Suit forces eHarmony to offer gay dating service

[BlackTerrel]

What next will BlackPeopleMeet be forced to make a dating site for whites? Or JDate a site for Christians? Will gay dating sites have to make one for heterosexuals?

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1935377720081119


NEW YORK, Nov 19 (Reuters) - Online dating service eHarmony has agreed to create a new website for gays and lesbians as part of a settlement with a gay man in New Jersey, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General said on Wednesday.

The website will provide a dating service with "male seeking a male" or "female seeking a female" options, the Attorney General's office said in a statement.

eHarmony said it will launch the new same-sex dating site, named "Compatible Partners," by March 31.

The settlement was the result of a discrimination complaint filed by Eric McKinley against eHarmony in 2005, which will be dismissed under the settlement agreement.

eHarmony was founded in 2000 by evangelical Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren and had ties with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family.

The New Jersey complaint is not the only legal action to be brought against eHarmony for failing to provide a same-sex option.

In March, lawyers in California brought a lawsuit against the company on behalf of San Francisco resident Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

"We believe that this case is now essentially moot, and we're confident that we will prove that in court," eHarmony vice president Antone Johnson said in a statement about the California case.

[coyote_sprit]

Remember when you used to have the right to host whatever content you want on your own servers? Cause I sure as hell don't.

[TrueFreedom]

Don't be so quick to jump on the "oh noez the government is taking my rights away" bandwagon here. This case was SETTLED out of court. Meaning that EHarmony clearly saw they had discriminatory practices (which by the way the Constitution allows the federal government to stop) and decided not to go to trial with it. It was a joint settlement between the individual who brought the suit and EHarmony. I don't understand this idea that discrimination based on sex, race, gender, sexual preference etc is a "right" that needs to be "protected".

[Kalifornia]

Don't be so quick to jump on the "oh noez the government is taking my rights away" bandwagon here. This case was SETTLED out of court. Meaning that EHarmony clearly saw they had discriminatory practices (which by the way the Constitution allows the federal government to stop) and decided not to go to trial with it. It was a joint settlement between the individual who brought the suit and EHarmony. I don't understand this idea that discrimination based on sex, race, gender, sexual preference etc is a "right" that needs to be "protected".

Perhaps you are on the wrong board. In a free society, private actors get to do whatever the fuck they want with their money and businesses until it harms someone else.

You are going to be hard pressed to prove that Gays are harmed by not being allowed to use E-harmony, when all they have to do is set up their own freaking server.

[SeanEdwards]

I don't understand this idea that discrimination based on sex, race, gender, sexual preference etc is a "right" that needs to be "protected".

I don't understand this idea that the state should be responsible for programming "correct thought" into the minds of a supposedly free people. You can't use persuasion to convince people why bigotry is wrong? Is your case really so weak that you must resort to government force in order to make people think the way you want?

[coyote_sprit]

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CM-Curzhlq2hzQEQ1AMYPDIILOeYLPqu2Pw

Thats what is showing up as the ad on this page.

[Truth Warrior]

If the gays want a dating service like eHarmony, just create one. :rolleyes: eHarmony is in a different business. They aren't competitors.

[werdd]

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=COaJ8LusrufmThDUAxgxMgjhOsCHFTDknQ

[coyote_sprit]

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=COK29Ob_p7_HLhDUAxg8MgiVzDW6SXUgMQ

You can't match the chick with glasses on a blue backdrop.

[lucius]

I don't understand this idea that the state should be responsible for programming "correct thought" into the minds of a supposedly free people. You can't use persuasion to convince people why bigotry is wrong? Is your case really so weak that you must resort to government force in order to make people think the way you want?

Normalizing the abnormal through injunctions, soon to be a thought-crime--watch this policy agenda/social-engineering unfold. Illustrated by Nobel Prize winner Lord Bertrand Russell, of the bloodline, 1953 ‘The Impact of Science on Society’ p. 50:

"Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished, But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: what he regarded as the best system in existence produced Karl Marx. In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so. A totalitarian government with a scientific bent might do things that to us would seem horrifying. The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia, and were more inclined towards the sort of atrocities than I have in mind."

[Truth Warrior]

"Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false." -- Bertrand Russell

[forsmant]

You would think that E harmony would provide the service to whoever wants it. That is just good business. I don't understand why discrimination is seen as a bad thing. Everyone discriminates against everything when they choose one thing over another.

If this was settled out of court, I don't see a problem.

[Agent CSL]

That's just sad. Even though they settled, you know they were just trying to avoid massive court costs in a suit they probably would have lost. I guess there's no such thing as Private Property anymore...

[sevin]

Don't be so quick to jump on the "oh noez the government is taking my rights away" bandwagon here. This case was SETTLED out of court. Meaning that EHarmony clearly saw they had discriminatory practices (which by the way the Constitution allows the federal government to stop) and decided not to go to trial with it. It was a joint settlement between the individual who brought the suit and EHarmony. I don't understand this idea that discrimination based on sex, race, gender, sexual preference etc is a "right" that needs to be "protected".

And your username is TrueFreedom? lol

I don't think eHarmony should discriminate against gay people, but it's their site, and if this is a free country, they should be able to do whatever they want with it.

[coyote_sprit]

That's just sad. Even though they settled, you know they were just trying to avoid massive court costs in a suit they probably would have lost. I guess there's no such thing as Private Property anymore...

Git owt of ur fantazy world conspiracy theorist. Ther nevar haz ben and nevar was privat propertie. America waz allwaiz a socialist republic and teh state haz alwaiz owened evrything. Thank you come again.

[IChooseLiberty]

If the gays want a dating service like eHarmony, just create one. :rolleyes: eHarmony is in a different business. They aren't competitors.

It's not about having the actual service available; But, rather, the purpose of the case is to force societal acceptance. At least, that's how it appears to me.

[Matt Collins]

Apparently eHarmony used to be a Christian based dating site. Then the owner sold it and it has gone downhill from there.

[klamath]

You would think that E harmony would provide the service to whoever wants it. That is just good business. I don't understand why discrimination is seen as a bad thing. Everyone discriminates against everything when they choose one thing over another.

If this was settled out of court, I don't see a problem.


I don't see a problem??? Taking someone to court is using governmental force to achieve your wishes. Even if the person settles out of court it is corerced by the original law suit. Say you have a gun pointed at your head (the threat of a court order) and are told to hand over your wallet. You voluntarily had over your wallet. Ok it was settled without violence. I don't see a problem:rolleyes:
It is not like E hormoney was attacking gays but just didn't offer a service for them. Say a sporting goods store doesn't sell womens underwear and perfume. Should they be sued to force them to stock and sell those items?

Some freedom people are for:rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

It's not about having the actual service available; But, rather, the purpose of the case is to force societal acceptance. At least, that's how it appears to me. And if the gay lawyers manage to pick up a buck to two along the way, that's good for them .............................. in their eyes. :p :rolleyes:

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

[Sandra]

It sets precedent for any gay dating sites as well. They better get ready to pay up. Out of court hopefully.

[HOLLYWOOD]

If the gays want a dating service like eHarmony, just create one. :rolleyes: eHarmony is in a different business. They aren't competitors.

I filed a Lawsuit against eHarmony... and we both settle out of court. Look for a much better and SUCCESSFUL dating on their servers.


HoeHarmony.com - "Hookup Hoes have more fun @ HoeHarmony!"

When... your just too busy posting. ;)

PS: HoeHarmony even has a special 'Star Trek & Star Wars' 1st timers HoeHarmony convention

[M House]

Do gays really need more dating options with Facebook and Myspace around. I've had to stomach a gay bar twice with my gay brother. Everybody wants to "hook up" with you. It's alright cuz it's atleast cordial for the most part. I am honestly though a bit jealous, trying to "hook up" with girls feels like you have to simply try every technique they claim to not like to just get one to talk to you who is simply drunk and on the fertile point of her monthly cycle.....um wow. Kinda wonder why the majority of relationships don't work out.

[Freedom 4 all]

I'm more pro gay rights than most on this board and I think this is asinine. Let em do business with whoever they want.

[devil21]

Is there some shortage of gay personals websites? Judging by a quick Yahoo search of "gay personals", I think not. More pages of results than I care to count. 92,400,000 results.

This is just someone wanting to force someone else to do what they think is right by using the court system as a bully. Seems kinda like the basis of America these days.

[BlackTerrel]

If this was settled out of court, I don't see a problem.

They settled out of course because they were sued a number of times and they knew eventually they would lose.

[2young2vote]

I am going to sue some Clothing companies because they don't make women's clothing for men. The are not treating me equally to the ladies.

[danberkeley]

I am going to sue some Clothing companies because they don't make women's clothing for men. The are not treating me equally to the ladies.

lol. ever heard of "the bro" or the "manssiere"?

[2young2vote]

lol. ever heard of "the bro" or the "manssiere"?

No i havn't. But i do find it kind of ironic that they are sueing because they are not offered a way to find gay couples on Eharmeny yet i look at the bottom of this page and i see advertisements for "Meninlove.com" and other stuff that looks like it is meant for gay people...The free Market has Already solved these peoples "problems". I hate everyone who does stuff like this- sue because they are being treated "unfairly" even though there are many other options available to them.

[danberkeley]

No i havn't. But i do find it kind of ironic that they are sueing because they are not offered a way to find gay couples on Eharmeny yet i look at the bottom of this page and i see advertisements for "Meninlove.com" and other stuff that looks like it is meant for gay people...The free Market has Already solved these peoples "problems". I hate everyone who does stuff like this- sue because they are being treated "unfairly" even though there are many other options available to them.

i see the one for "plentyoffish.com".

[TrueFreedom]

Perhaps you are on the wrong board. In a free society, private actors get to do whatever the fuck they want with their money and businesses until it harms someone else.

You are going to be hard pressed to prove that Gays are harmed by not being allowed to use E-harmony, when all they have to do is set up their own freaking server.


Oh yeah that's right. Lets extend that logically........you are going to be hard pressed to prove that African Americans are harmed by not being allowed to eat in a McDonalds, when all they have to do is set up their own freaking McDonalds. How about schools? Grocery stores? Hospitals?

Stupidest logic I've heard in a while. "Private actors get to do whatever the fuck they want with their money and business as long as it doesn't harm someone else".......but apparently discriminating against an entire group of people is not discrimination because they can just set up their own service, or resturant, or movie theater.......I stand amazed at your genius.

[SeanEdwards]

Oh yeah that's right. Lets extend that logically........you are going to be hard pressed to prove that African Americans are harmed by not being allowed to eat in a McDonalds, when all they have to do is set up their own freaking McDonalds. How about schools? Grocery stores? Hospitals?

Stupidest logic I've heard in a while. "Private actors get to do whatever the fuck they want with their money and business as long as it doesn't harm someone else".......but apparently discriminating against an entire group of people is not discrimination because they can just set up their own service, or resturant, or movie theater.......I stand amazed at your genius.

Historically black colleges.

[TrueFreedom]

Historically black colleges.


Not sure what your point is here.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I'm more pro gay rights than most on this board and I think this is asinine. Let em do business with whoever they want.

I think "Gay rights" in itself and you FOR them makes zero sense at all.

If you were FOR gay rights then why not simply call them human rights?

Do "the gays" need different rights than everyone else?

--

as far as HAVING to allow this or that. If you are a NICHE business then how the hell can they force you into catering to those your business model didn't have?

Like said before

asian dating sites
black dating sites

and so on,

what is wrong with people WANTING to locate people LIKE THEMSELVES? That isn't racist, prejudice or anything. People fall for this "have to treat everyone equally by classifying them as someone else" bullshit....

wake up people.

[TrueFreedom]

I think "Gay rights" in itself and you FOR them makes zero sense at all.

If you were FOR gay rights then why not simply call them human rights?

Do "the gays" need different rights than everyone else?

--

as far as HAVING to allow this or that. If you are a NICHE business then how the hell can they force you into catering to those your business model didn't have?

Like said before

asian dating sites
black dating sites

and so on,

what is wrong with people WANTING to locate people LIKE THEMSELVES? That isn't racist, prejudice or anything. People fall for this "have to treat everyone equally by classifying them as someone else" bullshit....

wake up people.


Ah I see, so it's a niche business and thus is not discriminating. So we strip all the laws away.........then lets say in rural Mississippi all the clothing stores decide to become "niche" clothing stores for white people. Certainly by your ideas, they shouldn't be forced to sell to blacks, it's their business and their money. How about "niche" grocery stores? What happens if those "niche" stores are the only ones in town? The group that can't shop at the "niche" store has to build their own store or move?? Sounds logical to me...

Ah but if all the stores in the small towns became "niche" stores that only sold to whites, then clearly someone would come along and build a black "niche" store and the market would solve again right? I mean it worked so well in the south during the civil rights era *rolls eyes*

[newyearsrevolution08]

Ah I see, so it's a niche business and thus is not discriminating. So we strip all the laws away.........then lets say in rural Mississippi all the clothing stores decide to become "niche" clothing stores for white people. Certainly by your ideas, they shouldn't be forced to sell to blacks, it's their business and their money. How about "niche" grocery stores? What happens if those "niche" stores are the only ones in town? The group that can't shop at the "niche" store has to build their own store or move?? Sounds logical to me...

Ah but if all the stores in the small towns became "niche" stores that only sold to whites, then clearly someone would come along and build a black "niche" store and the market would solve again right? I mean it worked so well in the south during the civil rights era *rolls eyes*

LOL

give me a break.


so

gay dating sites need a straight section as well?

I love it that you go so quick to WHITE CLOTHING, and what if someone wanted to do that? A clothing line catering to white people? Is that illegal?

I can't come up with a come back so I will toss the race card in, haha I win

give me a break.


If you were straight you would go to a STRAIGHT site right?

If you were gay odds are you would go to a gay site right?

Are we getting so p.c. that we can't even have sites based on a potential client or customer base anymore?

[TrueFreedom]

LOL

give me a break.


so

gay dating sites need a straight section as well?

I love it that you go so quick to WHITE CLOTHING, and what if someone wanted to do that? A clothing line catering to white people? Is that illegal?

I can't come up with a come back so I will toss the race card in, haha I win

give me a break.


If you were straight you would go to a STRAIGHT site right?

If you were gay odds are you would go to a gay site right?

Are we getting so p.c. that we can't even have sites based on a potential client or customer base anymore?

Funny how you can mock the clear example of the slippery slope you create, yet cannot offer an answer of how the market would solve.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Funny how you can mock the clear example of the slippery slope you create, yet cannot offer an answer of how the market would solve.

wow what a NON answer you keep providing....

I gave points and various ones within this thread. If you want to read them go for it but if you want to try and toss RACE CARD as a trump card you might need to try the kiddie debating with someone else.

[literatim]

eHarmony is private property, they should be able to offer the services they want for whomever they want.

[nickcoons]

Ah I see, so it's a niche business and thus is not discriminating. So we strip all the laws away.........then lets say in rural Mississippi all the clothing stores decide to become "niche" clothing stores for white people. Certainly by your ideas, they shouldn't be forced to sell to blacks, it's their business and their money. How about "niche" grocery stores? What happens if those "niche" stores are the only ones in town? The group that can't shop at the "niche" store has to build their own store or move?? Sounds logical to me...

Ah but if all the stores in the small towns became "niche" stores that only sold to whites, then clearly someone would come along and build a black "niche" store and the market would solve again right? I mean it worked so well in the south during the civil rights era *rolls eyes*

Surely we both know that the south during the civil rights era was not a free market in which people were allowed to make free decisions, but was instead an environment of legalized segregation and forced discrimination. The solution to government-imposed discrimination is not more government imposition. The free market methods you sarcastically mention would work well had something resembling a free market actually existed.

[LibertyEagle]

That's just sad. Even though they settled, you know they were just trying to avoid massive court costs in a suit they probably would have lost. I guess there's no such thing as Private Property anymore...

+1

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Let's be careful about jumping straight to the NANNY STATE NANNY STATE NANNY STATE conclusion. This was settled out of court, and I'm guessing it was due to profit motive. Including more people = more profit, simple. Let's not forget how many evangelicals out there in the business and media world prefer to worship Money as the one true god.

[H Roark]

Let's be careful about jumping straight to the NANNY STATE NANNY STATE NANNY STATE conclusion. This was settled out of court, and I'm guessing it was due to profit motive. Including more people = more profit, simple. Let's not forget how many evangelicals out there in the business and media world prefer to worship Money as the one true god.

If it was because of a "profit motive" then they would of included gay dating in their business model to begin with. This was obviously done to stave off future court costs. The lawsuit should not of even gotten this far, it should of been thrown out from the onset. Catering to more people doesn't necessarily mean more profit either, exclusivity or specialization carries its own appeal. Nightclubs are notorious for applying this type of model for who gets in; whether its how expensive your clothes are, the type of car you drive, or how hot the girl your bringing is.

I don't get why people are even arguing whether its more profitable or even ethical to be providing services to a special group of people, because guess what? ITS IRRELEVANT. A private business should be able to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone period!

[danberkeley]

If it was because of a "profit motive" then they would of included gay dating in their business model to begin with. This was obviously done to stave off future court costs. The lawsuit should not of even gotten this far, it should of been thrown out from the onset. Catering to more people doesn't necessarily mean more profit either, exclusivity or specialization carries its own appeal. Nightclubs are notorious for applying this type of model for who gets in; whether its how expensive your clothes are, the type of car you drive, or how hot the girl your bringing is.

I don't get why people are even arguing whether its more profitable or even ethical to be providing services to a special group of people, because guess what? ITS IRRELEVANT. A private business should be able to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone period!

Maybe eHarmony secretly own some gay dating services...

[tropicangela]

When consumers shop around, and they go into a store that doesn't offer what they are looking for, they normally move onto the next store to try to find what they want. Just because a store doesn't offer something for everyone, it doesn't mean they are wrong. Ppl should have personal responsibility for themselves and their choices.