eHarmony sued for "discrimination"

[Boozy]

It's a good thing you weren't a black man living in the south in the 1960's then.

Right now, the gay community is trying to get itself recognized as being equal. They're going through an uphill battle trying to accomplish this goal.

Personally, I applaud this move. The man is doing what he can to rectify a social injustice, and he's using the existing laws to do so. Good for him.

Yes, yes, and yes.

You get it.

Despite popular belief, a business in the United States cannot do whatever they want under the guise of "private property" and "personal freedom." Many private property rights do not apply once you've thrown up a shingle, invited the public in to your business, and asked them for money.

For example, restaurants cannot serve spoiled meat. We have government inspectors to prevent that (in theory ). And if a restaurant did serve spoiled meat, I can't imagine anyone would be saying, "Well, anyone who gets sick should just vote with their feet."

Likewise, since the demise of the Jim Crow laws, a business owner cannot refuse service to someone based solely on the colour of his skin. Without question, this infringes on the "personal freedom" of individuals to be racist pricks. But these anti-discrimination laws were and are absolutely necessary to integrate minority populations into society, and absolutely necessary for the health of the country and the economy. I guarantee you - there would still be separate bathrooms and drinking fountains for blacks in many parts of the States without these laws.

How is someone being refused service based solely on his sexual orientation any different? Why should eHarmony be allowed to discriminate just because other dating websites do not, and this man could use them instead? Anti-discrimination laws must be applied equally to every business, internet or brick-and-mortar, regardless of the number of competitors in the market.

I don't know the specifics of this guy's case. I don't need to know, because a court is going to make the decision based on all the evidence. But don't deny him his day in court. He has a valid argument and he needs to be heard.

[Slytovhand]

Sorry, Boozy, but I have to disagree with you on this one, for one very essential fact that you (IMHO) have overlooked.

Relevance!

Bathrooms and drinking fountains make no distinction based on skin colour - they work exactly the same way for all concerned.

Sexual preferences on a dating site is a relevant distinction.

Now, I'm damn sure that there are internet dating sites which cater purely to specific religions. Same also for catering to specific nationalities. Do we hit them all up with an anti-discrimination case because they don't cater to everyone??

And as my gay workmate here has just advised me, there are also gay dating sites which don't cater to straight people.

Laws are nice to protect people's rights - but don't go into a vegetarian restaurant and then sue them cos you can't get a hunk of steak.

[The Shadow]

Normally I'd say the guy suing needs to get over himself and find another site. But I have a hard time getting to worked up about this one way or another because of all the bad things I've heard about eharmony and pay dating sites in general. Nobody I know who has used eharmony had anything good to say about it. And I also know that Yahoo personals and match.com have had class action lawsuits filed against them for fraud. I suspect one could also be launched against lavalife. Free dating sites like plentyoffish and OKCupid have found other ways of generating revenue (advertising space primarily) without charging their users. The pay dating sites are going to have to change if they want to remain competitive, or else they're just going to go the way of the dodo.

[Devilboy]

I'm having a hell of a time finding a nice heterosexual woman to date on these sites:

http://www.pridedating.com/

http://gayfriendfinder.com/

http://gaysinglesonline.com/

I think I am going to sue each and every one of them for discrimination against heterosexuals.



....or I could just do the logical thing and, y'know... look on a site that is geared toward and intended to be used by heterosexual men and women.

And the other day when I went to Maoz Restaurant on South Street, they wouldn't serve me a Philly Cheesesteak because they won't serve meat to people. That's discrimination against carnivores!!! I'm going to sue them and make them add meat items to their menu!!!!!eleventy!!111!!!

[smileyeagle1021]

Sorry, Boozy, but I have to disagree with you on this one, for one very essential fact that you (IMHO) have overlooked.

Relevance!

Bathrooms and drinking fountains make no distinction based on skin colour - they work exactly the same way for all concerned.

.

oh, must resist the temptation... it's too much... ah hell

Slyt, you meen that black people pee the same way that white people do All this time I thought that it was that white guys peed standing up and black guys sat down to pee

FTR (and I'll try to say this in a way that doesn't make me sound like more of a pervert than I am) I have seen guys of probably most nationalities peeing, and pretty much all used a rather similar technique... however, like Slyt said, dating is completely different for straight and gay guys and I have no problem with sites that cater to one or the other based on those differences.

[Boozy]

Sexual preferences on a dating site is a relevant distinction.

Yes. But eHarmony may simply have to add a pull-down box at the beginning of its questionnaire indicating straight/gay/man/woman.

Other than that, how would it be different? My gay friends looked for the same things in their partners as I looked for in mine - compatibility of personalities. Which is the very thing that eHarmony claims to be so successful at providing.

eHarmony could make the argument that their system doesn't work for gay people, and they are welcome to do so in their defense. But frankly, I can't see how they can claim that their personality tests don't work for non-heterosexual people. Gays are not some bizarre sub-species of humanity. Most of them are normal people looking for the same things as everyone else.

However, I am not sufficiently informed about eHarmony to know for sure. These are issues for an unbiased court to decide. My concern is that people are saying that this man is not justified in bringing the suit to begin with. I disagree. If eHarmony cannot show that it has good reason to exclude homosexuals from using its service, then they are guilty of discrimination. It's a valid question and I'm pleased that someone was brave enough to put himself out there and ask.

[Devilboy]

My concern is that people are saying that this man is not justified in bringing the suit to begin with.

I don't think anyone here has said that this man was unjustified with his suit.
I do believe that many feel his lawsuit is petty and somewhat of a moot point, seeing that there are several sites that "specialize" in homosexual matches.

Is there even a glimmering hint of discrimination here? Possibly.

Are there more pressing and much more blatant acts of discrimination present in today's society? Of course there are.
Are hetero-only dating sites one of those pressing and blatantly discriminatory issues? I would say they aren't.

I would tend to call eHarmony more of a site that "specializes" in hetero matches. Of course, any time a company "specializes" and focuses on a certain aspect or group, that company effectively shuts out someone.
Whether it's a vegetarian restaurant not selling meat to those who want it, or a dating site that doesn't cater to homosexuals.

eHarmony is the most prominently advertised dating site out there. My opinion is that these people crying "discrimination" were possibly out for a quick buck.
Just like the people who bring frivolous lawsuits against fast-food places or other big-name companies, they were likely thinking that if they brought a suit against a large and presumably lucrative company, that they would get "paid".


In the end, whenever one group excludes another... for whatever reason, no matter how benign... those excluded will fight tooth and nail to get in.
They'll play the gender card, the race card, the religion card, the sexual orientation card... you name it.
Look, simply put, you can't please everyone all of the time.

I would hardly lump an exclusive online dating service into the annals of the greatest discrimination offenders.

[IDrinkaRum]

I met Mr. Rum when I put a personal ad on Yahoo! Personals when it was still free. 7 years later (6 married), we're still happy together. The concept of eHarmony is just wacky (to me). My sister tried it and it was a bust. She met her second husband at work (they were working for 2 different Government subcontractors (but they worked in the same building) & he saw her across a crowded cafeteria and wanted to meet her).

I don't like any lawsuit that cries "Wah! I want everything to go my way and if I have to sue to make it so, then I will." It's like the McDonald's lady at the hot coffee suit. Leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

[Flyndaran]

Then let me be the first one here to say that his lawsuit is frivolous and wrong.
Just because a company provides a service does not mean that it should be required by law to provide its related but opposite service.

That's absurd.

If I sell raisin cupcakes, I should not be forced to sell cupcakes without raisins regardless of how easy YOU say it would be to add them to my merchandise.

Wah, what I want doesn't exist. That's called an unfilled market niche. There are many around. Get used to it and stop whining, or start your own business.

... It's like the McDonald's lady at the hot coffee suit. Leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

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.

[anriana]

Omnivoreness is not a protected category under N.J. law.

[Evandril]

The sheer amount of dating websites out there that cater to very specific tastes is impressive...and eHarmony is only one of 'em. The argument I can see them making, from their ignorance of the subject in general, is that they do not know if a gay man would be looking for the same things in a guy as a straight woman, so they would have to totally revise their matching software far more than adding one thing to a drop down menu. They claim to have done research into compatibility that goes beyond just liking the same things.

Their service offers to find someone of the opposite sex they feel you would be interested in. If someone who was gay wanted to find someone of the opposite sex, I'm sure they would happily take their money...Which means it's not discrimination, IMO, since they are not being denied the service offered. The fact the service isn't what they WANT is another point all together, and fits under the steak at a veggy place setting.

[smileyeagle1021]

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.

you're right... the lady did have a legit complaint... however the issue is that she asked for way too much because of it... besides this would have been avoided had she not been stupid and used her cup holder instead of holding it in between her legs

[Cat]

I was rejected from eHarmony the first time I tried get my profile. Then, as an experiment, I changed my answers.....and was accept...waht joy, lol. Turns out my only matches were men twice my age from TX. Thought that was pretty funny.

[Devilboy]

Their service offers to find someone of the opposite sex they feel you would be interested in. If someone who was gay wanted to find someone of the opposite sex, I'm sure they would happily take their money...Which means it's not discrimination, IMO, since they are not being denied the service offered. The fact the service isn't what they WANT is another point all together, and fits under the steak at a veggy place setting.

Exactly.
Since the site doesn't offer matches for homosexuals, it is automatically "discriminatory".
Never mind the overwhelming, bone-crushing majority of other dating sites that cater to all sexual orientations, or the numerous sites that are homosexual-specific and don't deal with hetero matches in any way, shape or form... eHarmony are prejudiced, discriminating bigots.

It's the dreaded double standard... it's okay to have sites specifically for homosexuals... but the second you have a site dedicated to hetero coupling only, the discrimination card gets thrown into the ring.

And we can have "Gay" Bars and that's okay. Hetero people are certainly welcome in these establishments. I have gone to many gay bars with my homosexual friends, even though I am heterosexual.

But heaven forbid it if I wanted to open my own bar and specifically market and advertise it as a "Straight" Bar, even if any and all sexual orientations are welcome... I would be labeled as prejudiced, or worse some mental deficient would call me "homophobic" (95% of the time I see or hear that word used, a tiny Inigo Montoya pops into my head saying, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ")

Look, there's no lack of gay-only dating sites on the web. There are also blacks-only dating sites, Asians-only dating sites, Christian-only dating sites, Jewish-only dating sites, Age 50+ dating sites, etc.
If those criteria don't jive with your preferences, you simply pass those sites over and find a site that does deal with your specific criteria and preference.
You don't start whining about discrimination and start suing people.

Why should it be any different when it's the other way around?

[Rapscallion]

Interesting one. I'd fall on the side of saying it's a ridiculous suit. They offer a service where one person can meet another person of the opposite gender. If a gay man wants to meet a heterosexual woman, then it's fine for that. There are plenty of alternatives around for those who want a same-sex meeting.

I would have a beef with it if they made it a major part of their site - boasting that they don't do anything for gays because of their principles etc. If they used it for anti-gay propoganda, I'd be very much against it.

Rapscallion