eHarmony sued for "discrimination"

[Boozy]

I don't think anyone here has said that this man was unjustified with his suit.

It sounded to me like a few people were:

If the gay guy didnt like it how about just taking his business somewhere else??? That's what I do when a business treats me like a leper. I don't just go out and file a "discrimination" lawsuit.

I think this one falls into the frivolous realm...I am not going to sue a gay website for not having straight pride items for me to buy.

As such, all the suit is doing is making the more justified suits get lost in the spam.

Some very good points have been made in defense of eHarmony. But no one here has all the facts, so I'd like to see the suit continued.

Incidentally, I think eHarmony is being targeted because its founder Dr. Warren has a strong history with James Dobson's Focus on the Family, a vocal anti-gay group. So there is at least the possibility that his company excludes gays for less practical, more nefarious reasons. That possibility must be explored.

[Slytovhand]

Even if there are nefarious reasons, so what? Does that really matter?

Oh, and I'm not sure if anyone else has used this phrase, so I will... I think this person was unjustified in bringing this suit (presuming, of course, that the 'facts' are as straight..hahaha... forward as indicated).

The problem I see with this lawsuit is that it legislates (ie - forces) people to be 'fair' or to take everyone into consideration. A person is no longer allowed to think a particular way - so it's just another form of thought policing. The service offered is not a necessity, it is not an essential, and it certainly ins't a monopoly... so who really cares?

[Devilboy]

I think eHarmony is being targeted because its founder Dr. Warren has a strong history with James Dobson's Focus on the Family, a vocal anti-gay group. So there is at least the possibility that his company excludes gays for less practical, more nefarious reasons. That possibility must be explored.

Quoted from a 2005 USA Today article:

Warren says eHarmony promotes heterosexual marriage, about which he has done extensive research. He says he does not know enough about gay and lesbian relationships to do same-sex matching.

And from a 2005 interview:

"I have a lot of respect for a lot that goes on in Focus on the Family....Where I get nervous is when people think we're political like Focus on the Family. You kind of have to trust me on this, I guess, but we don't talk about things like abortion. I wouldn't have the slightest idea where our employees would stand on that issue." ..."Where Focus on the Family and a lot of these other places come from is that there are six places in the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong," he said. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up. But then he continued: "On the other hand, in the Old Testament if you work on the Sabbath day and you're guilty then you should be shot."

Far from dismissing homosexuality as an aberration, or suggesting that gays are going to hell, Warren brought up his best friend's daughter, a lesbian who has two children with her partner. "She's a dear person to us, and a very strong spiritual person," he said. "And when I start seeing things like that, I think we've got to start to think about that maybe this can work."
It may be that having to face these questions, not just from me but from other reporters, as his company grows out of the conservative community in which it started is forcing Warren to reconsider -- perhaps not his policy but at least his preconceived notions of what gay people are. "I literally would like to at some point put my money where my mouth is and see research done on it," he said. In the meantime, he added, "We have to get real civil with one another."

I hardly think the reasons for 'excluding' homosexuals are nefarious here.
The bit about the bible is key, in that he is more or less discrediting it for being used as a tool to denounce homosexuality by pointing out how ridiculous it would be to kill someone for working on a holy day.

The more I think about it, I would have to go back and go on record saying that it is an unjustified lawsuit. I would certainly hope there is an appeal in the works seeing that the possibility of working on a site for homosexuals was, at the very least, in the idea stages in 2005... long before a ruling forcing them to do so came out.

[The Shadow]

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"

Yes, you probably would. It's accepted as a given that most bars are "straight" by default since straights make up the majority of the population. So by making a point of saying your bar is straight would make most people wonder why you felt it necessary to advertise it as such and might concede you had some sort of issue with homosexuals. Even if people of all sexual orientations were welcome it probably wouldn't matter since it would be forbidden by law to deny them service based on that anyway.

[Sylvia727]

If I marketed my bar as a place for hip young things, and I made sure to hire pretty girls and smokin' guys as my staff, and just generally promoted it as the place to hook up, then at some point the question of my consumer base's sexuality is going to come up. If I decide that I'm going to focus on straight people, that's not any more discriminatory than deciding that I'm going to focus on gay people. Now, advertising the bar as an oasis of heterosexuality might be seen as exclusatory if I used inflammatory language. I don't think most advertising is written down, though. Mostly I've just heard word of mouth, and the efforts of the employees.

[anriana]

The problem I see with this lawsuit is that it legislates (ie - forces) people to be 'fair' or to take everyone into consideration. A person is no longer allowed to think a particular way - so it's just another form of thought policing. The service offered is not a necessity, it is not an essential, and it certainly ins't a monopoly... so who really cares?

Yes, enforcing discrimination laws for businesses hooks up tiny machines to everyone's brains and gives them tiny shocks everytime they think the word "fag."

[powerboy]

I have tried E-Harmony. They did not want me. I forgot why. But also, I have found a site, when I was single called OK Cupid. And it caters to everyone and for free. I will never grasp, why pay to look for a date, when it might not even work.

[Arcade Man D]

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

Not really. All she asked for was medical bills. The judge determined that punitive damages were in order.

[The Shadow]

I have tried E-Harmony. They did not want me. I forgot why. But also, I have found a site, when I was single called OK Cupid. And it caters to everyone and for free. I will never grasp, why pay to look for a date, when it might not even work.

I've started using www.plentyoffish.com I've had mixed results so far, but still better overall then what I got out of the pay sites - almost nothing. The old adage that "you get what you pay for" isn't always true.

[Devilboy]

what I got out of the pay sites - almost nothing.

Personally, I find that to be true of most any dating site.

Sure, some people do meet via a dating website and have a great, long-term relationship.
But those are the rare exception.

Most sites I find to be a waste of time. To use eHarmony's own words, these sites are nothing more than "a picture and a paragraph".
And most of the "paragraphs" read something like this:

I've never done this kind of thing before, but I'm tired of the bar scene and I figured "what the heck?" and decided to give this a try.

I like sports, music, movies, going out to dinner, hiking, the beach, going to concerts and just hanging out with my friends. I'm really laid back and down to earth. I don't play games and I don't want to be with someone who does. I like to laugh and have a good time. I'm just looking for someone to hang out with that might lead to more.

If this sounds interesting to you, send me a message.

People write things like that and wonder why they aren't finding anyone interested in them. Go figure.

[Slytovhand]

But then he continued: "On the other hand, in the Old Testament if you work on the Sabbath day and you're guilty then you should be shot."

Really?? I didn't know they had guns back in the days of the Old Testament...

I literally would like to at some point put my money where my mouth is

Hmm - I did a thread about that... does this mean he likes to eat paper notes and metal coins? Isn't that illegal - destruction of currency or something??

Anriana - no, not literally. But, it is saying "you try and do something that may be discriminatory, and you will be paying for it... literally!". And, not only do you have to pay for having those thoughts (and the associated actions), but you will be forced by the judiciary to change. Freedom of speech may be debatable, but certainly there isn't any freedom of action.

Hey, here's a thought - how about all non-christians bring out a law suit against the Catholic church for refusing the sacrament to non-believers?? (yeah - I know, not a technical truth, but not sure of the right terms ) But, seriously, how different is this example to the OP?

[anriana]

Anriana - no, not literally. But, it is saying "you try and do something that may be discriminatory, and you will be paying for it... literally!". And, not only do you have to pay for having those thoughts (and the associated actions), but you will be forced by the judiciary to change. Freedom of speech may be debatable, but certainly there isn't any freedom of action.

So you don't believe in anti-discrimination laws?

Hey, here's a thought - how about all non-christians bring out a law suit against the Catholic church for refusing the sacrament to non-believers?? (yeah - I know, not a technical truth, but not sure of the right terms ) But, seriously, how different is this example to the OP?

Because, just like omnivoreness, non-Catholic is not a protected category in NJ.

[Slytovhand]

I believe in relevant anti-discrimination laws. I see a significant difference between "can't/won't do" and "don't cater for".

I think a lot of anti-discrimination laws are just PC'ness jumping in somewhere. After all, how many lawsuits have been brought about because someone isn't allowed in a bar due to dress codes. Again, is that a significantly different situation to not be called discrimination? I think not.

It's as has been brought up here (and even by you) - some 'discrimination' is ok, others are not... why? As you mentioned - omnivorness and non-catholicness isn't a protected category... ummm - why?

Now, when it comes to say, employment, and you have 2 people of differing <insert appropriate card that can be played>, and they both have the same level of qualifications, training, experience, and fairly similar personalities... who gets the job? Is it a form of discrimination to employ the <insert majority peron> instead of <minority>? Is it any different to choose the other person?? On the other hand, if the <minority> has crap references, barely passed exams, and looks sloppy and has attitude, should the employer be forced to employ them for fear of an anti-discrimination lawsuit?

(though, using said example, yes, it is blatant and should be illegal, to hire the <majority> person who doesn't have the skills, education, attitude etc over the <minority> who does... again - relevance!)

Oh -= and a quick thought. No, omnivorness isn't a protected category.. but aren't restaruants over there required to provide vegetarian options on their menus? I'm pretty sure they are over here...

And hypothetical. How would it go down if someone decided to write a book to say the Crusades didn't happen, or if they did, then they've been badly recorded and nowhere near as bad as has been made out? (I'm comparing this to the anti-holocaust people who have been censored)

[Boozy]

And hypothetical. How would it go down if someone decided to write a book to say the Crusades didn't happen, or if they did, then they've been badly recorded and nowhere near as bad as has been made out? (I'm comparing this to the anti-holocaust people who have been censored)

Slyt, this might be better off with its own thread...
I usually don't mind a bit of drift, but I can't figure out what this has to do with the topic at hand. What have I missed? You see a connection that I don't.

[Slytovhand]

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???