e-harmony sued for not offering gay and lesbian services

[Thomas]

Sombeech posted this in another thread and I thought it was interesting, wondering what others opinion was on the subject, might be the wrong forum, sorry if it is.

The founder of E-harmony was sued and FORCED to offer gays and lesbians the same services he offers to straights. Where will it end?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html

It

[BruteForce]

[quote=Thomas]Sombeech posted this in another thread and I thought it was interesting, wondering what others opinion was on the subject, might be the wrong forum, sorry if it is.

The founder of E-harmony was sued and FORCED to offer gays and lesbians the same services he offers to straights. Where will it end?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html

It

[JP]

Just like waiters at Hooter's :roll:

[DiscGo]

I'm sure this thread is likely to turn ugly, like most of the threads about homosexuality on this site... but in good faith I'll share my opinion.


This article highlights my problem with gay marriage. I have no problems with people being homosexual, or civil unions. But I do have a problem with reverse discrimination, and forcing your beliefs on others. What legal grounds would anyone have to sue a website for not being the type of site they want? How long after gay marriage is nationally legalized will organizations (like Churches) who disapprove of Gay Marriage be sued for discrimination. How long until these organizations have their right to perform marriage taken away?


I personally don't agree with nazi organizations, communism, or University of Michigan fans. But I would never try and sue these organizations to offer my opinions in their meetings. Nor use legislation to change what they offer on their websites.


If I want to buy a hamburger, I wouldn't sue Starbucks for not offering hamburgers in their stores. I would go to a place which offers hamburgers.

As I said before, I'm sure this will turn ugly but I'll just say that I'll bet some of you believe this is a great step forward for gay rights, without being concerned what a huge step backward these types of stories are for freedom. It is ironic to me that a group of people whose long time argument has been that people should be able to do whatever they want, would sue someone for running their business the way they want.

[R]

Dan, please stop making sense and being reasonable, and START FLAMING! :twisted:

[RedMan]

If it was me, I would create a POS website and then clamin it was a financial disaster and shut it down after investing $28 of offshore labor.

[DiscGo]

Dan, please stop making sense and being reasonable, and START FLAMING! :twisted:


:roflol:


Richard- I love you man!

[Deathcricket]

I'm sure this thread is likely to turn ugly, like most of the threads about homosexuality on this site... but in good faith I'll share my opinion.


This article highlights my problem with gay marriage. I have no problems with people being homosexual, or civil unions. But I do have a problem with reverse discrimination, and forcing your beliefs on others. What legal grounds would anyone have to sue a website for not being the type of site they want? How long after gay marriage is nationally legalized will organizations (like Churches) who disapprove of Gay Marriage be sued for discrimination. How long until these organizations have their right to perform marriage taken away?


I personally don't agree with nazi organizations, communism, or University of Michigan fans. But I would never try and sue these organizations to offer my opinions in their meetings. Nor use legislation to change what they offer on their websites.


If I want to buy a hamburger, I wouldn't sue Starbucks for not offering hamburgers in their stores. I would go to a place which offers hamburgers.

As I said before, I'm sure this will turn ugly but I'll just say that I'll bet some of you believe this is a great step forward for gay rights, without being concerned what a huge step backward these types of stories are for freedom. It is ironic to me that a group of people whose long time argument has been that people should be able to do whatever they want, would sue someone for running their business the way they want.

I pretty much agree with everything you said (big surprise, hehe). But in this case I hold the e-harmony guys responsible too. They folded. As a large busness, you are always going to have people sueing you for really stupid stuff. He probably did some number crunching and decided "meh, it will cheaper just to add the service and not fight it, and maybe we can make some money off the fags in the process". Where as a church is going to draw a "line in the sand" and fight tooth and nail to uphold their belief system. They have deep coffers, expert legal advice, and heartfelt convictions behind them. So while no doubt the gays are going to start sueing and forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats the second they get a chance, the end result will be much different than some business guy deciding it wasn't worth it.

I have no doubt the church would win such a battle and the sooner we fight it the better. So I still have no problems making civil unions legal. And think the fear based reasoning is still unfounded. the boy scouts still kept the gays out right?
:2thumbs:

[uintahiker]

Dan, please stop making sense and being reasonable, and START FLAMING! :twisted:


:roflol:


Richard- I love you man!

Ok- now it's getting ugly!

[JP]

I'm sure this thread is likely to turn ugly
Ahhh, have a little faith :mrgreen:

[Cirrus2000]

As I said before, I'm sure this will turn ugly but I'll just say that I'll bet some of you believe this is a great step forward for gay rights, without being concerned what a huge step backward these types of stories are for freedom. It is ironic to me that a group of people whose long time argument has been that people should be able to do whatever they want, would sue someone for running their business the way they want.

I agree. See? Not ugly! Next thing you know, straight folks will be suing GayChubbyDating.com to get equal treatment. :ne_nau:

[Don]

I'm sure this thread is likely to turn ugly, like most of the threads about homosexuality on this site... but in good faith I'll share my opinion.


This article highlights my problem with gay marriage. I have no problems with people being homosexual, or civil unions. But I do have a problem with reverse discrimination, and forcing your beliefs on others. What legal grounds would anyone have to sue a website for not being the type of site they want? How long after gay marriage is nationally legalized will organizations (like Churches) who disapprove of Gay Marriage be sued for discrimination. How long until these organizations have their right to perform marriage taken away?


I personally don't agree with nazi organizations, communism, or University of Michigan fans. But I would never try and sue these organizations to offer my opinions in their meetings. Nor use legislation to change what they offer on their websites.


If I want to buy a hamburger, I wouldn't sue Starbucks for not offering hamburgers in their stores. I would go to a place which offers hamburgers.

As I said before, I'm sure this will turn ugly but I'll just say that I'll bet some of you believe this is a great step forward for gay rights, without being concerned what a huge step backward these types of stories are for freedom. It is ironic to me that a group of people whose long time argument has been that people should be able to do whatever they want, would sue someone for running their business the way they want.

I mostly agree with what you're saying Dan, but I'll play devils advocate and ask the questions;

-What service do 'nazi organizations, communism, or University of Michigan fans' offer to the general public that they are denying to you?

-I quite like the starbucks/hamburger argument but from the opposing perspective they are saying that the service a dating site is offering is 'the opportunity to meet someone to date'. Offering the service and denying a group access to the service seems discriminatory, doesn't it?
For instance; they don't deny the service to mormons who chose to only date people who also choose to be mormons because that's discrimination, right?


Also, the slippery slope argument is often brought into these discussions in the same way it has been brought into this thread; 'if gay marriage is legal they will sue to be gay married in my church where gay marriage is considered a sin.'
My suggested solution is this; the government should get OUT of the business of marriage. They should offer a civil union type of contract to any consenting adults who want it. Hetero, gay, or poly amorous unions, it's not the business of the government to decide who can be in what kind of relationship. This government contract is where your legal rights in the relationship come from. Tax breaks, hospital visitation and medical decision making, parental rights, inheritance, all of the rights that now come from marriage. The civil contract is NOT a marriage, is not called a marriage.
Marriage is then moved into the realm of religion. If you want to get married according to whatever religion you choose you go to that religion, meet their standards of conduct or just pay the pastor or whatever, and get married. That marriage, without the civil-contract holds no value in the eyes of the law while conversely the civil-contract without marriage hold no value in the eyes of whichever god you choose.
Whatever the religion, they are then free to select who is allowed to marry in their church according to their traditions and beliefs, without any legal rights being prevented to any citizen.

Keeps you off that slippery slope and seems fair to me. Who objects and why?

[Sombeech]

Specialized is the biggest Mountain Bike brand in Utah right now. But those jerks won't sell me a Rocky Mountain or a Kona.

I know they're great bikes, I've got documentation right here! Take a look at the stats, look at the components!

I know I could go elsewhere, perhaps places that are authorized Kona bike dealers, but Specialized is the biggest name right now. Why wouldn't they be respectful enough to sell me a Kona? Do they think they're better than me, a Kona fan?

Jerks.

Even though there are many places I could buy a Kona and take them on a test ride, I WANT SPECIALIZED to sell me a Kona! In fact, there are 2 bike shops next door that sell Kona's, why don't they get with the program? Everybody's doing it.

by the way, it wasn't me who started the original discussion :mrgreen:

[DiscGo]

Offering the service and denying a group access to the service seems discriminatory, doesn't it?


Not at all. Gay people are still welcome to traffic their site, but they just don't\didn't focus on the homosexual market.





For instance; they don't deny the service to mormons who chose to only date people who also choose to be mormons because that's discrimination, right?


Seriously, Don. If I came across a business who wouldn't sell to Mormons (which is not what I think was happening with eHarmony at all), I would simply go to a different business. That is how a free market is supposed to function.

If it bothered me, I would tell all my Mormon friends to stay away from that business.

I don't know how many of you watch "Lost" but one thing that is great about that show is the great character depth gained by viewing the different experience in people's life which proceeded the Island and affect their decisions they make. If we had that going on, you guys would know that A) I am not homophobic and this isn't me being "against" anyone and B) I have been discriminated against in the work place and was passed up for a job for which I was BY FAR the most qualified because I didn't drink and wouldn't fit in for the bar scene. Did I sue that employer? Nope. Instead I went to work for someone else (making more money and not having to put up with those types of politics).

I don't plan on responding more to this thread, because I have been doing a great job lately of avoiding the "passionate" threads and don't want to get sucked back in, so I'll just again say that I believe that people should be able to do what they want (and run their business how they want).

[The European Death Knot]

OK - so which one of you is going to sue Bogley to mandate a gay chat forum?

[accadacca]

OK - so which one of you is going to sue Bogley to mandate a gay chat forum?
:roflol:

[Sombeech]

OK - so which one of you is going to sue Bogley to mandate a gay chat forum?

We ALREADY have a Politics section.

[Deathcricket]

OK - so which one of you is going to sue Bogley to mandate a gay chat forum?

I'll be sending you some PM's check out the girth and let me know. Me and Iceaxe meet every Thursday with James and you're welcome to join us.

:roflol:

[Jaxx]

I personally don't agree with nazi organizations, communism, or University of Michigan fans. But I would never try and sue these organizations to offer my opinions in their meetings. Nor use legislation to change what they offer on their websites.

I heard that is why Bogley changed from UUtah. Some other users in other states were suing uutah because they didn't include people from other states. In the end it turned out ok but it was a little shaky at first :haha:

[MY T PIMP]

I find this interesting as Eharmony is very selective. I know people who couldn't get eharmony to do a match for them, though I don't know the reason. I know that eharmony strives to be a reputable company that works to find long term relationships.

What's to stop someone from sueing eharmony because they won't find them an extra marital relationship. Such as Ashley Madison. I find it hard to believe that there is not an alternative gay/lesbian match service.

[Sombeech]

I've heard that eHarmony's goal is to produce marriages.

For other purposes, there's adultfriendfinder.com :haha:

I've also heard that on eHarmony, there's not a section for "Married but looking".

[devo_stevo]

I'm still waiting for the gay chubby dating website ad pop up on this thread. No luck yet. :frustrated:

[KapitanSparrow]

Just like waiters at Hooter's :roll:

What do you mean?! There are gay men with hooters at Hooters?! :frustrated:

[James_B_Wads2000]

I

[Sombeech]

[quote=DiscGo]What legal grounds would anyone have to sue a website for not being the type of site they want?

Look up a term called

[caverdan]

..

[JP]

I find it hard to believe that there is not an alternative gay/lesbian match service.
Ohh, I'm sure there is, they would have sued someone for that as well :roll: It's that oral fixation they have, without it, they would continue to cry.

[Don]

[quote=James_B_Wads2000]Look up a term called

[Sombeech]

E-Harmony is offering 'the opportunity to meet someone to date'

What should have supported eharmony is, a gay man COULD find somebody to date... just not another man. He could find all the women on the site to date.

What if a straight female was on there, and there were absolutely zero attractive guys? Would her needs be ignored by eharmony? Sure there are PLENTY of dudes for her to date, she just doesn't want to date them because she is not SEXUALLY ATTRACTED to mullets.

(which is her loss, really)

This scenario happens very often, a knock out female only logs on to find creeps, perverts, guys posing as girls, weird guys that should have posed as girls.... But is she being discriminated against because that website isn't marketing hot guys? What if it were called UglyDudes&HotChicks.com ? - then any sensible woman would know to look somewhere else.

[Don]

E-Harmony is offering 'the opportunity to meet someone to date'

What should have supported eharmony is, a gay man COULD find somebody to date... just not another man. He could find all the women on the site to date.

What if a straight female was on there, and there were absolutely zero attractive guys? Would her needs be ignored by eharmony? Sure there are PLENTY of dudes for her to date, she just doesn't want to date them because she is not SEXUALLY ATTRACTED to mullets.

(which is her loss, really)

This scenario happens very often, a knock out female only logs on to find creeps, perverts, guys posing as girls, weird guys that should have posed as girls.... But is she being discriminated against because that website isn't marketing hot guys? What if it were called UglyDudes&HotChicks.com ? - then any sensible woman would know to look somewhere else.


I'm less on the fence about this case every time someone here tries to defend e-harmony with something like the above 'well if gay men just date women it'll be fine' argument. This does appear to be a discriminatory business practice.
My only real question now is why. I'll bet e-harmony didn't discriminate just 'cause they don't like gay people. It's too easy to alter your software to allow someone to be selective about sex in addition to the politics, race, and religion preferences already offered. There's a financial side; something in their business plan says they lose money for offering services to gays. Maybe they expected public backlash or boycott from christain groups or maybe they expect gays to behave in some way that will chase away the straight people. I'd love to know what their thinking was on this 'cause it seems to be backfiring with new bad publicity...

[Sombeech]

it seems to be backfiring with new bad publicity...

I wouldn't know this because being married, I don't go on the dating scene;

Is eHarmony getting bad publicity? I would wager the argument that it's bringing them more into the limelight.

Again, I've never heard anything about this other than on bogley, so I really don't know what kind of headlines this is making, and then again I'm not in the dating realm so I'm just out of the loop.

[Skylinerider]

Next thing you know the gay's are going to be suing strip clubs for equal stage time.

[JP]

That would be one way to shut down strip joints :haha:

[James_B_Wads2000]

I know this thread was dead on arrival, but this comment has stuck in my craw for weeks now.


How long after gay marriage is nationally legalized will organizations (like Churches) who disapprove of Gay Marriage be sued for discrimination. How long until these organizations have their right to perform marriage taken away?

Dan I am astonished to see that after all theses debates you would continue to cling onto this bold face lie. Nobody is going to be able to get the government to force a church to change its doctrine Some crazies may sue to try to interpret equality as superiority, but the treat of someone suing too far is hardly a rational basis in which to deny someone

[Deathcricket]

[quote=James_B_Wads2000]Dan I am astonished to see that after all theses debates you would continue to cling onto this bold face lie. Nobody is going to be able to get the government to force a church to change its doctrine Some crazies may sue to try to interpret equality as superiority, but the treat of someone suing too far is hardly a rational basis in which to deny someone

[James_B_Wads2000]

Forcing a business to cater to gays isn't that far off from forcing a church to marry gays really.

Actually they are a million miles apart. The slippery-slope argument is as lazy as it is stupid. Come on Jake, I know you can do better than this. You talk of liberties lost, what about the liberty denied to gays to marry whom they choose?

I wish I had more time to respond

[Sombeech]

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.

by the way, a thousand bucks says the gay dude never actually went back to eharmony to find a mate.

[Deathcricket]

[quote=James_B_Wads2000]Actually they are a million miles apart. The slippery-slope argument is as lazy as it is stupid. Come on Jake, I know you can do better than this. You talk of liberties lost, what about the liberty denied to gays to marry whom they choose?

I wish I had more time to respond

[accadacca]

I have plenty of time to respond, but I'll waste it on someone who can respond back.

:haha:
:five:

[Don]

Don't misunderstand. I'm cool with gays getting married. You know that. Forcing churches to marry gays I'm not cool with. Forcing a business to cater to gays is just as wrong IMO. And it is a slippery slope, you just think it's into a pool of jello.

I have plenty of time to respond, but I'll waste it on someone who can respond back.

:haha:

I'm cool with black people eating breakfast in a cafe. You know that. Forcing cafes to serve black people I'm not cool with. Forcing a business to cater to black people is just wrong IMO. And it is a slippery slope, pretty soon black people will want to live in white neighborhoods and attend white churches and hold white priesthoods...



:roll:

[Scott P]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS252US252&q=gay+dating+sites

Should all the above have to cater to the straights? Or should they all be sued?

[Deathcricket]

I'm cool with black people eating breakfast in a cafe. You know that. Forcing cafes to serve watermelon and fried chicken, I'm not cool with. Forcing a business to cater to black people is just wrong IMO. And it is a slippery slope, pretty soon black people will want to have grape juice and "pineapple drank" served out of water fountains and make us pay for it...



:roll:

:lol8:

There, I fixed it for ya so it was relevant to the conversation instead of misleading and exaggerated.