eHarmony sued for "discrimination"

[Dark-Star]

This is nonsense. No, this is worse than nonsense, it's a special-interests lobby using the legal system to bully a legitimate business into changing its legitimate business practices Just For Them.

eHarmony is not a public service like a water fountain or restroom. (so stuff the civil rights comparisons) It isn't even a physical building...we're talking about a WEBSITE on the Internet. If you don't like the services a website offers, go to another one or make your own. An even better deal than TV.

[AFPheonix]

Boozy.. possibly.. it's getting a bit 6 degrees in a way.

Anti-discrimination was the connection, as per Anriana's "So you don't believe in anti-discrimination laws?"

Is it ok to come down harshly on neo-nazi's and those who write books saying the Holocaust didn't happen? Isn't that a form of discrimination? So, by comparison, if someone wrote that what happened during the Crusades (another time of religious persecution) didn't happen, would that also get banned and it's adherents censored to the same extent? I'd presume that they'd just get called an idiot.

But, eHarmony says something that doesn't fit with general PC'ness, and it's sue them cos they're discrimination.

I spose it comes down to a general thread of "What is discrimination, and what's not", while this is one specific type...

New Thread???

I guess it's different here than it is in other countries where governments are actually stepping in against these geniuses, but at least here, it's a free speech thing. They're allowed to run their mouths, and others are allowed to call them on their bullshit. Is there actually government censorship involved with these guys in Oz?

This particular case isn't really a case of discrimination. The service isn't being offered to gays because the company hasn't proven to their satisfaction that their method works with that kind of relationship. I find that to be fair, and of course there are other sites that cater to gays and lesbians.
Perhaps EHarmony will eventually develop software to cater to gays too.

[Boozy]

eHarmony is not a public service like a water fountain or restroom. (so stuff the civil rights comparisons) It isn't even a physical building...we're talking about a WEBSITE on the Internet.

Private businesses are subject to anti-discrimination laws. It is a civil rights issue because the law of the United States says that it is.

And why should a law apply to a brick-and-mortar business and not an online one? How is that fair?

Perhaps EHarmony will eventually develop software to cater to gays too.

Actually, they have. It was part of their settlement agreement for this lawwuit. It will be launched on a separate site.

[Devilboy]

Apparently, even some heterosexual men are denied membership on eHarmony

[Flyndaran]

...
Actually, they have. It was part of their settlement agreement for this lawwuit. It will be launched on a separate site.

That's really sad that a major corporation chooses to give up its rights because of a frivolous lawsuit. If only the U.S. had a way to make sure that the innocent victims in such suits were compensated when after long drawn out cases they won. As it is, it's much cheaper to cave and aquiesce to absurd demands than fight it in court.

[Shards]

That could work, if our government had the money to pay for it.

Quite frankly, I think the civil courts need to really step the fark back, and stop letting joe perceived-injustice shmo sue everyone around him until he wins. 100 years ago, even just 60 years ago, these things would have been dealt with by the individuals, or, in this case, by the individual writing a letter and getting back a pre-written, stamp-signed letter saying that there was reason X why things didn't work that way, but if he was looking for that, here is how to find a different place that will serve you better.

People in general suck for creating a situation where any time they get upset they feel the need to take someone to court.

Hell, if it was up to me we'd go back to honorable duels, they'd tax the system a hell of a lot less, and it would stop people from getting the 'I have to deal with life, but I don't want to, so I'll use the government to force everyone around me to make life easier, ha!' syndrome.However, I'm a conservative with training with blade and firearm, so...

[Slytovhand]

Boozy, as you are 'for' on this argument, how would you feel if I brought a lawsuit against a christian bookstore for 'not catering' to my particular non-christian religious beliefs? (I only thought of that today, as I passed said bookstore..)

[Boozy]

Slyt, that's a slightly different situation. Christian bookstores will sell their Christian products to non-Christians. eHarmony refuses to sell its match-making services to non-straight people.

Like I said, if eHarmony could prove that its match-making software simply does not work for same-sex couples, then that's fair. They should not be legally required to offer a new service (although they chose to do so in the settlement). But if their existing service can be used by homosexuals, and they still refuse to serve them, then that's discrimination.

[smileyeagle1021]

Slyt, that's a slightly different situation. Christian bookstores will sell their Christian products to non-Christians. eHarmony refuses to sell its match-making services to non-straight people.

Boozy, eHarmony does offer it's services to gay people... they provide the service of matching a man and a woman and should a gay man decide he for whatever reason that he wants to date a woman eHarmony will be more than happy to assist him with that service. Of course he wouldn't want this service but neither really does the non-Christian want the products at the Christian bookstore. So I think Slyt's analogy does work.

[Flyndaran]

Boozy, eHarmony does offer it's services to gay people... they provide the service of matching a man and a woman and should a gay man decide he for whatever reason that he wants to date a woman eHarmony will be more than happy to assist him with that service. Of course he wouldn't want this service but neither really does the non-Christian want the products at the Christian bookstore. So I think Slyt's analogy does work.

As an atheist, I've got to say amen to that comparison.

[Shards]

As an atheist, I've got to say amen to that comparison.

Seconded. You've said exactly what I was going to, except I'm Agnostic.

[Refkeila]

If eHarmony was the only dating website, I would be behind the guy all the way. (Before the jokes start, I'm a married female :P). However, like everyone has already said... There are other sites out there that will cater to all sexualities or just gays/lesbians.

This sounds like it's purely personal.

(www.lavalife.com was where the husband and I met. You just need to be 18 and can find that special guy or girl (Even if you yourself are a guy or girl)

[vanima]

Really? This suit is like an elderly woman that suffered second and third degree burns to her pubic and leg areas from a product overheated beyond what was legally required and allowed?
I wish people would actually use real frivolous lawsuits in their argurments rather than legitimate ones that were won in court.

yeah she was 79... and I would have backed that lawsuit completely IF she wouldn't have put it between her legs while in her car..

she injured herself and i believe that lawsuit is bullshit... and she shouldn't have gotten shit from it..



the eharmony suit is pretty much as insane as that one.. I mean FFS.. go to one of the sites that are FOR GAY MEN/WOMEN ONLY... more than enough of those...


blah i hate stupid lawsuits...

[Flyndaran]

yeah she was 79... and I would have backed that lawsuit completely IF she wouldn't have put it between her legs while in her car..

she injured herself and i believe that lawsuit is bullshit... and she shouldn't have gotten shit from it..
......

I respectfully disagree. Who doesn't put drinks in their laps while driving? If she sued for spillage, then it would have been a frivolous suit. But she sued for suffering second and THIRD degree burns. No liquid outside of a lab or machine should be capable of causing that kind of injury. If you threw your cup of coffee in someone's face would you even remotely believe that level of injury to be a possibility?
I doubt it. She suffered directly due to wanton recklessness with regards to the company's temperature of their coffee.
I would have voted for her, if I were sitting on that jury.
Coffee is hot is not the issue, though I realize you never wrote that. The issue was that that coffee was illegally superheated to dangerous levels with a false sense of basic warmth from the cup.

[Cat]

Who doesn't put drinks in their laps while driving?

I don't...i use the cup holder.