to my last dollar, last breath.”

Good luck with that. He might as well file a lawsuit against movie theaters and museums which allow “senior citizen” discounts. They are entitled to a discount simply for being over a certain age, and when I get there (which won’t be long), I’ll be “entitled” to it too! As to why, who knows? (Maybe older people are considered “poorer” than younger people or something.)

These things are just the way of the world, and if someone doesn’t like it, why, it’s all up to the gummint!

People must look to the government to find out what is allowed and be told what to do, and the rules must be revised constantly. If you are lucky enough to belong to some group or another, you might be able whine your way into a new special entitlement category. Otherwise you’re SOL. The laws and their enforcement must be made as arbitrary as possible.

Only that way can true fairness be acheived.