May 31, 2007 12:49 PM PDT
Suit against eHarmony alleges discrimination of gays
- Related Blogs
-
eHarmony lawsuit creates online discord
March 31, 2006
Lawyers seek to make it a class action lawsuit on behalf of gays and lesbians denied access to the dating service.
The story "Suit against eHarmony alleges discrimination of gays" published May 31, 2007 at 12:49 PM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.
133 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
None of them, as far as I know make the claim that they will actually match you with individuals with whom you might actually be compatible to form a long term relationship. eHarmony is basically a victim of their own success. The underlying matching algorythm it uses must in fact bring together men and women who actually have a shot at a life together.
I agree with you when you say that there should be a service strictly targeted at homosexuals seeking lifetime partners. After all, it would be rather surprising if a gay male was matched to a straight female and they both ended up marrying each other.
I believe however that eHarmony does not have the right to discriminate against anyone, whether they be blue, green, or ghostly spirits just as long as there is an economically viable member pool, and that those desire to meet their perfect match.
It is still surprising to me that the heterosexual world looks at the homosexual world as just a bunch of sexually depraved lunatics who are out to destroy family values. Most LGBT individuals yearn for the exact things that the heterosexual individuals seek: love, companionship, securilty, family, and stability.
Also, interestingly enough, from the article, it doesn't appear as though the ACLU is behind this lawsuit. However, I'd like to be the first to predict that they will contribute at some point throughout the course of the lawsuit.
Sexual discrimination is not allowed in the workplace, or in something that is critical like hospitals, etc. However, companies that provide private services such as dating can discriminate all they want.
Show me.
I'm sorry, but this gay/lesbian/bi-sexual thing is really going too far. eHarmony was founded based on the idea that STRAIGHT people want to meet and greet and perhaps fall for each other.
Gays (general term) need to understand that not everything will be open to them, just like some gay bars aren't open to heterosexuals. You don't see ME climbing up the lawsuit tree just to get in, do you?
You (gays) have equal access to the internet - plenty of gay sites to subscribe to, dating, non-dating, and general gay interests. If you're not happy with them, why not start your own? Call it 'gHarmony' or something and go to town and paint your rainbow.
Leave eHarmony alone - it's obvious gays aren't welcome to join. Big deal. Is it going to end your life? Nope. There are plenty of other things that do that already.
Oh...wait...this is just a publicity stunt because some lady's feelings got hurt. My bad.
This is pure nonesense. If this person wins a lawsuit it will have an adverse effect on many business, small to large. This would be bad law, very bad. Then again, this world is so upside down nowadays that anything is possible.
There is only one gay bar I know of where heterosexuals can't come in, and that's in Australia.
Disgusting. Blacks did not and would not stand for this crap. When they walked into those shops to protest segregation, they did not think to themselves "Maybe I should accept society's racist values because I can go somewhere else?" What makes you thing gays would or should?
spots stuff.
But you ARE required to NOT discriminate against anyone who
walks thru your door.
While you could sell all you wanted to straight jocks... you would
be required BY LAW to offer the same products and services at
the same prices to gay jocks as well.
In this case, eHarmony is offering a service that lots of people
may want. It doesn't sell books or groceries, just like your
sports store doesn't sell plants or tires, but the service it offers,
regardless of what you may think, by law, has to be offered to
any and everyone. Just like the places that so sell plants and
tires must sell them to everyone, straight or gay.
See the difference?
Historically speaking, because of people just like you two, soar747 and theiway, it has been necessary for us to congregate in the safety of numbers to avoid harassment, ridicule, persecution and in some cases even death (yes even in this country, lest we not forget Matthew Shepard). The discrimination against heterosexuals that is practiced is of your own making and, in my opinion, more than deserved and necessary regardless of whether you feel it's because of an agenda or not.
You want to stop lawsuits of this kind? Then start using the logic that you so boldly stand behind in defense of your discriminatory ways but learn what it means first.
You speak of Matthew Shephard who's case gained great media coverage but how about the friend of mine who was abducted in the park, had both of his legs broken and was sodomized by a couple of gay men? That case never made the local news much less the national or international news but wasn't much less violent than the Matthew Shephard case and I know for a fact that it's only one of a great many other cases similarly swept under the rug because it's not allowed to show "gay" people as violent victimizers despite the fact that as a percentage of the population they are more likely to be offenders.
by Darwin then same sex relationships are an aberration as they
can't continue on their own, so what's your point?
As a free thinker and non-bigot, I am deeply suspect of any person or organization that has anything to do with Focus on the Family. The fact that they are affiliated with this organization, alone, would guarantee that I would never use their product. James Dobson and his ilk are truly evil.
It still doesn't validate this sham of a lawsuit though.
So what?
This is a frivolous lawsuit. Go to a mall, how many stores cater exclusively to women(not including the tiny cross dresser market). Then count the stores that cater only to men.
Offering services to the public is not the same thing as being an employers or a public service(ie buses).
Let's make it a class action lawsuit simply because we can. Because we want attention. Because they don't think like I do. Because they have to conform to my wishes despite their voices being for private or public conversation.
Everyone has to make it so that I can go on with life knowing that everyone thinks like I do.
Sound like someone you know? A certain lesbian, perhaps?
Homosexuals don't simply want you to leave them alone to live their lives in peace and harmony. They want to FORCE you to include them....to endorse their lifestyle as "normal" and equal to your heterosexual lifestyle.
If this were not so, they would simply use one of the many homosexual dating sites in existence.
While the lawsuit focuses on the supposed "rights" of homosexuals to force a business owner to alter his/her business model to accomodate them - it fails to address the rigts of a business owner (or any property owner) to do what they damn well please with their property.
There are now "women only" gyms. Should I sue them for discrimination? Or, should I let them continue in their "pursuit of happiness" as The United States Declaration of Independence says we should have.
From The United States Declaration of Independence's preamble....
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
As I read this, free people should have the right to pursue happiness. And, if our government does not sustain these rights, we have the right to change or abolish it.
Certainly homosexuals have the right to pursue happiness also. But none of us has the right to demand that another support our personal pursuit of happiness, to the detriment of their own, as these homosexuals are demanding of eHarmony's founder.
Go ahead! Be as homosexual as you want to be! Just don't think you can force other people to support a lifestyle that is contrary to their own pursuit of happiness.
Remember, your rights end where another's rights begin.
I'm with you all the way up until you wrapped yourself in the flag and started quoting the DoI.
Besides, the DoI isn't law anyway, the Constitution is.
You however, do not hold true to that statement:
"They want to FORCE you to include them....to endorse their lifestyle as "normal" and equal to your heterosexual lifestyle. "
Your implication is that we are not equal and you're wrong. It's infuriating that you hide your prejudice behind the constitution of this country and it's disgusting that you even take time to reply with a message like this.
your pursuit of happiness?
Queers can do what they want out of sight behind closed doors. Just not in public, thanks.
open online dating service and it costs half of eWhoeMoney too :)
And I can tell you this based on having tried many online dating services - that by far the best one is dreamdates.com: because they are very tough
on who can get in, for the benefit of the members and they offer live communication features which makes online dating real which is very important to those who are serious about meeting their date/love. Just my 2 cents.
They never put any kind of resources into researching gay relationships, so I wouldn't expect them to offer services to gays in any fashion whatsoever.
So right there is where this lawsuit will fail, let alone the fact that this is a service with a targeted audience which, obviously, doesn't have the gay audience in mind.
It may or may not be a good thing for a website to cater to only one kind of person, I have no opinion on that. I do however understand that the issue at hand here is that eHarmony doesn't even let them in the door, so to speak. It's VERY difficult to make an analogy with a retail store because number one, it's virtual, and number two, they are selling a service, not a product.
I think a better analogy may be a lawn service company not offering their services to little people, or women, or latino's, all of which are wrong, period. Be careful to compare apples to apples is all I'm saying :)
You can?t put an ad like that in a news paper. But it?s a little more gray on the interweb.
Or what if I am a landlord and place a non-descript ad, but when minorities (or those with ****** diction) apply I simply state the apartment is taken or that I am working on it?
You may have a homosexual tendency due to nurturing, but you still have a choice.
Decades ago Psychiatrists actually voted as to whether homosexuality was treatable as a disorder and they voted that is was not - but by a very narrow margin. This remains a controversial position among psychiatrists today. Want more information - see exodus.com.
people can have a satisfying relationship with more than one
religion, but it's a protected class under law. Getting married
and having kids are clearly a choice, and yet we can't legally
discriminate people based on their family status.
Having said that, I do think the lawsuit is silly. eHarmoney is not
like a bar or a hotel where no additional costs are required to
accomendate gays and lesbians. Does the plaintiff really want
straight men to start hanging out at lesbian bars?
On one hand, there are views that homosexuality is not a choice. on the other hand, their are views that homosexuality is somehow a "failure" in the normal development of a fetus. (Please note: the use of the word "normal" here is not a judgement on the homosexual lifestyle - it is merely a scientific observation that homosexuality is not the "norm" in human or animal development.)
They both may be right.
What this new hormonal theory may mean is that homosexuals truly can't help "being that way" AND that the cause is a physical malfunction (or not a "normal" function) of hormones during a key stage of fetal development.
Yeah the butch gay female and the fem gay male are stereotypes, but you do see them.
These are traits that naturally develop in an unborn child. Perhaps it is not a genetic link, but you are kidding yourself if you think that every gay person is gay by choice.
At any rate, it is irrelevant to the subject and only serves to distract. Right wing religious hate is far worse then loving someone. Or is being a right wing religious extremist hate monger a genetic defect?
woman sexual services? Or the woman prostitute deny a Bi-sexual
or transgender services based on the prostitutes sexual
preferences? It's all to confusing. By the way, I prefer dogs to cats
and how about some kids thrown into the mix. It's all about the
love so match me up eHarmony. Better yet, I would love a black
hispanic blind woman in a wheel chair that worships Allah and has
sex with man or woman or both dressed like a man or woman or
both. Oh I'm confused. What was the topic?
In this day and age, there is no business that will meet all the needs of all the people. Small businesses thrive on just this fact.
Although I don't want to see people of different sexual orientation excluded from everything and relagated to just certain areas or places, I do also want to see respect given to people's desire for acceptence in their own groups. I don't think this case counts as discrimination. I think there is a distiction to made between out and out discrimination and trying to offer the best service possible to a given group. I'm not saying that's truely the case with eHarmony, but I'm certain that it's the case with many gay oriented couples sites who set out to offer the best service to gays they could and concentrated on that as their goal.
Either way, I don't think it serves the common good to try and totally level the playing field. People of similar ethnic backgrounds, people of similar religious backgrounds, similar interests, similar hobbies, similar educational backgrounds... all deserve to be able to come together in their own space as much as any individual does.
The question then becomes: do they come out of their individual spaces to meet each other? Or do they try to force their way into the other groups spaces. For myself, at least, when I break things down like this, I see how childish we have all become with regards to respect for others.
We're dealing with human beings here. Gay or Hetro, we fall in
love the same way and oddly enough for the same reasons.
What we call "love" in the early days is usually a serious case of
physical lust mixed with a willingness to go onward. Later on, if
you're lucky, the whole thing turns into a dear and loving
friendship. Heck, if you get it right, making love with that special
person is almost like praying! The spiritual connection between
two people loving each other, together, can be and is AMAZING!
Bottom line is that they broke the law. Publicly offered services
cannot be denied a person who is homosexual. We gay men and
women of the world are just as much desireous of meeing and
falling in love as anyone else is. Fortunately most of us manage
without e-harmony playing cupid. But, if they're going to offer
their services to the public then offer it to all the public. What if
they did this same thing and we substitute the word "black" or
"jew" for the word "gay" in their denial statement? The world
would be in an uproar and probably rioting in the streets if this
bunch of idiots were to imply that "it won't work because we
dont' know how "Blacks, Jews, etc." fall in love (implying it must
be vastly different than the rest of us!) They (eharmony)
deserves whatever fate the courts deem just, and then some! I
think they should be made to run a service for Gay men and
women alongside and not separated from their "straight" little
meet rack. (spelling pun intended!) Personally I think it would
be funny to see how many "straight" people got curious online
and opted to try a same sex date or two? And who knows - a
few gays might even try dating the opposite sex once in a while,
too. Could be fun, IMHO! But then I've got a most libertine
sense of humor and always did...
What if someone's sexual preference is children, can they now sue eHarmony? While it may be illegal for them to partake, they should at least have the choice...right?!
Private groups can limit membership. This not an employer
denying a job or a restaurant service.
Second, I work in SD and several colleagues at at work are gay. I
respect them all and consider several to be friends at and
outside of work. However, that doesn't change that a same sex
relationship is an aberrant behavior similar to pedophila,
necrophilia, and bestiality. The individuals in these groups
consider their behavior to be based on love or similar natural
attraction. Same sex relationships have just become more
socially acceptable. There are tribes in Africa where single men
that can't get a wife have sex with girls under the age of 15 and
only consider it to a humiliation to the male for having to stoop
so low for sex. In other tribes healers prescribe sex with
children as a cure for sexually transmitted diseases like HIV. Just
because some say it's socially acceptable doesn't make it so.
Your comparing consentual sex with a man/man or a woman/woman to having "forced" sex with a minor, an animal, and/or a dead person? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Im ashamed I live in SD now. Good God bring some people some sense in here. YOU ARE FREAKING DUMB.
This is no different than a Ford dealer refusing to do work on a Ferrari. They are simply not equipped to do it.
Gay and Straight relationships share common elements of human experience, just as Ferraris and Fords share the common characteristics of having tires, internal combustion engines, brakes, etc. However, a Ford technician would at best do a poor job and at worst risk severely damaging a Ferrari, should they be foolish enough to work on one.
The data (manual) that e-Harmany uses was NOT written for GLBT relationships. Forcing them to provide services to GLBT individuals does a disservice to both parties.
It's a sad thing, when the traditional American spirit of "find a need and fill it" is replaced by "find an unfilled need and litigate it." The idea is to make YOURSELF rich, not enrich your lawyers. Gad.