eHarmony sued for not offering services for gays

[Singular Intellect]

Tell me Bubble Boy, do you understand the ethical reason why anti-discrimination laws exist?

Apparently not, so I'm quite willing to hear your view on it if you're willing to submit it.

To keep powerful majorities from victimizing relatively weak minorities. They were put in place during the Civil Rights era, in large part because blacks had gotten fed up with centuries of mistreatment.

It was my assumption that anti discrimination laws were there to prevent any one group of people being treated better or differently than any other.

And you would be wrong; in fact, during the Civil Rights movement when these anti-discrimination laws were first crafted, the first affirmative-action programs were also created, along with forced integration.

I'm merely arguing from the perspective that all groups should have the same rights and privilege's of any other.

No, all groups should have the same opportunities. There is a difference, although you obviously don't see it. Sometimes, in order to make the same opportunities available to all groups, you need to treat those groups differently.

But I'm trying to argue in the context of absolute fairness.

Fairness is the most infantile form of ethics. Every toddler understands that primitive ethical concept before any other, which is why you hear so many whiny kids screaming that something isn't fair. "He got more ice cream than me! It's no fair! Why does he get to ride the coaster and I don't? It's not fair! Waaaa!" Adults are supposed to develop a more sophisticated form of ethics that incorporates more than just "fairness".

Tell me, do you think that handicapped parking spots are "unfair" because there are no spots reserved for non-handicapped people?

I see your point. I'll drop the issue and reevaluate my views on the subject.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Then please, do explain why gays can have exclusive services for their tastes (no problem here), but they 'need' to ensure that heterosexuals cannot have services exclusive to their tastes (problem here). What 'need' is being filled here?

Do you have your head in the sand or is it just that far up your ass that you're completely oblivious to the amount of social discrimination, hate, ostracization and bashing the LGBT community suffers from? Why do you think gay villages such as the Castro or West Hollywood were created in the first place?

Perhaps you're not understanding the gravity of homophobia in today's current state. It may be not as intense as it was 50 years ago but make no mistake thinking that it's somehow easy for someone to grow up gay. There are gay men who, after being beaten to the point that they are unrecognizable, refuse to report the crime for fear of losing their jobs, kids, family or friends. There are still teenagers that go gay bashing for sport. There is a need for special places for LGBT individuals.

I was under the impression that law was supposed to be free from prejudice and favoring any one group over another.

Instead what I'm seeing is that the law can favor one group over another, so long as the group favored is a minority.

Is this supposed to be equality?

LGBT individuals who get completely equal treatment from the law and then completely unequal treatment from society is not equality, no matter how you slice it. The law is not favoring one group over another by providing additional assistance to minorities who are handicapped by their place in society.

[Turin]

LGBT individuals who get completely equal treatment from the law and then completely unequal treatment from society is not equality, no matter how you slice it. The law is not favoring one group over another by providing additional assistance to minorities who are handicapped by their place in society.

Looks like I stepped away from the discussion just as it was getting interesting. Just a thought... should this same concept of separate standard of discrimination apply in this case to race-based matchmaking sites. In my previous post I said:

I was going to make an argument that one could place a minority-focused matchmaker site under the same concept as "women's gyms." One could make an argument that there's a need for LGBT-focused sites, but all the arguments I could make end up showing why there would still be plenty of reason for straights to be permitted to use the site (i.e., sexual orientation is a broad spectrum).

Ignoring my last little point there (because I don't think it's a big enough issue to really worry about), can this argument really be made for sites like BlackSingles or AsianSingles, etc?

LGBT individuals need access to separate matchmaker sites because the nature of their minority status and the discrimination they face is directly related to the service in question... similar to how "women's gyms" provide a service that is directly related to the special problems of women (ex. objectification by leering men, etc.). Can this same argument really be applied to racial minorities in this case?

[Darth Wong]

I think the important argument here is equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of treatment. People seem to have completely forgotten that all of these anti-discrimination laws were put in place to ensure that the weaker elements of society were given equal opportunities. Equal treatment would only preserve the status quo, which is the real agenda behind this common conservative argument.

It also applies to things like the bathroom issue. Equal treatment would mean that there should be no segregated bathrooms. Equal opportunity means that men and women should have equal opportunity to go the bathroom without feeling that they are being leered at or threatened, and that won't happen without segregated bathrooms.

Racial dating sites are unfortunate, but you couldn't really argue that they diminish anyones' opportunities because the kind of people who will only date someone of a specific race would do so regardless of whether the appropriate dating website existed.

[CaptJodan]

As a starter I would say that I agree with the argument that a buisness should be able to restrict its target audience based on simple first amendment principles. Its the difference between public services and accomodations and a members only organization. A restaurant is a public venue wheras an internet dating site is almost certainly a members only organization, they are two completely different types of buisness so the whole "its the same as a restaurant" argument is on legally weak ground. Put another way if there are folks out there who only want to get in touch with other god fearing queer hating good ol' boys then fine you can target your site to match those folks up but open a hotel for straights only and that's a different bag entirely.

I tend to agree. While I support anti-discrimination laws, I don't see what's wrong with allowing eHarmony to cater to a specific clientel, so long as they're not being dishonest or deceptive about it (which eHarmony may have been). I might be missing something fundemental here, but it seems to me that the fact that a host of other sites include or cater to the LGBT community is evidence that equal opportunity is satisfied. While the opportunity to pick a single from eHarmony proper isn't necessarily avaliable, it's not likely that the people using eHarmony are the type of clientel to want LGBT options.

[Ted C]

It also applies to things like the bathroom issue. Equal treatment would mean that there should be no segregated bathrooms. Equal opportunity means that men and women should have equal opportunity to go the bathroom without feeling that they are being leered at or threatened, and that won't happen without segregated bathrooms.

I guess the question becomes, then, whether lack of access to match-making via eHarmony represents a significant disparity in dating opportunities between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Does a homosexual's lack of access to eHarmony mean they have substantially fewer opportunities to find suitable mates? Or does the existence of other services like Chemistry.com effectively give eHarmony a pass on this particular issue?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I tend to agree. While I support anti-discrimination laws, I don't see what's wrong with allowing eHarmony to cater to a specific clientel, so long as they're not being dishonest or deceptive about it (which eHarmony may have been). I might be missing something fundemental here, but it seems to me that the fact that a host of other sites include or cater to the LGBT community is evidence that equal opportunity is satisfied. While the opportunity to pick a single from eHarmony proper isn't necessarily avaliable, it's not likely that the people using eHarmony are the type of clientel to want LGBT options.

As I said earlier, it's not eHarmony's exclusive policy that bothers me but their marketing practices (Hell, there are even Christian dating sites). About three years ago, I tried logging into eHarmony myself and went through the long questionnaire process only to find out in the end that same-sex services were not available. And I didn't find that out until I did the research on eHarmony because I was a bit reluctant to pay upfront without knowing a bit more about the site. Naturally, I was pretty pissed to find out that they lacked same-sex pairing despite advertising themselves as a general matchmaking website.

[CaptJodan]

As I said earlier, it's not eHarmony's exclusive policy that bothers me but their marketing practices (Hell, there are even Christian dating sites). About three years ago, I tried logging into eHarmony myself and went through the long questionnaire process only to find out in the end that same-sex services were not available. And I didn't find that out until I did the research on eHarmony because I was a bit reluctant to pay upfront without knowing a bit more about the site. Naturally, I was pretty pissed to find out that they lacked same-sex pairing despite advertising themselves as a general matchmaking website.

And I think that's a fair enough assessment, though I think going after them for false or misleading advertisement is more valid in that case than suing for discrimination.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I agree with CaptainChewbacca. Even though I can see why someone would call these kinds of actions discrimination, I can't bring myself to think of it as such. I think it's just catering to a specific market.

These companies are trying to cater to people with certain preferences, be it racial or sexual. That's just the market that they are trying to reach. Now, they might be doing that for bigoted reasons, but I can't say that the action itself is bigoted even though their reasons might be.

Bullshit, they are BANNING people based on sexual orientation. They're not designing their product so that gays will be less likely to find valid use for it, they're putting the product out there and stating, flat out, 'No, you can't use this and we refuse to sell it to you because you're gay.'

That is discrimination and bigotry no matter how many semantic backflips you do to try and cover it up.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

And kudos to my own lack of foresight for not realizing that the thread was actually three pages long, as opposed to just one page long.

[metavac]

I checked the fine print. The asian singles was open to everyone over 18, the black one is specifically for black people.

You sure? I just looked at Blacksingles. There's nothing in the registration form requiring you to identify race and nothing in the TOU indicating that not being Black is a violation. In fact, it looks remarkably similar to Blackplanet's dating service setup, and that site's just a breeding ground for interracial hook ups.

As for eHarmony, their terms of use, at least in principle, sanction users who lie about their gender to get around same-sex searching: "You will not provide inaccurate, misleading or false information to the Company or to any other Registered User. If information provided to the Company, or another Registered User, subsequently becomes inaccurate, misleading or false, you will promptly notify the Company of such change."

Not sure if that' sufficient to uphold the claim, but we'll see.

[Duckie]

Do you have your head in the sand or is it just that far up your ass that you're completely oblivious to the amount of social discrimination, hate, ostracization and bashing the LGBT community suffers from? Why do you think gay villages such as the Castro or West Hollywood were created in the first place?

Perhaps you're not understanding the gravity of homophobia in today's current state. It may be not as intense as it was 50 years ago but make no mistake thinking that it's somehow easy for someone to grow up gay. There are gay men who, after being beaten to the point that they are unrecognizable, refuse to report the crime for fear of losing their jobs, kids, family or friends. There are still teenagers that go gay bashing for sport. There is a need for special places for LGBT individuals.

Fuck those examples, let's go with some better ones that I know well enough to talk about. Most of you just put the T at the end of LGB because you've been taught to do so by the English Language.

Just consider for a minute (hell, 20 seconds will do if you're busy or something) to consider how much even compared to the LGB that the T gets the short end of the stick.

Enough that Transsexuals don't have pride days. Transsexual holidays are memorials for all the dead accumulated over the past year.

Duchess can back me up on this one, some people are just so shortsticked by life they need an affirmative actionary leg up to survive.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Fuck those examples, let's go with some better ones that I know well enough to talk about. Most of you just put the T at the end of LGB because you've been taught to do so by the English Language.

Just consider for a minute (hell, 20 seconds will do if you're busy or something) to consider how much even compared to the LGB that the T gets the short end of the stick.

Enough that Transsexuals don't have pride days. Transsexual holidays are memorials for all the dead accumulated over the past year.

Duchess can back me up on this one, some people are just so shortsticked by life they need an affirmative actionary leg up to survive.

No, I understand how rough the T gets, which only serves to greater enhance my point. The examples given were the ones I could think off the top of my head.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Fuck those examples, let's go with some better ones that I know well enough to talk about. Most of you just put the T at the end of LGB because you've been taught to do so by the English Language.

Just consider for a minute (hell, 20 seconds will do if you're busy or something) to consider how much even compared to the LGB that the T gets the short end of the stick.

Enough that Transsexuals don't have pride days. Transsexual holidays are memorials for all the dead accumulated over the past year.

Duchess can back me up on this one, some people are just so shortsticked by life they need an affirmative actionary leg up to survive.

Quite true. They're one of what's certainly the most oppressed communities in existence today, to the exclusion of all others. The fundamental nature of the fact that trans-individuals suffer from a serious biological issue rather than being simply mentally deranged or gay as is often claimed, is simply ignored by the majority of society, and sometimes even by homosexual activist groups themselves. I once had a transwoman (when I was back in school) as a roommate and her struggles, especially the virulence of her family toward who she was, cut to the quick.

[CmdrWilkens]

I think the important argument here is equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of treatment. People seem to have completely forgotten that all of these anti-discrimination laws were put in place to ensure that the weaker elements of society were given equal opportunities. Equal treatment would only preserve the status quo, which is the real agenda behind this common conservative argument.

It also applies to things like the bathroom issue. Equal treatment would mean that there should be no segregated bathrooms. Equal opportunity means that men and women should have equal opportunity to go the bathroom without feeling that they are being leered at or threatened, and that won't happen without segregated bathrooms.

Racial dating sites are unfortunate, but you couldn't really argue that they diminish anyones' opportunities because the kind of people who will only date someone of a specific race would do so regardless of whether the appropriate dating website existed.

Which gets right at the point both myself and CaptJodan (and Ted C ) are making which is that eHarmony doesn't neccessarily, by excluding same sex matchmaking, restrict the availability of matchmaking services to those who want a homosexual match. Now the point PintO makes is the crux and points to eHarmony being guilty of false advertising and some very shaddy buisness practices by advertising as a gneral matchmaking service but not being one. Still being a false advertiser doen't make them illegally discriminatory (obviously they are discriminatory) but I don't believe in a way the illegally restricts access to the type of service they provide to those not discriminated against.

[Zwinmar]

if there is an anti discremitory law (no i cant spell) it should apply across the board. Includeing gyms, webservices and the like.

To claim that there is a difference because its a 'woman only' gym is to be hypocritical. And should be illegal, consdidering that the racism card is so over played.

[TC Pilot]

If eHarmony misled and defrauded these homosexuals, then they are perfectly justified in suing the company. If they are seeking legal action because the service does not cater to them, then I hope the case gets thrown out as it deserves.

[brianeyci]

if there is an anti discremitory law (no i cant spell) it should apply across the board. Includeing gyms, webservices and the like.

To claim that there is a difference because its a 'woman only' gym is to be hypocritical. And should be illegal, consdidering that the racism card is so over played.

Did you read the thread? Equality of treatment is an infantile mode of ethics. Or do need to be torn apart like Bubble Bling too?

It's not so hard to learn how to spell discriminatory.

The racism card is "overplayed" yes, but not as much as conservatives would like you to believe. Let me ask you a question: do you think affirmative action programs are hypocritical?

[Zwinmar]

When they get to the point (and im not saying that they necissarily are) that it goes from equality to superiority then yes.

When someone is able to get something over someone with more need based on somthing such as Sex, Race, Ethnicity, whatever. Then there is a problem with the system, and needs to be reevaluated.


Something such as Race, Sex, etc... should not play a part in getting a job, qualification and performance should be the only factor. I dont care if someone is a green parapalegic, if he/she is qualified and can perform the job as it needs to be done, then he/she should get it.

As for Equalitiy of treatment: Its far easier to treat everyone the same than to be a racist, sexist or whatever -ist, applies. It may be simplistic, but that doesnt take away from the validity of utilizeing it. As I said, however, professionally, Qualification and Performance rate the highest.


On another note, yes I am fully aware that my thought process isnt exactly the most liberal (useing the term as it ment a form of thought, not left wing or right wing as it is over simplified in politics. ie. Socialism, Liberalism, Facism and Communism)

I am actually trying to change that.