lol...eHarmony sued for excluding gays

[Neecy]

LOS ANGELES - The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a “men seeking men” or “women seeking women” option.

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18967309/

Their commercials make me gag, btw.

[Warpy]

1. Good, maybe it'll cut back on their advertising budget

I can't stand that sanctimonious twit in those commercials.

[smtpgirl]

15. What is really bad, eHarmony has the SAME OLD SONG

for 3 years running, I am so tired of that song!!!

Natelie Cole - This Will Be???

[Catherine Vincent]

47. His dating service ruined that song.

It was a pretty good song before they took it over.

[donheld]

67. You had me right up until "This Will Be"

Leave it to God Damned Bible beaters to ruin a Great Song. :grr:

[orleans]

70. "great song" ?? this is where we differ. however, glad to hear about the lawsuit. n/t

[AlCzervik]

2. i saw an ad in a magazine for an on line dating service and the person in the pic

had the text--"Rejected from eharmony because i'm gay" they say that when you fill out the 300 question app and you put down that you're gay the application comes back a reject for "Not being happy enough". So the people who run Eharmony equate unhappiness with gayness.

[Sapere aude]

3. Religious persecution! Stepping on their right to use the Bible to support their hatred of gays.

[Boojatta]

61. Why isn't a woman suing the Catholic Church for

not considering her application for employment as a Catholic priest? That's discrimination based on gender.

The Catholic Church, unlike eharmony, has tax-exempt status. Thus, the Catholic Church has a greater obligation to the community.

[pnwmom]

71. I disagree with the Church's stand on woman's ordination but

freedom of religion in this country means that a Church can discriminate in that way. What would threaten their tax-exempt status is if they started to endorse particular candidates.

[Boojatta]

105. I can understand a church discriminating based on the religion of

a job applicant. However, I don't see why freedom of religion includes the freedom of a religious institution to discriminate based on the gender of a job applicant.

What would prevent someone from defining a concept of "freedom of business" that includes the freedom of a business to discriminate based on the gender of a job applicant?

[donheld]

87. Inter-racial dating?

I've often wondered if they'd hook a inter-racial couple up. Anyone know?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Fenris]

5. Y'ever notice how all those people in their commercials look alike.

I mean, they're all perfectly matched by skin color. Is that one of the 29 dimensions of your personality? Race?

[Lex]

25. LOL! Sat. Night Live even did a skit based on that premise

sort of. It was an actor as himself, then dressed up as the opposite sex, using split-screen, saying how they are perfectly matched.

It was called "Me-Harmony."

[noamnety]

88. My daughter was commenting on that this week!

she was pointing out how each couple looks like brother and sister.

E-Harmony: Keeping your morals and the gene-pool pure.

[KurtNYC]

108. yes - they have a creepy "Donny & Marie" thing about them nt

[teenagebambam]

6. My friend tried eHarmony once.

After months and months of nothing, she FINALLY got a hit. When she went on her first date, she found out a couple of things that her date's profile failed to mention. That he was:

a) Blind, and
b) a cross-dresser

[John Kerry VonErich]

104. How tolerant of you.

:sarcasm:

[Quixote1818]

7. I once tried EHarmony. You will never guess who it matched me up with!!!

That sight made me go through hours of tests then it matched me with someone. I wasn't allowed to see a photo or communicate directly. It took like two weeks before we were allowed to write freely and then I discovered she was a fundamentalist Christian and there was zero attraction!!!!!

It matched me with the absolute worst possible match possible!!!!!!

What a waste of $100!!! What a scam!!!

[badgerpup]

72. I held out for the 3 months for the price of one...

only had ONE hit that went into communication and he was in Utah...fizzle.
Glad I wasn't very committed or invested in that 'relationship'.

MHO...they're only good at finding 'soulmates' for a rather small segment of the population- professional, either no kids yet or the ex has got them, and if married before no serious baggage from it. Anyone else is S.O.L. :shrug:

[dave29]

8. Does this lawsuit offer 29 dimensions of accountability?

Some lawsuits only offer a paragraph and a picture, you know.

:)

[Quixote1818]

27. LOL!

NT

[pitohui]

9. ho kay, that has to be up there w. stupidest business decisions of the year

a dating service that doesn't allow gays? hello? i never heard of such, admittedly i know beans about "eharmony"

seems like a good way to hand over a TON of business to one's competitors

if the suit is successful, it would almost force them to make more money, wouldn't it? it just goes to show, one reason that capitalism doesn't always work because a lot of people would rather exercise their prejudices than go after the $$$

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Didn't Think Of It That Way, But That's Too Funny In A Sense:

"if the suit is successful, it would almost force them to make more money, wouldn't it?"

[Robb]

16. I dunno. Are gay dating websites raking it in?

eHarmony is going after a target demographic of lonely people who want to get married. I have no idea if it's a good market or not. :shrug:

A really clever lawyer would point out how few places there are gay people can wind up legally married, and sue the states for infringing upon eHarmony's business success. :D

[blogslut]

125. Yes. Gay dating sites are raking it in.

Many people aren't looking to get married. Online personals sites are very popular.

[philosophie_en_rose]

10. To be fair. Gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, straight, and/or living people should be excluded.

:)

In other words, no one should be on that site. I don't know what kind of criteria they use, but their matches were ludicrous to me. Every match was highly creepy - like a fundie version of craigslist.

I plainly answered every profile question to indicate I was the biggest liberal feminist ever, but only got matched with men that explicitly wanted a "little asian mail order bride." One of them actually even wrote that to me in response to my "do you believe in traditional gender roles" question! Lame!

:wtf:

Note: I didn't pay for this service. It was an unwanted gift that I tried for the hell of it.

[cwydro]

11. I've never used any dating service, nor would I,

but I think they probably have a right to be selective. There are gay dating services too.

They're the ones losing a big chunk of money by being selective. Who cares?

I heard from a friend that they only really allow "Christian" singles too. Don't know if that is true.

[Deja Q]

13. And some GLBT sites of equal calibre disallow heteros. So what?

Boycott eharmony for another site; there are dozens if not hundreds out there.

We're told to boycott walmart, microsoft, apple, kraft, coca cola, and oodles of others for various unsavory practices, in favor of companies we like. When the day is said and done, this is no different.

Now if they were the one and only matchmaking site, then it might be an issue - until the underlying religious issue gets cropped in and guess who the owner of that site happens to be. An evangelical. The religion card will be played and guess who will lose because his service is tied to his beliefs, nor is government-owned?

[Systematic Chaos]

19. Exactly!!

I see banner ads for gay and lesbian dating sites fairly often, and when I'm on sites that aren't even about gays or dating. There are options out there for everyone. In 2002 I met my wife on match.com. Both of us decided to be as honest and open in our profiles as we could be. There were no "29 dimensions" of anything. Just basic info about whether we smoked or drank, our body types, our income ranges, what pets we had, and our interests. Luckily, we were both completely from the heart and honest, and found out in no time flat that we were just about perfect for each other. I don't think a fancy questionnaire would have helped us much, and given what other people are saying about their experiences with eharmony I guess they need to revamp their criteria.

This story should encourage people to stay away from eharmony, rather than suing them.

[Bluebear]

93. And do those sites have national advertising budgets?

Maybe gay people WANT to try the "29 dimensions" or whatever.

Are you suggesting that eharmony would not want revenue from gay date seekers, or is it just their fundamentalist background that makes them exclude gays?

[Balbus]

14. eHarmony deserves to lose their money if they're going to make decisions like that.

[BlooInBloo]

17. Is it discriminatory to not offer vegan dishes at a restaurant?

EDIT: Subject typo.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Is there something intrinsically different about gay dating services?

Do their internet tubes get jammed up when they type "seeking single gay male."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. Wow, You Seriously Aren't Comprehending This Concept. I'll Try And Help Some More.

They are offering several products, such as men seeking women and women seeking men. I do not believe they are under any obligation to increase their product lines or options. As long as they allow anyone who is interested to choose those options, then there isn't any discrimination.

It's like a menu not having the options for dinner you want. The restaurant is under no obligation to put that option on the menu for you. They might lose your business, but they aren't discriminating against you.

I will say; however, that the poster above who stated they were refused for being poor, now that is discriminatory in my opinion.

[Lex]

24. If you can't pay for the food in a restaurant, then you are being discriminated

against for being poor.

Well, aren't you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. How So?

Your reply just totally confused me.

[Occulus]

68. You chose to go to the restaurant

homosexuality is not a choice.

[Kingshakabobo]

32. But they are not manufacturing, carrying or stocking a "product."

They are offering a "service" - to people. By not offering the service, in the form of a question on their application, they are de-facto discriminating against gays and lesbians.

You mention that you think another poster could have a case for financial discrimination.......I find that interesting because, by your logic, E-Harmony might say "we don't carry a product for lower income people." By your logic, if it's not on the application they don't "carry" that "product." ..........maybe they can leave "African American" off the "menu" too?

Just some thoughts........whaddya think?

[hfojvt]

92. the lower income person is not asking for a different product

Going to a steakhouse, the lower income person is just looking for a steak, not a cheap steak or a discount steak. The same steak that the restaurant sells to everybody else. The GLBT people are demanding a steakhouse sell vegan meals.

Yes, they are offering a service - heterosexual dating. A GLBT person can use their services for heterosexual dating, just as a vegan can go into a steakhouse and order a steak. Just as an atheist can go into a Christian bookstore and buy a copy of "In his steps". But it is silly of the atheist to claim discrimination because a specialty shop does not sell books by Bertrand Russell or Carl Sagan.

The argument was made that homosexuality is not a choice, but that does not matter. Being lactose intolerant or having ulcers are not choices either, but that does not mean a restaurant should be forced to cater to my dietary needs.

That it is a service does not matter either. Suppose I have a lawn service. I can decide, for my own reasons, to only cut grass. Can a customer claim discrimination because I won't trim his hedges? No. Since I only cut grass, a customer can only claim discrimination if I refuse to cut his grass for reasons of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.

[FreeState]

35. But that is not what they sell, you made that up

Here is the about page for eHarmony:

http://www.eharmony.com/servlet/about/eharmony

Where does it say heterosexual relationships? It does not it says relationships period.

In California the law specifically states that services must be offered to the protected classes if they are offered to anyone. You can not open a hotel in California and say "heterosexual couple romantic nights" and exclude GLBT persons, if you offer a service that caters to couples or dating or relationships and you are not a religion it must be offered to everyone.

See the The Unruh Civil Rights Act: http://ag.ca.gov/publications/civilrights/01CRhandbook/chapter4.php?PHPSESSID=20ccc0ce5e8fcb2c72d69a47a521adb7

[HardRocker05]

97. and restrooms which only offer urinals don't discriminate against women, it's just that women choose

not to use them. should public businesses be forced to offer more options in their restroom facilities? heck no; that might make it seem like women are part of the human race.

[BlooInBloo]

22. I have no idea... It just seems to me that *what one sells* should be up to the seller....

... whereas *to whom one sells* should not be (well, except for requiring that the purchaser have enough money, of course).


EDIT: It *is* possible that the above distinction, while clear in the abstract, could be a whole lot fuzzier in practice. The present suit might be an example. That's why they have courts, I guess - lol!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. eHarmony sells a dating service.

They don't want to sell to homosexuals, thus, they're a bunch of bigots.

:shrug:

[Madspirit]

30. Dammit BlooInBloo

It throws my whole day off when you post in the Body of the message. I can barely concentrate on what I'm reading when you do that. :dilemma:

Lee

[BlooInBloo]

31. I sorry. :(

[Madspirit]

43. Truthfully, I like it. It's just unusual....n/t

[LeftyMom]

33. Vegans are not a protected class. GLBT people are in California.

[BlooInBloo]

34. I was talking about the type of *food*, the *product*, not the type of *customer*.

[LeftyMom]

39. Doesn't matter. The product here is membership in a dating site.

Offering it to several classes and denying it to protected classes without a damn good reason to do so (for example if it were billed as an evangelical christian dating site they could probably get away with it, since religion is also protected) doesn't stand up in court.

Since it's California, state law is clear on this issue and there was a decision on a case with very similar facts less than a week ago, I'd say it's about as close as you'll find to a legal slam dunk. The ruling will be this: open up to GLBT customers or quit doing business in California. You can put money on it, if you can find a sucker to take the bet.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. It's Offered To Every Class.

If you are gay and sign up, will you be refused? That's the deciding question in my opinion.

I will admit though that there are definite grey areas here that would be up to a court to specifically decide. All I can do is give my best guess judgment as to how I see the case legally.

[LeftyMom]

50. Yes, you will be refused.

This is well-documented both on the web at large and on DU.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. Do You Have Examples?

If that's the case, then they are absolutely discriminating.

[LeftyMom]

53. Try advanced search, or the google.

There are plenty of old DU threads and websites that make this clear. For that matter, you could go apply to eharmony right now, tell them you're a gay man and answer the questionnaire appropriately to that circumstance and find out for yourself.

But since you want me to do your homework for you, here's a link: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-18-eharmony_x.htm

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

54. I've Just Been Browsing Google And Think I've Wasted My Time Arguing. You May Well Be Right.

I said several times upthread that my arguments would only apply if they at least allowed gay members to join, though they didn't offer the same sex matching option. It would've saved me a ton of time if someone had responded that was the case.

Since right now I'm leaning towards that factually being the case, then I'm of belief that the case absolutely has merit.

[HardRocker05]

99. and a public university which offers only elective courses of interest to males, i.e. football histo

football history, hunting 101, how to date a playboy bunny, etc., are not discriminating against women, as long as the courses are offered to everyone? i think you know full well that it's discrimination; you're just looking for excuses to justify it.

[bliss_eternal]

124. I had no idea...

...that vegans were being denied so many rights as a class of people.

I guess vegans may have to start sitting on the backs of busses, are denied jobs, rights and the ability to marry who they love in the state of California. Wow. Apparently two vegans can't walk down the street holding hands outside of Whole Foods Market, for fear of being vegan bashed.

Who knew?

:shrug:

[LostinVA]

128. Thank you n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

100. being vegan is a choice. being gay not so much

:eyes:

[demobabe]

20. These folks are Limbaugh advertisers

And when Take Back The Media was doing a Limbaugh boycott, they refused to stop advertising with him. They are not a company I'd ever want to give money to...

[Madspirit]

28. Hey!..One More Fundie Down!...Whoohoohoo

Let's have a "Whites Only" dating service. That should be OK, right?

...but blech, why would any of MY people...gays/lesbians...want to use a fundie dating service? I guess this is just a Lawsuit On Principle and that's good. For one thing, if truly they are fundies, they will probably opt to shut their virtual doors before serving my community and that will be ONE MORE FUNDIE DOWN!! :woohoo:
Lee

[sakabatou]

29. XP

Bleagh

[beyurslf]

36. Have you noticed on the commercials, they have no inter-racial matches.

Like the 1st criteria is someone is the same race as you.

[Kat45]

77. Surprisingly, they do make interracial matches.

I used to be on that site--never met anyone there--and there were a number of times they matched me (a white woman) up with a black man.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. Private businesses have the right to determine their clientale

I listened to part of an interview that Neil Clark Warren did on NPR (Fresh Air?) and he actually addressed this issue awhile back. He plainly stated that eHarmony DOES NOT offer its services to gays and lesbians his reason being because gay marriage is currently illegal in most states. If I remember correctly, however, I think that he did say something to the effect that he has done some consulting work with GLBT individuals trying to start their own similar dating sites. In regards to the lawsuit, however, I believe that it is really the business' prerogative to decide what kind of services it offers and to whom. This isn't to say that I approve of their refusal to provide their services to GLBT individuals but I think that it is really their own decision to make. They are ultimately cutting themselves out of a larger piece of the pie because of their own prejudice. I'm sure an equally entrepreneurial individual could develop a similar type of website for GLBT individuals and in fact may have already. Anyway, given what everybody already knows about the site and the type of people who developed and are using the site, WHY would GLBT individuals WANT to meet anybody on this site????

[AlCzervik]

40. it is not legal in california for a business to discriminate based on the persons

sexual identity. Eharmony does business in california.
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Statutes/unruh.asp

[Lex]

42. Right, making GLBT a protected class similar to race discrimination.

nt

[AlCzervik]

44. what? is that for me?

[Lex]

45. agreeing

with you :)

[AlCzervik]

46. gotcha.

:toast:

[Lex]

41. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it.

That's a red herring.

[LostinVA]

129. No, they don't have a wholesale right to do this

For example, you can't refuse to serve blacks.

[tularetom]

38. Beware of people with three first names

like Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray and of course Dr. Neil Clark Warren.

I'm not surprised they won't allow gays access to their dumbass website. I don't think I've ever seen an interracial couple among those matched up by their system. I'msure the good 3-first-named Dr. has some kind of thing about interracial dating and marriage.

Hope Ms. Carlson's lawsuit forces 'em out of business or at least off the air here in CA. The ads make me puke too.

[porphyrian]

48. I can't stand that creepy mummified man who pimps eharmony out.

I think it's all a front to collect mortal victims for the undead.

[lonestarnot]

51. Well good.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. Well, I've Completely Changed My Position. I Think The Case Should Be Successful And Here's Why:

While researching further, I came across this article. Based on what's in it, I think the article itself is enough to damn them.

Here it is:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-18-eharmony_x.htm

Here's a DOOZY of a quote that is a nail in the coffin, due to its utter ignorance:

"It "calls for some very careful thinking. Very careful research." He adds that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states. "We don't really want to participate in something that's illegal.""

I don't even need to explain why. I mean, holy cow.

Here's another I find damning:

"Lesbians and gays are not the only ones unwelcome on eHarmony; Warren says he rejects 16% of those who take his patented personality test because they're poor marriage prospects."

I can understand weeding out people based on certain criteria for being relationship worthy; such as mental health etc even if I don't totally agree with all of them.

But where discrimination BLATANTLY comes in here is in the inherent insinuation that being gay somehow makes one less capable somehow. That's not only utter bullshit, but is ignorant and discriminatory on its face.

For those reasons and others in the article, I completely change my position.

On edit: Oh yeah, I also had no idea eharmony was so fundamentalist in premise. The connections in that article blew me away. Sheesh, I had no idea they were like that from watching the commercials LOL

[BlooInBloo]

56. Ready for the patronizing condescension? lol!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. Hey, If I Deserve It I Deserve It, Ya Know?

I just wish someone would've informed me earlier on that my premise had faulty parameters. When reading the OP, I misunderstood an aspect of it and thought the lawsuit was about the fact they didn't offer men seeking men and women seeking women options. I thought it was based on that alone, and it is obvious my deductions were based on those parameters.

Problem is, those parameters were wrong LOL That's what I get for trying to read an OP with my two toddlers running around. :)

But I don't know why I wasn't corrected earlier on. I said several times that if they refused gay people to even join then that would be discrimination. I don't know why it took so long to get a straight correction on that.

But when I did get that indication, I researched and not only found it to be true but far worse than I thought. This company is as bigoted and discriminatory as any I've heard of.

So if I got to take my lumps I'll take my lumps. I was wrong and basing my arguments on assumption rather than education. I almost always avoid doing such but thought I had read the OP correctly.

[Solon]

58. Not to act like a spammer, but there is a competitor to eHarmony called Chemistry.com...

They have been flooding the ads in my area, and the ads are pretty smart, showing a Gay guy looking at a playboy magazine(no graphics, unfortunately ;)), then he looks at the screen and says "Nope, still gay." then a big "Rejected" graphic, saying he was rejected by eHarmony. They have variations of this theme with different types of customers, gay and straight being rejected by eHarmoney for "unknown reasons".

[windy252]

119. I got one of those in an email.

and I'm straight, so I'm kind of wondering If I was rejected because I'm not a Christian.

[BlooInBloo]

59. Fair enough! lol!

[libnnc]

69. Besides the discrimination against gays and lesbians....

Ever notice in the commercials you NEVER see interracial heterosexual couples? There's a reason.

Food for thought.

[Neecy]

60. There's something in the OP you wouldn't have picked up on...

And I probably should have explained it better in my comments.

Warren's close association with Focus on the Family speaks volumes about his personal views on gays and lesbians. Focus is one of the most viciously anti-gay outfits around - and they have lots of competition for that 'honor'. It goes beyond being associated with a religious group. Focus on the Family raises a ton of money with their gay agenda scare tactics and their constant assaults against our very existence. I'd place them either above or tied with the Family Research Council for their anti-gay rhetoric.

I've known for a while that he and Dobson were good pals, although I understand they've had a falling-out recently.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. I Just Found That Out In My Link. I Had No Idea The Background To Eharmony.

I'm amazed it's taken this long for a lawsuit actually. Did you click on the usatoday piece? What a jerkoff. I still can't get over that illegal marriage quote. Not just because of how completely false on its face it is, but even more so because it appears he actually believes it has validity somehow. That's pretty fuckin scary.

[Neecy]

64. yeah, it was nauseating

I think he went through such efforts to remove his Focus publications from their imprint because he knew something like this lawsuit would happen. His association with this group is something I'm guessing the lawyers for the plaintiffs will have some fun with. Yes, they're really *that* bad.

I'm just used to having these zealots raise loads of money off of my existence. Dobson is on CNN a lot - Larry King loves him - and Tweety has featured him several times as well. It's kind of like having a Klan member talk about race relations whenever he's asked to comment on gay issues.

[Maat]

75. Actually, Dobson had a hand in founding the Family Research Center ...

so, it's all tied together in a neat little bow, so-to-speak.

[pink-o]

111. There was a DU thread a few months ago...

...on the lounge that blogged about how many of us here were rejected when taking the EHarmony "personality" test. Apparently for being too out of the mainstream or something.


So I clicked on the website and took the test. Honestly, with no holds barred. And guess what?????

I WAS ACCEPTED!!!!!

The whole experience pissed me off--I mean, I'm as much of a misfit fringe-dweller as anyone else here, aren't I???? But then, once I got over my indignation, I explored the site and realised exactly what a scam it was. Really horrible--they wanted a crapload of money, and the matches seemed completely off.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that even tho it doesn't cater to gays and lesbians, maybe that should be considered a compliment. Exclusivity from something that you really want nothing to do with shouldn't always be cause for breaking down the barriers!

[Lex]

63. Here's the thing that's really galling from the article:

eHarmony could not immediately be reached for comment. Commenting in the past on eHarmony’s gay and lesbian policy, Warren has said that he does not know the dynamics of same-sex relationships but he expects the principles to be different.

Yeah, it's soooo completely different for GLBT people when finding a compatible mate. :wtf:

[Occulus]

65. Prediction!!

The poster(s) showing as "ignored" below on my screen are one or at the most two persons.

Let's log out and see.

[MissB]

109. .

:rofl:

[InvisibleTouch]

66. Since I know almost nothing about them other than the name...

...I always assumed they had options and services for everyone. Sad to find out otherwise. I guess if they're a privately owned business they can make their own rules, but they'd also never get any business from me, even if I were looking for a mate (which I'm not, so I guess it's no loss to them either way). You'd think the lure of the almighty dollar would surpass the founder's artificial scruples, though - because don't people have to pay a rather hefty sum for the "service"? From a pure-business point of view, it makes no sense to exclude a whole group of potential clients.

[JackDragna]

73. a funny thing about eharmony

I was one of the 16% of people who couldn't be matched with anyone because I was a "poor marriage prospect." I was dating someone at the time and filled out their survey on a lark. I was brutally honest, basically laying out my status as a liberal, rebellious malcontent. I wonder why a site made by a fundamentalist considered me a poor marriage prospect?

[Kermitt Gribble]

74. I had no idea

the founder was an evangelical. I did their free profile - after constant prodding from my mother - and after a half hour of questions, they tell me my profile is unmatchable.

[Maat]

76. That's a funny story.

Well, they accepted a VERY liberal friend of mine, but they probably didn't know about her involvement with the anti-war movement. She signed up for the free trial, or whatever. I research the Religious Right, and did at the time, and made her cancel it (because I was aware of the connection between Dobson and Clark - although I can remember my source).

Oh, well, live and learn more!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

78. I am bookmarking this thread, the best commentary ever on the

internet dating services racket.

And, E Harmony has a catchy ad campaign directed squarely at white bread America.

Really, what's not to like? :-) MKJ

[AlCzervik]

80. all of the actual info has been "Deleted sub-thread" and i don't know why.

i actaully posted links with info on California's laws and now they're all gone.

[Kat45]

79. Re: interracial matches on eHarmony--they have no problem with them.

I know this thread is about their antigay stance, but a few people made comments speculating about the site's take on interracial relationships. I can say that they have no problem with that. I was on the site a few years back, and there were several black men they matched me up with. (I'm a white woman.) But knowing of their fundie origins, I was pleasantly surprised that they didn't discriminate racially.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

81. Well, you're mistaken since no one but you mentioned interracial dating. eHarmony prohibits gay

dating, though. That's been established and I hope you found true love.

:shrug: MKJ

on edit, you were mistaken in saying interracial dating restrictions had been mentioned in this thread, which it had not, however it's true that gays are prohibited from E Harmony.

[AlCzervik]

82. there were many posts about about just that but they've been zapped.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

83. OK, that brings us all back to the fact that eHarmony discriminates against gay men and women.

Full circle. MKJ

[Kat45]

86. You must have missed the comments.

The comments were made more as saying that since they discriminate against gays, did they also discriminate racially? Check out posts 36, 38, 69 (all quick comments).

[murloc]

84. Wasnt there another thread about excluding straights?

Just the other day? Some bar in Aussie?

There is was deemed ok to exclude on the basis of sex identity by a great number of posters.

Why the sudden shift now, only a few days later?

Frankly I don't think its right to exclude anyone on this basis, but when society starts picking choosing when its ok to exclude based on sexual identity, it proably should not be suprised if occasionally its your ox getting gored.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

85. Welcome to DU, you're on the way to enlightenment.

Which sometimes sucks, but we're here with you! :toast: MKJ

[murloc]

98. I have a long way to go.

But all we can do is try.

ty for the welcoe.

[noamnety]

89. There's no shift here, sudden or otherwise.

In both cases, the focus was on trying to protect the rights of the oppressed group to have a safe place to interact without targeted harassment and discrimination by the privileged/dominant group.

[Bluebear]

94. The bar in Aussie did so because the straights were insulting and abusing gay patrons.

"The Peel Hotel in Melbourne won an exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act to prevent insults and abuse directed toward gays in its bars and nightclubs, owner Tom McFeely told AFP."

Thank you.

[murloc]

96. I wonder if eharmony will use the same defense?

Its probably not a stretch to hear eharmony proclaim: "We don't want gays insulting, offending and abusing our straight members".

Certainly disingenuous but that wouldn't stop a lawyer from using it.

Hopefully their lawyer isn't reading these threads and getting ideas.

I understand where you are coming from though. However I think that such isolationism on both the bar and eharmony will only worsen relations, slow acceptance and generally have negative effects on everyone.

Obviously these are entirely different jurisdictions, but I wonder if that bar was located in California, would their actions be legal there?...or could they be sued under the anti-discrimination law that is being used to sue eharmony?

For me, I think its best if we just accept everyone.

[sampsonblk]

102. That's still banned discrimination

Just because one group of heterosexuals were behaving poorly does not (in America) give the business the right to discriminate against the next heterosexual that comes to the door. Unless we are to lump people together because of the actions of some members of the group.

Two black guys got in a fight at a basketball game recently. OK no more black guys. That may work in Aussieland, but not in America (yet).

[noamnety]

112. Good job with that analogy

Cause two black guys fighting EACH OTHER at a SPORTS VENUE

is exactly like

Straight men systemically assaulting gay men BECAUSE they are gay AT A GAY BAR.

mmmmmhmmmm.

[Bluebear]

114. Yes, it's EXACTLY the same thing

:eyes:

[yurbud]

90. I don't think many gay guys want to bone Neil Clark Warren

I think most of them have better taste.

[liberalhistorian]

91. LOL, anyone else notice the eHarmony clickad

at the top of this thread? LOL!

[dEMOK]

95. R

This precisely represents what's wrong with the ideologically driven agenda of those who successfully lobby our leaders.

I bet that if Cheney asked eHarmony to find a new partner for Mary -- they'd comply (but not openly).

[KharmaTrain]

101. EHarmony = Focus On The Family

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-18-eharmony_x.htm

Warren, 70, really is a grandpa. Born on an Iowa farm, he's quick with a down-home hug and a smile. His pale blue eyes grow misty when he speaks of his love for his wife of 46 years, Marylyn, the senior vice president at eHarmony.

And he really does want to set you up — but only if you're emotionally healthy, heterosexual and want to get married.

A psychologist with a divinity degree, Warren has emerged from the Christian community — three of his 10 books on love and dating were published by conservative Focus on the Family — to become one of the Internet's most unlikely entrepreneurs.

[donco6]

103. Every time I see their commercials, I think . . .

"So, how badly are those two faking it?" Ugh.

[Book Lover]

106. Salon did a piece on them a little whiel back

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2005/06/10/warren/index.html

When I asked Warren about his refusal to serve same-sex couples, he listed several reasons for his policy. "First, we're into marriage," he said, pointing out that gay unions remain illegal in almost every state. He also doesn't feel there is adequate research on how men can be matched up with other men, or women with women.

Businessmen have approached him and asked for his help in building a company designed specifically for gay couples. Warren was proud to tell me that he advises them to research the kinds of compatibility that make gay relationships last. "It did my heart good that these guys I talked to, these gay guys, have since said, 'Neil Clark Warren was sympathetic.' That meant the world to me," he said. But it's also pretty clear that eHarmony is not about to reverse its own policy. Warren is simply too torn on the issue.

When I told him that I found it sad that my gay friends don't have the opportunity to take advantage of the eHarmony compatibility elixir of which he is so proud, he was quiet for some time. "I love the spirit with which you make that point," he said thoughtfully. "And we do do a lot of talking about how we love the idea of being inclusive." He paused again, sounding slightly shaken. "It's just not an easy point! We've got thousands of years of history of the human race in which this was never treated as a marriage and there are a lot of people who think it's just not going to have the same kind of stability over time.

<snip>

I was surprised to hear him play out his internal debate so openly. Sure, he remained fairly benighted on issues of homosexuality, but I had to acknowledge he's from a different time and culture. I wish that I'd been able to have a conversation this frank with my late grandfather, who was not exactly open to sexual, religious or racial differences -- and whom I loved very much. How could I not appreciate the fact that Warren was at least engaging the topic? Far from dismissing homosexuality as an aberration, or suggesting that gays are going to hell, Warren brought up his best friend's daughter, a lesbian who has two children with her partner. "She's a dear person to us, and a very strong spiritual person," he said. "And when I start seeing things like that, I think we've got to start to think about that maybe this can work."

(edited to fit the 4-para rule)

[hedgehog]

120. At the risk of being criticized, I have to agree that Warren has a point.

In other interviews, he explained how he selected married people in good marriages and bad and tried to figure out what made the difference. WHether or not his findings are correct, that at least was his goal. He is up front about not having the data on same sex couples.

[Book Lover]

122. But there is no "there" there

Same sex couples have no different issues from different sex couples. Laundry has to be done, rent has to be paid, emotions have to be tended, dinner has to be cooked... it's all the same.

[hedgehog]

123. Yes, but he doesn't know that because he's never done the study.

[On the Road]

107. The Feedback on eHarmony is Interesting

I've always wondered how well it works in practice. Apparently not too well. The concept is great if they can really find matches among the right personality groups. Some relatively simple personality typing can be very powerful predictors of behavior, and I was hoping that eHarmony had been able to utilize those to predict compatibility. From some of the comments here, apparently not.

I think the TV spots are some of the best advertising I've ever seen. Remember that the target audience is composed of people desperate for a loving long-term relationship. Everything is designed to those hopes. Rather than being unrealistic models, the couples all look like normal people who are happy with each other's company. The song is perfect -- uplifting, energetic, and hopeful. The president comes out beaming with enthusiasm about his model of matching personality types. It's disappointing that their system seems to be so flawed.

As I understand it, the eHarmony defense is they specialize in heterosexuals, don't understand the psychology of gay relationships and do not have a model for that type of match. If there were widespread barriers to gay people on dating services, this might be a legitimate lawsuit. But there aren't. Every other site I know has "Men Seeking Men" and "Women Seeking Women." I can't understand why it should be illegal for a site to specialize in heterosexual relationships.

[MindPilot]

110. They will reject you for being Atheist too.

so I'm told... :evilgrin:

[Marrah_G]

113. I don't think so

They also do not have an issue with Pagans. They even ask how imporant it is to have the people be of the same religion, etc.

[AlCzervik]

115. the more replies this thread gets the shorter it becomes.

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

116. I thought I was imagining things! nt

[RC Quake]

117. Curves discriminates against the "non-fat" people

It's the closest gym to my home and I went to check it out. I was promptly shown the door for not needing their services. Who are they to decide who needs assistance in working out and who doesn't? What makes them any different than e-Harmony? Is it just because non-fat people "can't" be discriminated against?

Come to think about it...Weight Watchers wouldn't let me join either. I say I'm 10 lbs. overweight. Not fat enough for them.

:crazy:

[LostinVA]

130. If you're "non fat," Curves won't work for you

That could be why they did that -- they knew they couldn't fool you.

Weight Watchers will let you join -- whomever told you that is wrong.

[pinniped]

118. Good. Their commercials suck.

.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

121. One of the best commercials!!!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NgxOhG2nDOA

[Ian David]

126. Do we REALLY want to give detailed psychological profiles of ourselves...

... to a right-wing fundie christian with close ties to the Bush Administration?

Don't you think that this information will be gladly turned-over to The TSA and Homeland Security?

Don't you think eHarmony's questionnaires have already been incorporated into Homeland Security's database?

[Lex]

127. .

:kick: