Opponents of the Arizona SB1070 immigration enforcement law claim the law is racist against Hispanics. Although SB1070 forbids racial profiling, opponents claim it will be used disproportionately against Hispanics, making it "racist" by extent even if not by intent. They also tacitly admit that the preponderance of illegal immigrants are Hispanic.
Yet we've heard no outcry of protest from these people about the new Federal tanning tax which took effect on July 1st, 2010. A provision of Obamacare, it levies a 10 percent tax on most tanning salons. Salon operators have an incentive to pass it on to consumers because if consumers don't pay it, the salon operators are still liable.
But using the same standard of racism that opponents of SB1070 apply to SB1070, the tanning tax can also be viewed as racist -- against Whites. How so? Because although it will be charged to all patrons of tanning salons, the patrons themselves are overwhelmingly light-skinned (mostly White). Dark-skinned people have no incentive to patronize a tanning salon, since their skins are already dark. So this would make the tanning tax racist by extent, if not by intent. Already, a number of people on Free Republic have picked up on this problem.
Of course, there is one difference between SB1070 and the tanning tax. A White person can avoid the tax by not patronizing tanning salons. And indeed, this may be a good way to sabotage Obamacare. The flip side is that a boycott of tanning salons could put a few honest people out of business and kill a few jobs, through no fault of their own.
So why haven't opponents of SB1070 also denounced the tanning tax as "racist"? Because they have only one definition of diversity - make society darker. In their minds, White = Bad. Any segment of society that is too White is inherently flawed, in their opinion. Of course, no segment of society ever becomes too Black in their opinion; this was borne out in a recent report by the University of Central Florida's Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, which awarded the National Basketball Association a letter grade of "A" in diversity even though the players are 77 percent Black (read the UCF's full 36-page report HERE).
Diversity advocates have perverted the civil rights revolution, diverting it from equal opportunity to equal outcome. They automatically assume any segment of society which appears too White must be racist and broken down. They've unleashed a cornucopia of expensive, divisive, time-consuming, and coercive measures to impose their will upon society. They forgot that the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was merely to end forced segregation in essential parts of the public sector dealing with housing, employment, and public access to public facilities, and not to impose forced integration upon every nook and cranny of society. Their strategy of permanent revolution has divided and polarized society, pitting Americans against one another.
Diversity is an option -- NOT a requirement.