A Stitch in Haste

I blogged recently about Wal-Mart's petition to establish an in-house bank, to be nominally based in Utah, in order to service its own credit-card operations and perform other "back-office" banking functions in order to reduce costs.

The extent of the opposition to the plan is as surprising as it is irrational and shrill.

Of course, people have been hating Wal-Mart for a while now, but something struck me about this particular version of antipathy toward the retailer:

Opponents are not convinced. They portray Wal-Mart's proposed in-house bank ... as leading eventually to full-scale banking with retail branches that would destroy local banks.
...
"Wal-Mart is a company that does not play by the rules," Robert E. McGarrah Jr., a corporate governance official with the AFL-CIO, said in a statement prepared for Monday's hearing.

"That factor alone makes its proposed bank a threat to the taxpayers and the nation's banking system. ... Wal-Mart's record in communities across America reveals a company that ruthlessly wipes out important community businesses," McGarrah said.

Does any of this sound familiar? "Leading to," "destroy," "rules," "threat," "community"?

That's right: It's the lexicon of anti-gay bigotry, particularly in the context of same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage will "lead to" polygamy and sex with dogs; Wal-Mart's plan will "lead to" full-scale retail banking. Same-sex marriage will "destroy" the institution of marriage; Wal-Mart's bank will "destroy" the institution of local banking. Same-sex marriage litigation ignores the "rules" of majoritarianism; Wal-Mart ignores the "rules" of agreeing to kowtow to labor unions. Same-sex marriage is a "threat" and so is Wal-Mart. Same-sex marriage ignores the wishes of the "community;" neither should Wal-Mart be allowed to so drastically impact the "community."

And remember, this is all coming from a pillar of the left, a labor leader.

The lyrics may change, the singer may change, but the song remains the same.