eHarmony sued for not offering services for gays

[Darth Raptor]

Allegedly the rationale for eHarmony being strictly heterosexual is that their much vaunted compatibility techniques are only proven to work for the God-sanctioned kind of partnerships that make Jesus smile. But seriously? There are free dating sites that are superior to eHarmony. In fact, I would wager that ANY free dating site is superior to its paysite counterparts. Why? Because free sites don't have a vested interest in keeping you signed up and single.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I'm not so bothered by the fact that they discriminate against non-heterosexuals (even though that's pretty much against the law) as the fact that they don't tell you that until you've signed up and paid for it. If I'm not mistaken, didn't that happen to you, Frank?

[Singular Intellect]

Out of curiousity, why is the solution to sue eHarmony rather than merely start up a gay exclusive match making service? Oh wait, a five second google search of "gay matchmaker" revealed tons of sites for just that thing. Go figure.

I see absolutely no problem with a gays only service, but if it's a straight only service suddenly it's 'discrimination'.

As I see it, there is a fuckload of discrimination going on here, but not what most here seem to think. What I see is the gay community trying to push their way into any area that doesn't automatically cater to their personal tastes, even though they have access to services and options that specialize solely for their tastes.

This is just another clear cut case of a minority group using it's status to get special treatment from the rest of us. And it's beginning to piss me off.

[Solauren]

Actually, I think Gay only services are a good idea, if only because it should lower the odds of such a sight being used to target homosexuals.

However, heterosexual only, that's pushing it.

[Frank Hipper]

I'm not so bothered by the fact that they discriminate against non-heterosexuals (even though that's pretty much against the law) as the fact that they don't tell you that until you've signed up and paid for it. If I'm not mistaken, didn't that happen to you, Frank?

Oh, nononono; no dating services for this cowboy.

It happened to a guy at another board a couple years ago.

[CmdrWilkens]

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.

NOW

That said if you are going to present yourself as a general matchmaking site, cahrge folks money, and only THEN tell them its heterosexual only that is definately either discrimination or false advertising depending upon how rough you want to play ball with the company.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I completely agree. If eHarmony took people's money and then refused to provide matches suitable to the patron's sexual orientation, they should by all means be sued for fraud and misrepresentation of services.

[Singular Intellect]

Actually, I think Gay only services are a good idea, if only because it should lower the odds of such a sight being used to target homosexuals.

However, heterosexual only, that's pushing it.

In other words, gay only is okay, but heterosexual only is discrimination.

I call that fucking bullshit.

[Vaporous]

Even Hannidate doesn't discriminate against homosexuals. That's embarrassingly stupid.

[Azazal]

Shit if these lawsuits can work, why not ours:

It's time again for the annual "Stella Awards"!
<SNIP>

Dammit.

I want to have all these people lined up and shot as an example to others.

Side-drift, but the posted Stella lawsuits are bogus according to Snopes

We not rteturn you to your regularly scheduled threat, in Technicolor.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

In other words, gay only is okay, but heterosexual only is discrimination.

I call that fucking bullshit.

"OMG! Straight people are being discriminated against!"

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Actually, I think Gay only services are a good idea, if only because it should lower the odds of such a sight being used to target homosexuals.

However, heterosexual only, that's pushing it.

In other words, gay only is okay, but heterosexual only is discrimination.

I call that fucking bullshit.

No you don't.

That's a perfectly reasonable proposal, as homosexuals are in fact highly targeted and actively discriminated against, so that special places for homosexuals are necessary to protect them from harassment, assault, and general bigotry.

We already had this discussion back a bit ago about a gay night club in Australia which banned women.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, I think Gay only services are a good idea, if only because it should lower the odds of such a sight being used to target homosexuals.

However, heterosexual only, that's pushing it.

In other words, gay only is okay, but heterosexual only is discrimination.

I call that fucking bullshit.

Yeah, you're totally right! It's so hard for us heterosexuals to find places where we can meet other heterosexuals. Am I right? Solidarity, brother! Solidarity for the oppressed!

[Singular Intellect]

In other words, gay only is okay, but heterosexual only is discrimination.

I call that fucking bullshit.

"OMG! Straight people are being discriminated against!"

Yes, they are. In this case it's alright to cater exclusively to gays, but not to cater exclusively to heterosexuals.

In other words, gay only is okay, but heterosexual only is discrimination.

I call that fucking bullshit.

No you don't.

Yes, I do.

That's a perfectly reasonable proposal, as homosexuals are in fact highly targeted and actively discriminated against, so that special places for homosexuals are necessary to protect them from harassment, assault, and general bigotry.

We already had this discussion back a bit ago about a gay night club in Australia which banned women.

Yes, and the way to deal with discrimination is education and acceptance. Not giving them special rights over everyone else.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, and the way to deal with discrimination is education and acceptance. Not giving them special rights over everyone else.

Oh for fuck's sake, are womens' bathrooms a "special right" too? According to your logic, they are.

[Singular Intellect]

Actually, I think Gay only services are a good idea, if only because it should lower the odds of such a sight being used to target homosexuals.

However, heterosexual only, that's pushing it.

In other words, gay only is okay, but heterosexual only is discrimination.

I call that fucking bullshit.

Yeah, you're totally right! It's so hard for us heterosexuals to find places where we can meet other heterosexuals. Am I right? Solidarity, brother! Solidarity for the oppressed!

Explain why being a minority entitles that minority to be exempt from rules that apply to everyone else.

That's utter bullshit.

[NeoGoomba]

Oh for fuck's sake, are womens' bathrooms a "special right" too? According to your logic, they are.

Its bullshit that they get couches, goddammit!

[Singular Intellect]

Yes, and the way to deal with discrimination is education and acceptance. Not giving them special rights over everyone else.

Oh for fuck's sake, are womens' bathrooms a "special right" too? According to your logic, they are.

Now you're being obtuse. I would only be arguing the point if women had their own washrooms but men don't have that right. In this case, both men and women can have seperate washroom facilities catering to their needs. Both sides are being treated equally.

But in this case, gays have services exclusively for their tastes, but heterosexuals will be charged with discrimination if they do the same.

Do you seriously not see the flaw there?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

"OMG! Straight people are being discriminated against!"

Yes, they are. In this case it's alright to cater exclusively to gays, but not to cater exclusively to heterosexuals.

Oh cry me a river, you emo shitstain. You seem to think that it's such a terrible thing for heterosexuals or that, somehow, heterosexuals need their own exclusive clubs as badly as ostracized minorities do. It's hilarious to listen to straight people whine about discrimination when they don't even know the first thing about it.

[Singular Intellect]

"OMG! Straight people are being discriminated against!"

Yes, they are. In this case it's alright to cater exclusively to gays, but not to cater exclusively to heterosexuals.

Oh cry me a river, you emo shitstain. You seem to think that it's such a terrible thing for heterosexuals or that, somehow, heterosexuals need their own exclusive clubs as badly as ostracized minorities do. It's hilarious to listen to straight people whine about discrimination when they don't even know the first thing about it.

So in other words, you're fine with discrimination so long as it's a minority group employing it.

Silly me for wanting people and groups to be treated equally...

[Darth Wong]

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

All of your arguments rely on personal incredulity. You simply call my position "bullshit" or you repeat your position and then say "there, don't you get it?" It occurs to me that you do this because when push comes to shove, you can't explain the reason for your position other than to assume it is self-evident and people will eventually get it if you keep repeating yourself.

Why don't you tell me why anti-discrimination laws exist, and then ask yourself if that original principle applies here.

PS. Regarding the mens' bathrooms vs womens' bathrooms issue, I would have absolutely no problem with women having their own bathrooms while men get coed bathrooms. You would?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

So in other words, you're fine with discrimination so long as it's a minority group employing it.

No, as long as a minority group needs it. What part of that don't you understand?

Silly me for wanting people and groups to be treated equally...

Don't be a fucking idiot. Do you think that if people and groups are treated equally by the law that they are treated equally socially? Oh gee, let's ignore the fact that some minority groups are treated like shit, right? Right?

Do you honestly think that education and "acceptance" (whatever the fuck that means) are appropriate solutions to combat the immediate ostracization of non-heterosexuals? It's been over 50 years since the civil rights movement began and racism is still a problem in this country. And you think that if you try to educate everyone that homophobia will simply disappear? What world do you live in? Disney?

[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.

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.

All of your arguments rely on personal incredulity. You simply call my position "bullshit" or you repeat your position and then say "there, don't you get it?" It occurs to me that you do this because when push comes to shove, you can't explain the reason for your position other than to assume it is self-evident and people will eventually get it if you keep repeating yourself.

I'm merely arguing from the perspective that all groups should have the same rights and privilege's of any other. If gays can have services exclusive to their tastes, so can heterosexuals. Why the hell not?

Why don't you tell me why anti-discrimination laws exist, and then ask yourself if that original principle applies here.

PS. Regarding the mens' bathrooms vs womens' bathrooms issue, I would have absolutely no problem with women having their own bathrooms while men get coed bathrooms. You would?

No, I wouldn't. But that's a personal concern (I just wouldn't care, honestly). But I'm trying to argue in the context of absolute fairness. In your example above, it is irrefuteable that women are getting preferential treatment, regardless whether it concerns me or not.

[Singular Intellect]

So in other words, you're fine with discrimination so long as it's a minority group employing it.

No, as long as a minority group needs it. What part of that don't you understand?

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?

Silly me for wanting people and groups to be treated equally...

Don't be a fucking idiot. Do you think that if people and groups are treated equally by the law that they are treated equally socially? Oh gee, let's ignore the fact that some minority groups are treated like shit, right? Right?

Do you honestly think that education and "acceptance" (whatever the fuck that means) are appropriate solutions to combat the immediate ostracization of non-heterosexuals? It's been over 50 years since the civil rights movement began and racism is still a problem in this country. And you think that if you try to educate everyone that homophobia will simply disappear? What world do you live in? Disney?

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?

[Darth Wong]

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? OMG, they can park in our spots but we can't park in theirs! UNFAIR!!! Waaaa!