Saturday, June 05, 2010

A low point of antidiscrimination?

There's a dating agency here in Victoria called Dinner at Eight. The idea behind the agency is that three men and three women are matched up and have dinner at a restaurant together. The agency recently won an exemption to the Equal Opportunity Act allowing it to discriminate in its advertising.

What was the exemption for? As the Herald Sun reports:

A DATING agency has been given permission to ban married people from using its services in a blow to philandering spouses.

The Dinner at Eight dating agency has won an exemption to the Equal Opportunity Act allowing it to bar wandering husbands from signing up to its singles events.

Under the exemption, Dinner at Eight will be able to "refuse to provide its service to a person who is married and not separated from their spouse".

We ought to say straight out: this isn't normal. It's not normal to expect a dating agency whose purpose is to match single men and women to include married men or women. It's not normal to expect any agency to help along the cause of infidelity. It's not normal for a faceless government tribunal to decide what are essentially moral issues.

For all these reasons, Dinner at Eight should never have been expected to apply for an exemption. It should have been assumed as a matter of course that the agency could limit its advertising to singles.

It's a sign that a society has lost its way when any and every kind of discrimination has to be pleaded before a government tribunal.


  1. Of course, they were granted 'permission', though they probably view it as immunity from prosecution.

    The poor reflection on society is that Dinner at Eight can't trust everyone else to treat something like this with maturity, and so they feel the need to get official protection from the dribbling masses... (too harsh?)

    The best bit is that they made the news, letting everyone see just how stupid things have become.

  2. I am surprised the homosexual lobby has not yet screeched in protest over this; it's 'heteronormative' and therefore doubleplus-ungood.

  3. Well, Mark, this type of thing has been litigated in the US. A few years ago gays brought a lawsuit against one of the Christian dating sites here, claiming that the fact that the site was limited to heterosexual relationships was illegal discrimination. The site, "eHarmony", settled that lawsuit by agreeing to create a webiste for gay dating. Apparently that was also not good enough, because they were sued again, in another state, and earlier this year they settled by agreeing to link the two sites (the idea being that "separate means unequal"). Basically this means that in the United States it's illegal discrimination to set up a matchmaking site for Christian heterosexuals only -- regardless of your religious views. So much for separation of church and state.

    I'm not sure how a similar suit regarding exclusion of married persons would play out, but I suspect the sympathies would be very different -- and probably in favor of that kind of "discrimination".

    Then again, in the US we have a dating site that is marketed at married people looking to have affairs called "Ashley Madison". Their slogan: "Life is short. Have an affair.". So I suppose the argument could be made that there already is a service for such people, and that therefore a "mainstream" service shouldn't have to accommodate them. That still doesn't fly under the "separate is not equal" standard, but as I say the sympathies are different.

    It's just more evidence of the liberal system running right off the track, really.

  4. Let it never be forgotten that Australia has been a socialist-dirigiste paradise (or, in plain English, a slave empire) ever since 26 January 1788. Freedom from Big Brother, in the sense that Americans understand such freedom, does not exist here and never will exist here.

    It's just that this simple fact of Australia's fundamental helot nature was concealed, until the 1970s, by such countervailing influences as genuinely independent churches (today's Australian churches are no more independent of bureaucratic terrorism than were their counterparts in Warsaw Pact countries) and a pre-1970s Australian populace that, for the most part, had better things to do with its time and money than have its children's souls destroyed by secular-humanist "universities".

    Neither of these conditions exists in 2010, so we are simply going to witness more and more insane taxpayer-funded bullies like the ones that Dinner at Eight has had to put up with.

    Hey, it's just occurred to me. Dinner at Eight is also discriminating, I presume, not solely against adulterers, not solely against the buggers whom Novaseeker mentions in an American context, but also against necrophiliacs.

    How long will it be before, say, some product of Australia's "Catholic" "education" system - one with an IQ of about 50, and a sense of grievance the size of Mount Everest - accuses Dinner at Eight of "discrimination" on the grounds that it isn't catering for his eagerness to form a full carnal relationship with the nearest corpse?

    Not long ago the mental health site was keelhauled by the sodomitic "community" on the grounds that it wasn't appeasing this "community" enough:

    That sodomy might itself be (as well as sinful) a severe form of mental illness - and was indeed admitted by the American Psychiatric Association to be such until 1973 - obviously never occurred to these masterminds.

  5. In a country where the people are culturally confident, custom is responsible for the bulk of social order. Law reflects the moral code of the culture on which that society is based.

    A society that weakens its culture, or eradicates ruling custom, will naturally lean on black letter law to fill the void. Thus the exponential growth of the number of statutes and regulations, their ever more intrusive nature in the personal and everyday life of the citizenry, and the consequent development of a highly litigious culture.

    In the modern West, that litigious culture will naturally fixate on abstract “rights” because it has rejected the collective wisdom of “unlettered men”, i.e. tradition. That is why, in my opinion, we’re seeing this nonsense.

    Reader of this blog may further note that the liberal left (for obvious reasons) and right (due to its reliance on autonomy theory), as well as libertarians (due to their radical individualism) lead to the eradication of custom, tradition etc.

    That is another reason why fusionism will not work.

  6. Hell,there's a website specifically for married women who want to cuckhold their husbands, forgot what it's called,but clearly only married men are getting their philandering frowned upon.

    Nobody should be cheating on anybody,but since married women will always be looking to get illegitimately impregnated by black men,I say we give the lads a chance for payback at least. It's the only consolation they're going to get when they're paying 18 years for a child that isn't theirs.

  7. These are the sorts of lunacies which have a quantifiable cost. How much did the business spend while seeking this exemption? How much did the bureaucracy spend to approve it?

    "The best bit is that they made the news, letting everyone see just how stupid things have become."

    Unfortunately I don't see these absurdities provoking a useful reaction. In one casual conversation I had with an ordinary woman about the e-Harmony thing, she framed the issue as "the site not allowing gays."

    In my U.S. state there is a killjoy who goes around suing bars which have "ladies' night" events and discounts.

    A few ladies' reaction to this is "gee, he has a point, it does discriminate." They don't take it as a sign that non-discrimination is a poor principle.

  8. "That is another reason why fusionism will not work", says Kilroy, correctly.

    Trouble is, fusionism is second nature to the official Australian Right, if only because of the Cold War.

    Look at all the Maoists, Trotskyites, and anarchistic grubs, not to mention sexual perverts like the now-dead Kinsey-like "conservative" psychotherapist Ronald Conway (a Google search for "Ronald Conway", "Catholic" and "masturbate" should be fruitful), whom the official Australian Right championed - not just put up with but championed - because they were thought to be anti-Moscow!

    Until the day traditional conservatives realise, en masse, that we not only have to be more intelligent than our secularist-totalitarian enemies (it's not hard to be more intelligent than anti-discrimination apparatchiks or the recent visitor "Jack") but morally better people than those enemies, the follies of fusionism will be re-enacted over and over, and our enemies will keep defeating us, not only politically, but by blackmail.

  9. Well, robert's link is interesting in that BeyondBlue is funded by taxpayers' money. Still, it seems incredible to be compelled to pander to some official authorisation in order to be allowed to ban married people joining. This shows the previously undreamt of heights of depravity our society has reached.

  10. Just on the BeyondBlue link, a number of things stand out.

    Firstly, gays are depressed at a rate much higher than the general population (17% vs 2% suicide attempts for lesbians) - yet there is nothing said about whether this is due to the gay lifestyle itself.

    Secondly, gays seems to think that it's the governments problem to address the consequences of their lifestyle choices.

    Thirdly, the use of the term 'gay' masks the reality of the homosexual lifestyle - short term relationships, promscuity, disease, depression and death. Ironically this group of highly depressed individuals call their radio station 'JOY FM'

    This masking is similar to what the Left do (and useless Classical Liberals fall for) to mask the reality of their agenda:
    - So abortion becomes 'choice'
    - Euthanasia becomes 'dignity'
    - Homosexuality becomes 'gay'
    - Socialism is 'social justice'

    They need the euphemisms to describe the evil they propose.

  11. "- So abortion becomes 'choice'
    - Euthanasia becomes 'dignity'
    - Homosexuality becomes 'gay'"

    True enough. Try getting the very word "sodomite" published in so-called conservative publications such as The Australian or Spectator Australia or Quadrant, and see how far you get. At least the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, unlike our so-called right-wing journals, doesn't pretend to be anything other than a baboon-cage for degenerates.

  12. "baboon-cage for degenerates"