eHarmony to create same-sex service, settling complaint

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Online dating site eHarmony will create a service for same-sex matching in a settlement of a 2005 complaint that the company's failure to offer such a service was discriminatory.

Under terms of the agreement with the New Jersey attorney general's office, eHarmony Inc. will start the service, called Compatible Partners, by March 31.

"With the launch of the Compatible Partners site, our policy is to welcome all single individuals who are genuinely seeking long-term relationships," said Antone Johnson, eHarmony vice president of legal affairs.

The company and its founder, Neil Clark Warren, admit no wrongdoing or liability.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/11/19/eharmony.same.sex.matches/index.html

[Eric J in MN]

1. I don't agree with the complaint. Companies should be allowed to create websites for specific groups

Not every website should be legally obligated to be inclusive.

[aviationpm]

6. Okay... what if I open a white-only store?

You okay with that?

[snake in the grass]

8. I'm okay with that...

...because I doubt that such an asshole would be in business very long. Let's assume someone opened up a bookstore for white-supremacist literature. How many customers of other ethnicities would venture inside and support such a place with their money? Businesses are privately owned and the owners are free to choose whom they want to sell to. Just as we are free to boycott such establishments. If you want a website that offers gays the possibility of finding their true love because e-Harmony doesn't, then start one up. There is obviously a demand for it and it's e-Harmony's loss in the long run.

Oh, wait! Somebody already had that idea.

http://www.mygaypartner.com/

More importantly, I'd like to ask you why would you want to patron a business that, for whatever reason, doesn't like you?

[Blue_in_Mass]

27. Businesses should be vulnerable to political pressure of any kind.

It is the right of the public at large to demand that social standards be met by any and all businesses. By your logic, the public would have no right to demand that a company cease racist internal policies, for instance.

[flvegan]

2. How many ads for Compatible Partners will I see?

I see eHarmony ads all the time.

Just wondering.

[madeline_con]

3. Isn't eHarmony a private company?

And as such, permitted to exclude whomever? I'm not gay-bashing, I'm just saying. Maybe their former policy wasn't good for business, but did it break the law?

There are female-only gyms, for instance. :shrug:

spell edit

[aviationpm]

7. Are there white-only gyms? n/t

[customerserviceguy]

14. There are people here

who would force pharmacists to carry products they don't find morally acceptable, or force physicians to provide certain services that they feel the same way about.

On the other hand, the same folks would not force a vegetarian store to offer meat products. So, it's a mixed bag here, not sure how most are going to come down on it.

[MattBaggins]

19. Are you serious?

You bet your ass I would force pharmacists and doctors to provide the health care they are obligated to. Would you support a fire or police department that refused to help certain people because of "moral reasons"?

[customerserviceguy]

26. Not the same thing

Anyone can legally compete with a pharmacist or physician, if they can obtain the necessary training and licensing. How many fire departments are in your town? And as "obligations" go in the medical field, would you force a plastic surgeon who wished to limit her practice to alleviating conditions caused by accident, disease, and congenital defect to do boob jobs on neurotic women who want to look like centerfold bimbos, just to please their resident male chauvinist pig? There are always medical procedures that are going to be controversial for some reason or another, do we really want to force every provider to perform every one of them?

It's all a matter of who we want "choice" for, and who we want to force not to have choices, isn't it? All I was trying to say was that there seems to be no logical pattern here (or probably anywhere in society, for that matter) as to what people deem a person's right to a choice that reflects their moral beliefs, no matter how out of step they are with the majority, and what things they must be forced to offer to others.

The eHarmony opinions expressed here reflect that diversity of opinion on what they "need" to do in offering dating services. If eHarmony was the governmentally-sanctioned ONLY provider of Internet dating services, then you'd have a point. Because there are websites that cater to segments of the dating market, or broad swaths of it (including one-night stands) then ordering eHarmony to provide a service to a market it does not wish to cater to seems like ordering a vegetarian restaurant to offer a meat dish.

In any case, the whole thing was done in an out-of-court settlement, so

[MessiahRp]

28. Most Pharmacists work for a larger pharmacy and do not own their own business

Therefore it is their duty to shut up and dispense the prescribed medicine regardless of their objections (if they wanted to object, they'd become a Doctor and then refuse to prescribe the medicine) not make decisions about a customers' health on behalf of and usually without approval of the company they work for.

Rp

[customerserviceguy]

29. Agreed

if I were a member of a religion that was opposed to pork, and I took a job at a market that sold pork products, I would not expect to be exempted from stacking them on shelves, or ringing them up at the register. The same would apply to a pharmacist who works for a chain that sold a drug that the pharmacist was morally opposed to. It's that person's obligation to find an employer who has practices that agree with the employee's moral standards.

But eHarmony is a private business, and a lawsuit to get them to offer a service that they were morally opposed to providing seems to be the same thing as trying to force the halal or kosher butcher shop to offer bacon. Now, I'm a committed carnivore, but I cannot imagine trying to sue someone morally opposed to bacon to have to sell it to me, especially given that I have so very many other ways to buy it. If I was successful in a lawsuit, then I would expect the butcher shop to simply close, rather than provide me with what I demanded. If that was the only butcher shop in the area, I'd be depriving my neighbors of what they wanted, as well.

Still, the vegetarians in town might be happy, but nobody else would.

[noiretextatique]

33. eharmony chose to settle the lawsuit

so apparently there is something other than "morality" driving that decision.

[Psephos]

37. It requires considerable naivete to think that settling out of court = acknowledging legitimacy

Settling means a calculation has been performed: how much does it cost to settle vs. how much will it cost to proceed? "Justice" is not part of the calculation. It often (or even usually) is not part of the legal process, either.

Our tort-infested "legal" system is a feast for cynics, hyenas, and narcissists.

[Ms. Toad]

52. It is, effectively, the same thing.

Given that I am restricted as to which pharmacist of physician I go to by my insurance coverage, competition is meaningless. If my insurance covers a particular birth control pill or device that my pharmacist or physician finds morally objectionable, I should not be required to pay for it out of pocket merely because my physician or pharmacist finds it morally offensive. The case is even more similar when the need is time sensitive - such as for the morning after pill following a rape. Although I may legally be able to pick which pharmacy I go to, as a practical matter I will have little choice, particularly in a smaller community in which finding a willing pharmacist may mean going to a different town (in which the pharmacist may have similar objections).

[Ignis]

30. What part of "First, do no harm" is unclear to you?

Refusing to consider and provide all available medical solutions due to some particular interpretation of your religion should be criminal for any doctor.

The patient's health comes first.

[customerserviceguy]

31. The same Hippocratic Oath you quote from also says

"Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion." But you get to pick and choose for everybody else what parts of that Oath are still valid, and which parts are just 'old-fashioned', right?

Forcing people to do things that they find morally objectionable will just reduce the numbers of people willing to engage in the practice of medicine and pharmacy, that's all. Even the military draft has a consciencious objection exemption.

[Ignis]

32. Right, just like these fundie wackos only like PARTS of Leviticus.

What's next? Do cops only get to protect people of certain religions? Do firefighters get to sit by and let synagogues burn to the ground because they have "moral qualms" about Judaism?

Your slope, it is very slippery.

[LeftyMom]

36. Women are a suspect class under federal law. Gay people are under (some) state laws.

Omnivores are a suspect class nowhere.

That would be the difference.

BTW, if you don't know what a suspect class is or why that applies to this case, you should definitely look it up before commenting.

[Recursion]

4. Wait. I can't create a straight-only or gay-only matchmaking site?

I'm not entirely happy about what this ruling seems to be saying.

[donco6]

41. Not if you're offering it in NJ, no.

Sorry to disappoint.

[FreeState]

43. Or California - if you offer a public good or service it must be offered to all n/t

[Creideiki]

51. Don't worry.

We won't come after you.

[ksimons]

5. they probably loved the ruling - wanted to get the money in gay dating, but now have an excuse

They are a business and this gives them license to market for money, and claim they were forced to. They are loving this or they would have fought it more vigorously.

[onehandle]

10. Bingo. The founder is a fundie. But he loves money.

They wanted this. Chemistry.com now has competition.

[Ian David]

9. Why would you give your business to a company that had to be sued into serving you? n/t

[Psephos]

38. Exactly n/t

[closeupready]

11. eHarmony could have litigated and chose not to. I don't see what the problem is

if eHarmony doesn't have a problem with it.

[Best_man23]

12. I'm on a men's support group site

On there, it is a BADGE OF HONOR to have been rejected by eHarmony.

[customerserviceguy]

15. Ha! That's a hoot!

I got rejected by them years ago, married too many times.

But their business model might be the biggest problem. They focus on the personality survey method of compatibility, and keep people's pictures under wraps until a conversation between two people has progressed to a certain point. My lady and I met on a dating site for larger folks, and over on the discussion boards, there have been numerous cases of women seeming to hit it off with a guy until he sees their picture.

Now, it might be shallow or whatever to base things on looks, but there has to be a certain physical attractiveness between people to really make a relationship start. Nobody's going to want to "get busy" with someone they're not attracted to, unless its just to use them, or some sort of mind-altering substance is involved. It seemed cruel to these women to have to have gotten some hopes up, just to have them dashed on the rocks on the grounds of appearance.

[Heather MC]

13. I always thought eHamony only catered to white people anyway

Who cares it's one website out of thousands that hooks people up online.

there are tons of Gay only dating sights, I think this is an unfair attack on a privately owned company. that will result in them making tons of money.

[fed_up_mother]

16. I see black couples in their ads

[Heather MC]

18. Bi-racial couples, that's what I never see!

[Joe Bacon]

21. eHarmony refuses to match different races.

Which is why I quit them, besides their crappy customer service and nasty e-mails, they really pissed me off.

[MattBaggins]

22. Not trying to be a jerk

but is there data to back up the claim that they will not match people of different races?

[Joe Bacon]

39. I can tell you from my experience with nasty eHarmony representatives!

First, I was stupid enough to take the test and they tried to shine me off. Finally, they "made" 2 matches, then I e-mailed them about matches with other races and got a distasteful reply. I am sure others were treated the same way. Screw them!

[slackmaster]

23. They cater to religious people, primarily Christians and Jews

I took their screening test a few years ago and bombed out.

[snooper2]

17. E-Harmony, the place where Fundies meet

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

Sign up and tell them you don't believe in Gawd - that'll get ya matched :rofl:

[Testament]

20. Yep...

I remember hearing that that most of their customers are born agains who are recovering from alcoholism or some other addiction. Now they are addicted to a really screwed up view of Christianity.

[slackmaster]

25. Not only that, but their long-term success rate isn't much better than the bar scene

Or meeting people at your local coin-operated laundry.

[slackmaster]

24. You must have taken the test too

They were pretty blunt that I didn't fit in.

[Nye Bevan]

34. Isn't that kind of like Democratic Underground being forced

to allow right-wingers to participate?

Would you like to see a story like this:-

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Democratic discussion board DemocraticUnderground.com will create a discussion board for right-wing conservatives in a settlement of a 2008 complaint that the company's failure to offer such a service was discriminatory.

Under terms of the agreement with the New Jersey attorney general's office, Democratic Underground will start the service, called MoransUnderground, by March 31.

"With the launch of the MoransUnderground site, our policy is to welcome all Morans who genuinely love George Bush, Dick Cheney, and unprovoked Middle Eastern wars", said spokesman EarlG.

The company and its founder, Skinner, admit no wrongdoing or liability.

[donco6]

42. No, actually, it's not.

DU already allows RWers to participate. They just can't disrupt. There is no disruption to eHarmony just because a gay guy wants to fill out a matching questionnaire.

[Nye Bevan]

44. Wrong: read the rules

If you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[donco6]

46. Yeah, I read them. It says just what I said.

You can sign up. You can post. If you disrupt, you'll be banned. All they're doing is advising people that if disrupting is their intention, it's not going to work. NOTHING says they can't sign up or post.

[petronius]

63. Sure - but that's kind of like saying that gay people are perfectly free

to use eHarmony to find opposite-sex partners. RWers are free to sign up, but since posting RW opinions is defined as disrupting, they're not allowed to participate as RWingers.

The real difference is that DU isn't a business providing a service for sale, subject to the anti-discrimination laws of New Jersey...

[agent007]

35. Good move

All men and women regardless of sexual preference are created equal.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truthisfreedom]

45. eHarmony is not LOSING anything. This is win-win.

eHarmony makes more money.

Everybody's happy.

[mrih]

47. I disagree with this as well

Whatever happened to, my yard, my rules. As a Forum owner myself, I say DU has a right to say NO FUNDIES just as much as eHarmony has a right to say NO GAYS. If you own the web space, then you should be able to provide whatever service you wish for whomever you wish. This does nothing but force webmasters to cater to people.

Hey, can I also go join a KKK site even though I am not racist or bigoted? If they ban me, I'll sue.

I can't believe eHarmony didn't fight this. What's worse, I can't believe some gays got together to complain instead of simply going to one of the thousands of site's out there that DO cater to them.

Fukkin ridiculous I tell ya.

[Bluebear]

49. "I can't believe some gays got together to complain" - - oh brother.

You are one unenlightened dude.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMMNG]

53. Hmmm.

Nebraska. That tells me all I need to know. You're not even worth the effort.



Brandon Teena is rolling over in his grave.

[mrih]

54. Oh I see, I make completely valid points and you fire back

by insulting Nebraska. Yeah, EVERYBODY in Nebraska thinks like the idiots who killed Teena. I'll pass your thoughts off to Omaha Steve.

[NMMNG]

55. I've seen your sick board

Don't try to pretend you're anything remotely decent.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluedawg12]

57. oooh, YOUR hate filled site suck-k-k-s LMAO.

[mrih]

58. Thank you

It's supposed to.

[bluedawg12]

59. It has achieved your goal as a pathetic mess

[Bluebear]

60. It's gone, thank you moderators!

[bluedawg12]

61. Yup. Thanks!

[Zuiderelle]

62. Great!! Thanks mods!

:patriot:

[mondo joe]

64. The civil rights act happened. The notion that a class of people cannot be denied access

in public accommodation happened.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Compatible Partners? Where do I sign up?

Single LGBTQQ here!

:-)