I DO know I AGREE with forcing eHarmony to match gay couples

[Truth Teller]

And I'm disappointed many at a progressive site disagree.

Should we debate whether private restaurants can deny service to African-Americans?

Or if private employers can screen women out of jobs?

Geez.

[leftofcool]

1. Yea, okay but E-Harmony is still a pimp site

but that's just my opinion and I have been wrong.

[kimmylavin]

119. Hey now!

I met my husband on a "pimp site"! :)

Not eHarmony, though.
The questions were a bit... invasive.

[zanne]

2. I agree. It seems eHarmony doesn't want everybody to be happy. nt

[Deja Q]

196. Like everything else, the world is made up of all types.

/speakinginmultiironicriddles

[marmar]

3. Yeah, it was kind of suprising that there even needed to be a debate......

Discrimination is discrimination.

[blurp]

156. Some people just need to be FORCED to serve.

I don't care if it is "involuntary servitude". Bigots don't deserve protection.

If they're made "slaves" for a day, so be it.

[IndianaJones]

4. you haven't been here long if you're surprised at the anti-gay attitude that can be displayed at DU.

[Truth Teller]

9. Then urge the DLC to dump Ford

Seriously.

[IndianaJones]

11. I have no influence over the DLC...and if we urged dumping anti-gay Democratic politicians...

there would be about 3 left.

[Truth Teller]

13. You're sporting their avatar

Ford was one of the few Democrats to vote for an anti-gay constitutional amendment. He takes to it to higher level.

Sorry if I'm a stickler here - I know you didn't appoint the guy.

[IndianaJones]

30. I think we all swallow a lot of shortcomings from the politicians that make up the Democratic party.

our President-elect opposes gay marriage because of his religious beliefs.

Robert Byrd, whom I despise, is a racist and a homophobe, yet he is revered here.

Harold Ford is wrong in his views on gay marriage. If I discounted every Democrat in a leadership position for having similar views, I may as well leave the party.

[Truth Teller]

34. I think it's legitimate to change

Byrd was a racist, but I think he has made a genuine change over time. But that's another topic.

[IndianaJones]

40. Byrd hasn't changed, but that is a worn out discussion. nt

[greguganus]

15. Ford? What about GM?

:shrug:

[Truth Teller]

19. Harold Ford

Or are you pulling my chain? :)

[greguganus]

38. Pulling your chain. n/t

[Truth Teller]

42. DOH! n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. I Don't Think They Should Be Forced To Put The Option,

but I do think that they should not be allowed to discriminate. I heard that if someone put that they were gay etc on their application, that they were refused service. That's discrimination and unacceptable. As far as not allowing a same sex matching option, that isn't. Though it reflects poorly on them, they shouldn't have to be forced. To give two examples, I agree with your analogy of the restaurant denying service to AA's, as it relates to the former part of my post. But for the latter part of my post, it would be like a restaurant not having any vegan choices on their menu. They wouldn't be discriminating against vegans by not doing so, and vegans would just eat elsewhere.

[mondo joe]

7. Vegans are not a class. African Americans, Jews, gays are.

As are, of course, whites, heterosexuals, and so on.

[BlooInBloo]

12. You can't change them. That's just how some people are.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. I'm Aware Of That.

But the 'class' argument doesn't apply to the analogy. Discrimination is when a product is refused to somebody due to their class. Eharmony, I believe, was in fact discriminating against gays by not allowing them to join REGARDLESS of how they wanted to be matched. That's unacceptable. But as far as product offering, the class argument doesn't apply there. If they allow their product to be purchased by any class, then they aren't discriminating. In this case the product is opposite sex matching. They shouldn't have to be forced to expand their product line.

Now I totally do understand and see the other side of the argument, and it is definitely a pretty tricky topic to debate mentally for me. There's definitely reason to celebrate eharmony now offering the gay matching, since any and every glbt victory is cause for celebration. But if I had to be 'technical' and 'logical', without using emotion whatsoever in the forging of opinion, I arrive at the conclusion that they legally shouldn't have been forced to do so. But when I put emotions back into the equation, I'm still glad they have.

[Truth Teller]

26. You're kind of splitting hairs

Not allowing that option denies them service.

[mondo joe]

29. Agreed. There is explicit discrimination and then implicit discrimination. NT

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. I'm Providing You With My Technical Side Of The Argument.

It doesn't deny them service, it denies them a different service.

Eharmony's service was providing opposite sex matching. If they refused to provide that service to someone who was gay, that's discrimination. I have to read up more, but I believe in the past I had read that they did in fact refuse any gay member even if they were looking for opposite sex matching. But what has been done now is that they are forced to offer an additional service, a different service, which is same sex matching. That's a different product, and logically I disagree with their being forced to do so though emotional I do agree.

Like the poster above said, Jews are a class. A pork store refusing to let in a Jew would be discrimination. But forcing the pork store to also sell kosher food wouldn't be something I'd agree with. I really do find the situations to be similar.

[mondo joe]

32. Same sex matching isn't really a different service. That's the crux of their problem with

NJ law.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. But It Is.

The simple fact that a different option needs to be selected makes it a different service. It's in a small sense, but it still is.

Some can say that the service is simply 'date matching', but that's a top tier look at the product offering. The product offering gets more specific, in that it is 'opposite sex date matching'. Using my other analogy, it would be like saying the service of the pork store is 'food sales'. But making it more specific it's 'pork food sales'. Pork and kosher beef are both food and are both eaten and processed by the body in similar ways. But they are still technically different types of food. To make the analogy even tighter (which I should've done to begin with), say it's just a beef store that offers no kosher offerings. That isn't discriminatory against Jews. The beef is technically exactly the same, it's just a very small part of the process that changes it from being kosher or not. But the beef store shouldn't be forced to sell kosher beef as well. The Jewish person would just simply go to a beef store that does.

[mondo joe]

39. The difference is modest. But I'm happy for the matter to be settled legally, if the

parties involved care to go that way.

Edit to add: I think the issue here is that the difference is not essential to the business - the difference is a modest one that's really in place only to exclude a class of people.

[Truth Teller]

41. What if the "specific offering" was Caucasian date matching?

Legal?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. I Was Just Going Through That Logical Stream In My Head.

The big difference there is that in order to offer that product, there would have to be inherent discrimination. In order for it to only match Caucasians, they by default would be only allowing caucasians to join. Going back to my previous comments, that would absolutely be discrimination and unacceptable. That's different in the sense that the two can't be separated, as they can here.

But I'm still going over the technical logical streams in my head to see if I can't get myself to change my mind on this overall. I originally arrived at a logical stream that appeared solid to me, which is how I make my opinions on anything in life to begin with. But I'm trying now to see if I can come up with a stronger logical stream that is even more solid, but on the other side of the argument. If I arrive at one then it will cause me to change my position, and I'll let you know.

[mondo joe]

46. I think the problem may be that you are looking for an absolute standard.

But that's not the issue.

If the company excludes a class, on the basis that its service is just nominally different it might be doing as as an act of implicit discrimination. Think of some Jim Crow laws that on the surface were not technically exclusionary of blacks, but in effect were.

The intent and effect matter.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. I've Actually Changed My Position Now. I Agree With The Decision. Here's Why:

First, let me say that the way I always go about any opinion on anything is to take my emotions completely out of the equation, and look from the top down with nothing but cold and raw objective logic. I start out by taking no side of the argument and see where the logical streams take me. When I run into a logical error, I back up or dismiss the stream altogether. Eventually, I get a logical stream that goes from the top to bottom without perceived error, and then I go over it a few times to check if it's solid enough. If it is, I will generally then take that side of the argument and use that logical stream as my justification.

That's what I did here, but now I chose to revisit it. I think the problem with my initial mode of mental analysis was confining the argument to an online realm, since eharmony is an online service. I think that causes perception to be skewed a little, since you picture going online, clicking dots, picking choices etc. Using that perception and while being in the mental image of one way input that the internet is, I arrived at my initial position.

But what I just did now was started from the top down but without the limited 'online' perception. I turned it instead into a two way real world tangible scenario. I imagined there was a business down the road that offered date matching, by say showing you videos and you get to pick who you want etc. I imagined myself being gay, and walking in and stating to the receptionist that I wanted a date as well, and wanted to see some videos. No little dots to click. Just talking to someone live asking to see some videos. Based on eharmony's current practice, the receptionist would have to say "no, I'm not allowed to show you any videos. I'm only allowed to show videos to you if you are looking for a woman". That would absolutely be discriminatory, when viewed with a real world tangible perception. If the answer was simply "ok, but we don't have any videos of gay men" that would be fine, if they really didn't have any. But if they did (which in my previous examples they'd HAVE to or they'd be discriminating by not allowing gays to join, so if they're allowed to join they're allowed to make a video), then if I as a gay man walked in and wanted to watch one of the videos of another gay man, the only recourse the receptionist would have would be to say "we have videos of other gay men, but you aren't allowed to watch them. You can only go in the back room if you choose a video of a woman".

That is 100% discriminatory, and I feel confident in my conclusion now. It's funny how perception can change when mentality is limited to a one dimensional realm that is the online realm. Thinking of it exclusively as an online dating service, and creating mental pictures in my head associated with that, I had come to a completely different conclusion because it seemed like the missing option was in fact just a different product. But by expanding my mentality to perceive it in a real world example, I'm able to see how discriminatory it actually is.

Hope this post makes sense to ya lol.

[Truth Teller]

221. Kudos on thoughtful posts by you and Joe

I think, as Joe said and you seem to touch on here, the key is intent.

Is the motivation for limiting goods and services a matter of practicality from a business standpoint, or is it designed to discriminate against a protected group?

A store selling only pork probably isn't doing so to deliberately discriminate against Jews - the business model may simply be practical. The same could be said of a Christian book store not selling the Koran or Torah. The intent is not to discriminate, but follow a workable business model.

In the case of eHarmony, it is practical and logical to extend service to gays. From a business standpoint, denying gays service makes little sense. The intent is clearly discrimination.

(Stepping off soap box now)

[Political Tiger]

49. The problem with the vegan analogy

is that nobody is being denied service. If you go to a restaurant that has no vegan choices on the menu, that doesn't mean you are being discriminated against. They'll still serve you. You may not like what's on the menu, but you still have to option to eat there. They're not saying "no vegans allowed."

[JVS]

65. Yeah, but the problem with the whole lunch counter analogy is that at a dating service customers...

carry identity that basically becomes the menu. So while everyone could see that there is no such thing as black lunch, gay lunch, jewish lunch (one might argue kosher if incline), or white lunch; a dating service is going to have straight relationships and gay relationships as possible menu items and for potential customers the choice is already made by identity. So while gay customers have a legitimate complaint of discrimination, places like eharmony also have a plausible argument that it's just offering a menu and those not pleased can walk away. I think the court was right in its decision, but to act like this debate is a no-brainer is incorrect.

[Political Tiger]

104. But on this dating menu

as long as you are straight you are not being denied service, while if you are gay you are being denied service.

For instance, a straight man can pick whom he pleases, be it a white woman, a black woman, a Jewish woman, etc. He has the option to choose.

But a gay person does not receive equal treatment as the straight person. A gay man or gay woman is not even given the option to choose. They are being told you are not welcome here.

At eHarmony, a straight person is essentially told to come in and look around, enjoy your stay and we are here to accommodate you, while the gay person is told don't even bother thinking about coming in because we don't want your kind here.

Furthermore, if a straight person joins eHarmony and doesn't find something on the "menu" that he or she likes, he/she is free to go somewhere else. But the gay person isn't even given the first option! They're just told to go away.

So it's not about what's on the menu, but instead it's about whether you are going to get a menu to choose from or not.

[Deja Q]

193. Which is hard to do anyway; even vegetables are grown with animal byproducts.

Poo. Fertilizer. Technically, if a Vegan's credo is to avoid animals and their byproducts altogether... Especially for mushrooms. It's an unfortunate impossibility. Or a sheer improbability.

[R. P. McMurphy]

111. Interesting view of the subject.

This is exactly the tack I believe the courts will take to support Proposition 8. They will say that homosexuals aren't being denied the right to marry - they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. They will say that there is no historical right/precedent in U.S. law, claim that it is a state's rights issue and the voters in each state will determine what the outcome.

[trumad]

6. Your headline is a bit off or is it? Do you agree or do you not?

[Truth Teller]

16. eHarmony should be forced to serve gays IMO

Sorry if I wasn't clear. ;)

[LostinVA]

8. Tell me about it -

I posted this statement several times in the thread and asked if people agreed with it, and NO ONE answered:

"I don't know if I agree with forcing Woolworth's to integrate their lunch counters."

[cboy4]

10. Join the disappointment club Truth Teller

:bounce:

[Truth Teller]

14. HA!

Do we have our own group? :)

[cboy4]

28. LOL. We need one, ha.

:)

[mondo joe]

17. Oh yeah? Next you'll tell me you're for forcing country clubs to allow Jews to be

members!

;-)

[Truth Teller]

22. I'm radical that way

Some folks here could be put off by that! :)

[City of Mills]

18. Should DU be forced to allow freepers?

Just throwing that out there.

[mondo joe]

20. Freepers are not a class. NT

[LostinVA]

24. You have to be frigging kidding me

[EOTE]

222. Or on a similar note, should gay matchmaking sites be forced to allow heterosexuals?

I despise eHarmony and I certainly think that any democrat, liberal or progressive should boycott the site due to their practices. However, I don't know what to think of this ruling. There are many matchmaking sites on the internet that cater exclusively to the GLBT community, should they be forced to allow heterosexuals as well? Once again, I really don't know what to think of this.

[terrya]

21. One would think that's a no-brainer.

One would think that.

[LostinVA]

25. What Skinner says about issues like this --

"Democratic Underground DOES NOT permit homophobic bigotry and DOES NOT welcome members who oppose equal rights for all." - Skinner

[Truth Teller]

27. Strong stuff

Kudos to him.

[LostinVA]

33. Agreed

[ProfessorGAC]

35. Seems Like A Well, Duh!

Too bad it even needs to be said.
The Professor

[Truth Teller]

37. Four recs on the other thread

Looks like it will "grace" the Greatest page. :(

[ProfessorGAC]

43. Well, That's No Good

The other point for me, is why would anyone not want to compel businesses to respect everyone's rights.

Isn't that what the 60's civil rights movement was about?
GAC

[LostinVA]

45. I saw that -- as well as people admitting "Whites Only" stuff is okay

WTF???

[ProfessorGAC]

47. Well, I Hid That Thread

So, i missed that. But, that's shockingly stupid, isn't it?
GAC

[LostinVA]

50. It was very strange

In order to not appear homophobic, they ahd to admit to being racist. What the heck???

[Truth Teller]

223. Tell me you're kidding

Please.

[Matt_in_STL]

48. I also agree!

Now, I am curious when we start our fight to include heterosexuals in www.gaymatchmaker.com

[mondo joe]

51. Start as soon as you like. NT

[Matt_in_STL]

53. Where's the outrage though?

As progressives I understood that we are against all discrimination and should be equally outraged by all.

[mondo joe]

54. If you have a legal case, make it. NT

[Matt_in_STL]

58. Honestly

I don't care if they add heterosexual dating to their site. In all honesty, whereas I am completely behind gay marriage and all gay rights, I think it sets a dangerous precednet when we tell a business that they have to gear their business toward particular groups. I have read the examples of the segregated lunch counters but I do not think that is a valid comparison. In those cases, the services offered were the same - the business did not have to create a new menu or offer a new product. There was no reason that everyone should not have access to the product offered equally.

In the case of eHarmony, their product is heterosexual dating. This isn't simply saying that they need to give everyone access to heterosexual dating, it is saying that eHarmony needs to create a new product and offer a new service that they do not currently offer. The issue is, where does this end? At what point do we just tell businesses what they have to do and what products they have to offer?

[mondo joe]

59. Well, when you have a serious question, post it. NT

[Matt_in_STL]

63. The serious question

The question is, where do you believe the authority of the courts ends in telling a business what products they have to offer? Do you believe a Christian bookstore should be made to carry products for every religion?

[mondo joe]

66. My serious answer: It is legitimate to set up a business to cater to an interest, but

it is not legitimate to set up a business to exclude a class of people.

[Matt_in_STL]

69. How does it exclude?

Gays and lesbians still do have access to the site and they do still have the opportunity to partake in the services offered. If the services offered are not the services they are looking for, there are other stores that offer the products they are looking for. How is this different than any other products or services offered? The site does not say that they exclude gays or lesbians, as far as I know, but that they do not offer the services that cater to gays and lesbians.

[mondo joe]

73. The question then would be, is the service genuinely separate or not.

Think of Jim Crow laws which did not explicitly deny access to blacks, but implicitly did.

If there is no substantive difference in the service but is an arbitrary denial, I think there's a problem.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

76. Read This And See If It Changes Your Mind:

I had a similar mindset but have since seen it to be wrong. Maybe using the logic in the link below, you will too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4507145&mesg_id=4507658

[Matt_in_STL]

86. Okay

I understand your point 100% in your post and it does give me something to ponder, so I am going to think out loud here if you don't mind. My understanding of eHarmony, and I have never used the site so forgive me if I am wrong, is to match heterosexual couples based on some sort of matching criteria to put them together with someone who shares their interests. Based on the fact that they are offering a service that only allows you to select that you are looking for a woman if you are a male, and vice versa, do they not automatically know that there are no matches for you if you are gay or lesbian?

[Realityhack]

204. It is an interesting mental exercise to take this out to the physical world.

I am not sure about your shop analogy. A dating site might be better compared with publishing which has quite different first amendment rights.

Here is my question though. Lets say (in your example) a guy comes in and says he wants to make a video. And they say sure, you can make a video seeking a woman, an he says 'no no, I want to seek a man' and they say 'sorry but we don't do that, we only do men seeking women and women seeking men' Aside from being stupid would that actually constitute legal discrimination?
What if they said gee we are only in the business of matching up Catholics, so if you aren't Catholic we don't do that here?

Just thinking out loud.

[Realityhack]

200. Wouldn't the 'interest' in this case be...

heterosexuals who want to date (or conversely gays/lesbians who want to date on the gay only dating sites)?

Would you be upset by a dating site set up to hook up Mormons with other Mormons or Jews with other Jews?

In the case of a dating site I think it is legitimate to limit the scope of the site to particular types of people. After all they are basically a publisher (web publisher0 putting up ads (singles ads), sure they are fancy 'personality type' ads but still... it's publishing ads. If they want to limit the content on their site the same way DU limits content here... fine, I will just boycott them.

[mondo joe]

203. I would say that excludes a class of people on an artificial basis.

eHarmony provides connections for dating. There is nothing substantively different about gays or straights using it, other than the fields set up by the proprietors for the purpose of excluding a class of people.

They could certainly make it an interest based focus - like motorcycles or pasta or unicorns or S&M because those do not exclude any class of persons.

[Realityhack]

206. What if the interest base was say... one religion?

Like a catholic dating site?

Is the same problem true of gay dating sites (ie would they be forced to take strait applicants)?

[mondo joe]

210. Fine. Catholic it is. Still can't exclude a class of people.

And if anyone wants to sue a gay dating company to include heteros it's a-okay with me - though they are advised to do it in a state where orientation is protected, a la NJ.

[Realityhack]

214. Ok.

I think I see what you are talking about. Got to get back to work but thanks for the conversation.

[Realityhack]

219. I have another question

So lets say that religion is a protected class (so I can construct the below example)
You COULD say 'this site is for Christians only' (because it for one group and excludes many)
But could NOT say 'this is a site for everyone except Atheists'

Did I get that right or am I missing something?

[mondo joe]

220. I'm not certain.

Religious groups also have more leeway than non religious groups - rightly or wrongly.

[Realityhack]

227. Good point.

Just trying to figure this out. I am not 100% either way on it right now. I can see various arguments from both sides.
For example they could say they are essentially publishing personal ads. And as such they have extreme leeway in what to publish or not. You could even publish only racist ads and you would have 1st amendment protection.

I think the case is fairly complex and not as strait forward (in either direction) as some people think it is.

[Realityhack]

228. BTW thanks...

for having a nice conversation with me about this. It can sometimes be hard to locate a person willing to discuss things in a rational way online. Thanks.

[mondo joe]

230. Back at you.

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. Ummm, Do You Not Notice On That Site That You Can Choose Man Seeking Woman?

FAIL

[Matt_in_STL]

67. Yes, it was a fail

I can admit that that choice was a poor choice for my example - I can take the hit for that. Not that it is relevant to the overall issue, here is a better researched example for you:

http://www.gaycupid.com/

Honestly, I am not firmly stuck to my position on this. However, I still am concerned about the precedent it sets for controlling products and services offered.

[mondo joe]

68. The precedent is already well established.

No denying access to a class of people based on that class.

Example: You can set up a bookstore featuring books by and about women. You can't deny men access to the bookstore because they are men.

[Matt_in_STL]

72. Then the big question is....

Were gays and lesbians not given access to use the site? As a male I can go into said bookstore and if I don't like the books offered, I can leave and go somewhere else that offers the books I am looking for.

[mondo joe]

There's a difference.

eHarmony is already providing the service. Allowing or not allowing same sex-seeking couples is the difference of having the option in the search field or not.

Their exclusion of allowing gays appears to be arbitrary, and a set up of implicit discrimination.

[Matt_in_STL]

93. With that mindset though...

Are they discriminating by not offering that service or did they just choose not to program the site to cater to a certain group of individuals? Admittedly, I don't know what it will take behind the scenes to update the site and perhaps update their fancy algorithms (which I think are most likely a joke) but as a business should they be forced to take on any additional cost of providing services they never intended to provide?

[mondo joe]

95. That's the legal question. Is it a different service, or an arbitrary difference to discriminate.

You could look to employment law for similar standards.

Employers must make reasonable accommodation. What is reasonable is sometimes a case for the courts.

[Matt_in_STL]

98. That is where I see that fine line

It is also the reason I point out the Christian bookstore example and the reason some have pointed out the non-Kosher butcher example. I think that offering a service that may be specific to a group is not discriminatory. That is where you have deemed your business should be targeted to get the most out of your investment. Is it always a wise decision? No, but I do not believe it is discriminatory unless you stop a group of people from actually shopping the goods and services you offer.

[mondo joe]

101. I think both examples are off base. Here's why:

1. Christian bookstore - the store can sell whatever it wants. It can't exclude a class of people from using the store. What the store focuses on is not an arbitrary exclusion of a class of people.

2. Butcher - same thing. The butcher can sell whatever he or she wants but can't exclude a class of people.

In both cases, what they store sells isn't refusing to sell THE SaME THING to a class of people based on an arbitrary distinction.

[Matt_in_STL]

106. But that is my point

Does eHarmony not allow gays and lesbians to come into their establishment and shop for the services they provide? Not providing gay and lesbian matches is not discriminatory. Not allowing them access to the service they provide - heterosexual matching - is.

[mondo joe]

109. I think the point/question is actually this:

Is same sex matchmaking substantially different from opposite sex matchmaking?

If it's not really different in process, then eHarmony is simply setting up a technicality to exclude gays.

[Matt_in_STL]

114. That, I do not know

I really don't think we will know that either. We could assume either way but I don't think we can know for sure. I think it is a poor business decision not to include everyone, but they may know more about their business than I do.

[mondo joe]

115. Hence a suitable case for court if anyone cares enough to take it there. NT

[Realityhack]

209. Now there is an interesting example.

Can you set up a site only for women seeking men?
The 'book store' is the web site, which anyone can access. And the 'books' are the advertisements.
Can you also then set up a site for strait women and strait men?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

74. You Fail Again.

If you actually browsed the site you linked, you'd undoubtedly see that the parent company has a ton of other dating sites, most of which cater to opposite sex relationships. They have different sites for different niches, but the company itself caters to EVERYBODY. That's what happened here. At first, Eharmony as a company didn't. Now they do, though they too will do it through different sites.

Double fail.

[yardwork]

128. You're confusing two separate things.

Companies can offer services that only a few people want. Companies can't offer services to everyone except one group.

Reread the OP's analogy. It is legal to have a restaurant that advertises "white people's food" as long as it allows anybody in the door. It is illegal for the restaurant to say, "Everybody is welcome except black people."

[Matt_in_STL]

133. How are they excluded?

They are allowed to look for a heterosexual relationship, which is the service that is offered by eHarmony. Using the example of someone above, under your line of thinking, a non-kosher butcher excludes one group of people and therefore should be forced to carry kosher meat?

[LostinVA]

56. NIce -- you should start an OP on this in the GLBT Forum

Go play some Warcraft or something.

Tool.

[Matt_in_STL]

61. Really?

I am a tool for pointing out the pure hypocrisy of the situation? Read my post #58 and maybe that will clear up my thoughts on this.

[LostinVA]

71. You are aware of what you are doing -- as are 99% of the rest of us

:eyes:

[Matt_in_STL]

77. What I am doing

is trying to understand where the line is in forcing a business to offer a specific product or service. There are many classes of people based on race, religion, sex, and sexual preference. Not every business is going to cater to the wants of every group. If they exclude those groups from the services and products they offer, then yes, that is illegal and those businesses should be dealt with appropriately. If I am not mistaken, the issue here is not that gays and lesbians were excluded, just that they did not like the services offered.

Please correct me if i am wrong and that gays and lesbians were blocked from the site.

[MattBaggins]

103. I am under the impression that they were

If in applying to eharmony; you self indentified as gay you were sent a rejection notice.

[Matt_in_STL]

108. That would be discriminatory if...

The self identified gay or lesbian were looking for a heterosexual match and had denoted that. The services for gay matching do not exist on the site so a rejection simply stating that they do not offer gay and lesbian services would be acceptable in my thinking. I don't agree that they don't offer it purely from a business standpoint, but that is how they geared their business.

[snake in the grass]

131. I'm totally with you on this one.

Imagine forcing that Christian bookstore to carry atheist literature in order to cater to atheists. eHarmony can offer services as it wants. There are plenty of sites for same-sex relationships or should we now demand that http://mygaypartner.com/ offers services for heterosexuals in the spirit of equality?

Most importantly though, through this victory gays and lesbians will now be able to give their money to someone who openly despises them. I congratulate them to their Pyrrhic victory!

Why anyone who feels discrimated by a business would want to patron said business is beyond me.

[IndianaJones]

70. you're one of those people that complain about the United Negro College Fund too, huh? nt.

[Matt_in_STL]

80. Not at all

What I do think though is that we have reached a point where if we are going to require every business to offer every product and service to cater to every group of people then we are asking for the Walmarts of the world to just take over. I would be afraid to start a business for fear that it may offend some group of people, even if I give them access to my business, it just might not cater to their wants. I don't believe Christian bookstores should have to cater to other religious groups and carry their materials and I don't believe, as in some other examples, that a butcher shop should have to carry kosher meats. I am all for gays and lesbians having access to sites such as eHarmony, but where do we draw the line at telling people what services they must offer?

[IndianaJones]

85. gays are a sizeable minority group, not a club or a society. nt

[Matt_in_STL]

91. I understand that

Some religions are big minority groups and races are big minority groups and yet not every business caters to their needs. You can go in and look around all you want but there is no guarantee that you are going to find the goods and services for which you are looking. If I am Muslim should I expect that when I go into a Christian bookstore that I should be offered a copy of the Quran? I am allowed in the store, they just don't carry the goods that meet my needs. That is my only point - I do not believe in discrimination of any group in the least but i think there is a fine line in some cases between discrimination and having goods and services that may only cater to specific groups, minority or otherwise.

[IndianaJones]

97. so to be consistent, you would support them if they did not match interracial straight couples? nt.

[Matt_in_STL]

102. While I would not agree with that stance

just as I do not necessarily agree with creating a site geared only toward heterosexual couples, it is a business decision to gear their business toward a specific group. If they want to gear their business to heterosexual white couples, that is their business. If they discriminate by not letting other races or sexes to check out their establishment, that is illegal. There is a difference between targeting your business and discriminating.

[IndianaJones]

107. So your stance is that a business could refuse to sell to blacks as long as they let them look at

the merchanidise?

[Matt_in_STL]

110. No

But are they refusing to let gays and lesbians attempt to make a heterosexual match?

edit: typo

[mondo joe]

112. How about if they set up barriers to use based on how.... straight a person's hair is?

Could they say "We set this up to cater to a straight haired type of business"?

[Matt_in_STL]

117. Really

Yes they could. Have you seen the stores made for left handed people? You are allowed to target your business to any group you want as long as you do not discriminate who shops there for the goods and services you offer.

[mondo joe]

118. I think you're missing something.

If you set up a barrier that is designed to exclude a class of people, you're breaking the law.

Let's look at the straight hair example. Can you think of a class of people who generally speaking would be excluded from entry? I can: African Americans. Not in every case, but often.

Same as Jim Crow laws that didn't explicitly ban blacks, but were designed to exclude that group by finding other criteria other than explicit race.

[Matt_in_STL]

121. Again, who is being excluded?

Just because I create a business for straight haired people, I am still letting everyone in to shop. Granted, if they have curly hair they are not going to find anything in my store for them. Is that discriminatory against them?

eHarmony has a site geared toward heterosexuals. They aren't saying gays and lesbians can't come into their site and shop for a heterosexual relationship, they are saying that if you are looking for gay and lesbain services, we don't offer those in our store.

[mondo joe]

189. I'll say this one last time. If the service is the same but they have structured

it in such a way as to create a barrier to a class odf people wishing to use what is essentially the SAME service, there is a problem.

[MattBaggins]

113. Stop looking at the single restauraunt idea

Think of the company leasing the outlets at the food court in the local mall.

1. Not allowing Jews to come into the court at all.
2. Allowing Jews to come into the mall but pointing out that kosher food is not available.
3. Jewish business wants to set up a station in the court that provides kosher food.

4. Denying 3 under the pretense of "not offering that service here" despite having a cart that serves only fish on Fridays, a no beef Hindi shop, and a shop that sells sugarless as well as traditional candies.

On edit:

If the rumors are correct there is also the nice glitch that if you go to eharmony's "food court" Hindi people can only eat at the Hindi shop, Catholics at the fish shop, and Jews get "we don't provide that service here" and stop trying to force us to.

[Matt_in_STL]

120. With that example

1. Nobody is saying that gays and lesbians can't access the eHarmony site
2. When they do visit it is pointed out that the services offered are not geared toward them
3. Gays and lesbains are more than welcome to set up shop in the "food court". There are many gay and lesbian match sites on the internet.
4. What is being asked is not to open a business on the "food court" but for someone to come into your kiosk on the food court and forcing you to sell their food.

[MattBaggins]

127. I am not an expert on eharmony but

1. Yes they are denied access. From what I understand; and I may incorrect, clicking gay gets an automatic rejection from eharmony.

2. Depends on the case. If they put man looking for woman and still get a rejection letter that is discrimination.

3. Not in the "food court" owned at that particular "mall". Restaurant analogy is flawed to begin with but this would be the same as telling people it is OK to deny them service since they can go open their own mall. Separate but is OK as long as it is equal.

4. Disagree completely. The question is if eharmony is the leasee or the leaser. Are they more like a big mall providing space for merchants or just a small merchant themselves. I believe they are more of a big mall and each applicant is a pseudo merchant/customer, and eharmony is discriminating against groups of merchants/customers in what they misleadingly advertise as a public service for all.

[Matt_in_STL]

130. Now this is correct

If they clicked gay but put that they are looking for a heterosexual relationship, then yes, that is absolutely discrimination if they are denied access to the site for being gay. However, that isn't what the court case was about. The case was to force eHarmony to offer a service they do not offer rather than making them not discriminate against gays and lesbians wanting to use their heterosexual services.

[MattBaggins]

137. And if a court told the local mall

they had to allow a Jewish group space to setup a kosher kiosk I would agree with that decision as well.

[Matt_in_STL]

149. It isn't about the mall

The mall should let them set up a business. However, nobody should be able to come into my business within that mall, where I serve Chinese food, and tell me that I have to also serve kosher food.

[MattBaggins]

191. Eharmony isn't the restaurant

they are the mall.

[yardwork]

129. Nobody is telling anybody that they have to offer services to everyone.

I think that you are deliberately misunderstanding the OP.

[Matt_in_STL]

136. No, that is not a misunderstanding

The fact is, yes, they do have to offer their services to everyone. That is a fact. The question that seems to be missed is, if a business is targeting a certain demographic (i.e. heterosexuals, left handed people, Christians) why should they be forced to offer other services for other groups? As long as they let all groups shop the goods and services they offer they are not discriminating.

[yardwork]

170. eHarmony was not offering their services to everyone. They excluded gay people.

Nobody is saying that any business has to offer services that everyone wants to consume. But a business can't post a sign saying "No gays allowed." eHarmony wouldn't allow gay people to use the site. I guess they assumed that gay people wouldn't seek opposite-sex partners, but that's simply not true. What about bisexual people? What about transgendered people who identify as gay and are seeking "opposite" sexed partners?

Lots of people don't fit into these neat categories. "Straight" people hang out on gay dating sites seeking same-sex partners. Gay people seek opposite-sex partners sometimes. This is a dating service we're talking about.

Nobody is telling eHarmony that they have to offer same-sex dating services. They're allowed to offer any service they want, but they aren't allowed to boot people seeking their services off their site just because the consumer identifies as gay. That's what was happening. If you put in your profile that you were gay, you weren't allowed to use the site.

This is NOT about the services being offered. It is about excluding a single group based on an arbitrary standard.

[yardwork]

125. Nobody is excluded from gay matchmaker. You are welcome to use their service.

It's legal to offer a service designed for specific groups of people. It's illegal to tell a particular group that they are not allowed to use a service.

Gay matchmaker won't deny you services if you self-identify as straight. It offers its services to anybody. eHarmony, in contrast, would not allow gay people to participate. That is discriminatory.

[baldguy]

52. Would you want a vegitarian to prepare your steak?

[mondo joe]

55. Is that your justification for illegal discrimination?

[baldguy]

218. Did the IQ level of this place suddenly drop 20 pts?

If eHarmony wants to continue to discriminate, they will. They just won't put any effort or resources into this new "service", and it'll fail 6-12 months from now.

And if you think my pointing out the facts of life to you is somehow means I'm justifying their evil - fuck you.

[mondo joe]

233. Whether the service will fail or not is irrelevant.

Thanks, and back at you.

[LostinVA]

57. ?????

1. My wife is a vegetarian, and she cooks an excellent steak -- medium rare and juicy -- with just a little sakt and pepper.

2. WTF? Gay realtionships are THE EXACT SAME as straight ones.

[gollygee]

62. This is not relevant

To force a vegetarian place to stock steaks in case a non-vegetarian came in would put a financial stress on the business - what if the steaks didn't sell? Same for forcing a steak place to stock veggie burgers that they would just end up having to throw out - it isn't fair to force a business to take on a financial risk because MAYBE a vegetarian would enter a steak place. And there are trillions of food issues. There is no way for a restaurant to meet every person's unique food issues and to force a business to cater to every food issue that might come up would be to make it impossible for any restaurant to financially succeed. I said in the other thread that I'm having trouble just setting up my daughter's birthday party because of all the food issues. One kid is allergic to dairy, one to eggs, one to peanuts, and one is Islamic and doesn't eat pork. My pepperoni pizza idea is gone. I am not sure even how to get a cake together at this point.

But with e-harmony there is no case of having to stock some physical product that might have to get thrown out, causing a big financial risk. Not the same issue.

[racaulk]

84. This is relevant to the conversation how? And learn how to spell vegetarian. n/t

[elocs]

75. Yes, I believe that progressives should all be in agreement on all major things.

There should be a litmus test as well as a loyalty oath. Those who are not in harmony with the OneMind should be purged. "No soup for you!!!" PINOs! Hey, who's up for a good purging? We could have bonfires and everything!

[mondo joe]

78. I think equal rights for all is a fair litmus test for progressives, personally. NT

[IndianaJones]

79. support for bigotry and discrimination should be the rallying cry of all progressives! woo hoo! nt.

[Matt_in_STL]

81. What was not equal?

Nobody can tell me if gays and lesbians were not allowed to access the site or if they just were not offered the services they wanted.

[mondo joe]

82. If the services are set up arbitrarily with the intent of excluding a class of people

you've got inequity.

[IndianaJones]

90. the services they wanted? how about the same services as everyone else? "special rights" crap. nt.

[Matt_in_STL]

99. I'm sorry

Were they not offered the same heterosexual matching services that everyone else was offered?

[yardwork]

152. That is correct. They were not offered any services at all. They were booted off the site.

[Matt_in_STL]

158. Then the solution should be

Gays and lesbians are allowed on the site to search for heterosexual matches, based on the services offered. eHarmony should not be forced to incorporate a new service into their business if they choose not to do so, poor business decision or not.

[yardwork]

132. Gays and lesbians are not allowed to access the site. That's the point.

eHarmony excluded gays and lesbians. If you put gay or lesbian or LGBT on your application form, you were booted off the site. Is that clear enough for you?

The equivalent would be:

A restaurant posts a sign saying "No blacks."

A package mailing store says "No Jews allowed inside."

A photographer includes in his advertisement "No Muslim clients accepted."

A dating site says "No gays allowed."

NOW do you get it?

[Matt_in_STL]

138. That is what I have been asking all morning

If that is the case then it is discrimination and needs to be dealt with. eHarmony should be forced to allow gays and lesbians to look for heterosexual relationships on their site. They should not be forced to offer a good or service they do not currently offer.

[yardwork]

142. Now you get it!

:hi:

[jakem]

83. And gay sites should be forced to allow straight matches?

[IndianaJones]

87. and the NAACP should be forced to advocate for whites. nt.

[nichomachus]

89. Actually, the NAACP is supporting the overturn of Prop 8

There will be more whites than blacks affected by that

[IndianaJones]

92. were they forced? and the UNCF should be forced to offer finacial assistance to whites. nt.

[nichomachus]

141. You're making yourself more ridiculous with every "gotcha" attempt --but enjoy yourself

[SweetieD]

144. The UNCF would offer financial assistance to whites! You are ignorant

The UNCF helps kids go to historically black colleges. Most people who go are black of course but there is nothing stating the UNCF won't help whites.

[mondo joe]

96. What they advocate for is up to the organization. The proper analogy would be

about whether they admit people based on race to membership.

[IndianaJones]

100. just trying to show the idiocy of the "gays sites should allow straight matches" argument..

its the old oppressed majority thing. I've heard it before.

"Why do blacks have their own college fund. Could you imagine if there was a United White College Fund?"

[nichomachus]

88. Sure -- why not? I don't have any problem with it.

Besides, there are lots of "straight" men looking for love on the gay sites now.

[jakem]

94. i dont have a problem with it, but not sure i see the point.

gay sites will still be gay sites, even with some straight on there-

why force it?


seems a waste of effort to me- being sold something is not a protected right, is it?

[no limit]

105. Ok, so make all the gay dating sites accept streight couples now. I think this is dumb

it's a private site, they should be free to do as they wish.

[LostinVA]

116. Remember the brave kids from NC A&T in Greensboro?

[no limit]

123. No, can you explain?

[LostinVA]

146. Then shame on you

[no limit]

159. thanks for the lively discussion, much appreciated

[LostinVA]

166. You shouldn't discuss civil rights if you're ignorant of civil rights

[no limit]

169. No, apparently people have no right to have any kind of discussion with you

unless they pass a pop quiz first. You don't get in to a lot of discussions do you?

You don't want to explain what happened in NC to me then you have every right now too, I just don't know why you felt you needed to waste my time.

[LostinVA]

178. I love to have discussions and debates on here

Look at my post count. If I didn't, I wouldn't still be here. I just don't think people have a right to make a judgement on someone's civil rights if they have no idea what those rights are about.

Greensboro is one of THE watershed moments of the US's civil rights movement, right up there with Rosa Parks and Brown.

[no limit]

185. yet you dont seem like you are the type of person that would be good in these discussions

I am not making a judgement about anyone. In fact all I did was ask a question, and another nice poster here explained why my question was flawed.

I think the problem is not that I made any kind of judgement about civil rights as I didn't, the problem is that you made a judgement about me. And I really don't appreciate it. Should I have known about greensboro? Probably, but the fact I didn't doesn't give you the right to suggest I'm a bigot or racist. So the next time you want to have a discussion with someone don't make a bunch of assumptions and I promise you that you'll be much better off. This is a community of like minded people, I don't get why everyone has to be so pissy all the time (I'm guilty of this too).

[yardwork]

122. Thank you. Some DUers seem to be unfamiliar with many laws.

Nobody is requiring private businesses to cater to everybody. However, it is illegal to single out one group and discriminate against them only.

I've heard arguments along the lines of - "Why can't dating services say "Irish only" and be left alone?" The answer is that offering a service to a unique set of clients is totally different from offering a service to everybody except one group of clients.

As you note in the OP, it's illegal for a restaurant to refuse to serve any one group of people. They can refuse to serve individuals for various reasons (not wearing appropriate clothes, being disruptive, etc.) but they can't decide to single out one group of people for discrimination and serve everybody else.

This is basic, fundamental law. I wonder where some DUers went to high school. Did they pass civics?

[no limit]

124. So all the gay dating sites need to allow everyone on their site, right?

Because at this time all the gay dating sites are discriminating against just one perticular group, straight people.

[yardwork]

135. I don't know of any gay dating site that discriminates against straight people.

Can you point one out? That is, a site that specifically excludes straight people but nobody else.

I don't believe that there is one.

[no limit]

140. I'm on a work computer and don't feel like searching gay sites right now

Don't want any weird looks from the IT people.

But are you saying there are no sites out there exclusive to gay couples?

[yardwork]

145. Not that I know about. There are lots of sites that offer same-sex dating services

but that is very different from stating that straight people are unwelcome, which is what eHarmony did by excluding gay people simply on the basis of their declared orientation.

Let's say that you consider yourself to be straight, but you would like to use a dating service to find a same-sex partner. Lots of "straight" people do this. As far as I know, this is fine with same-sex dating sites. Some of them have rules against certain kinds of behaviors, such as trolling for casual sex, but as far as I know, none of them exclude people simply on the basis of their self-identified sexual orientation. That's the line that eHarmony crossed.

Nobody is forcing eHarmony to offer services that they don't want to offer. However, it is illegal for eHarmony to essentially post a sign saying "no gays allowed."

[no limit]

151. So lets say you are a gay male and want to use eharmony to hook up with a straight female

eharmony would not allow you to do that? If that's the case I agree with you that they have no right to do this.

But what seems to be the issue here is that people want to force eHarmony to set up a gay dating service. If I am wrong and that's not what's going on then my apologies.

[yardwork]

157. Now you get it. Nobody is forcing any business to offer specific services.

Yes, eHarmony was refusing to serve people who identified as gay. No, nobody is forcing eHarmony to "set up a gay dating service."

I think that a lot of the confusion here is that many people appear to think that everybody falls into two camps - "gay people who always seek gay sex" and "straight people who always seek straight sex."

The truth is that there a lot of people who call themselves "straight" who like to have sex with same-sex partners. A lot of people. Likewise, some people who identify as "gay" sometimes seek opposite-sex partners. And there are a whole group of folks who identify as bisexual and seek liaisons with both same-sex and opposite-sex partners. And there are a whole group of people who are transgendered...

Lots of these choices are not my cup of tea, but this is a dating service we're talking about.

[no limit]

161. In that case my apologies, I should have done a bit more research on my part

thanks for the explaination, that makes sense.

[yardwork]

163. You're welcome.

[Realityhack]

213. Excellent post.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was also not fully understanding the issue.

[fascisthunter]

237. This Gives Credence to the "Kinsean Theory"

[LostinVA]

147. Why would you get weird looks?

[no limit]

155. lol, you can't be serious.

A known straight male looking around gay dating sites at work wouldn't start spreading some rumors?

[LostinVA]

181. No, I am serious -- why would the "weird looks" bother you???

[no limit]

187. it would bother me because I don't like people at work making assumptions about my personal life

you are trying to pick something out of my statement that isn't there, please stop.

[LostinVA]

188. No, I think you did that all yourself

[no limit]

197. You are doing a real disservice

You are trying to push someone away that probably shares most of your views because you like to make assumptions about peoples character because you think everyone is out to get you. You don't know shit about me and the assumptions you are making are down right offensive. As I said, please stop.

[SweetieD]

150. You are wrong, at least as far as federal law.

"they can't decide to single out one group of people for discrimination and serve everybody else."
Yes a restaurant can do this as long as it is not illegal. A restaurant can single out say fat people, and say we don't serve anyone over 200lbs. Fat people are a class of people. But they are not a protected class. In NJ where this case originated, sexual orientation is a protected class entity. Some states have sexual orientation in their civil rights statutes, but most states do not. And it is not a protected class under federal Title VII civil rights laws. So you are wrong on your fundamental laws analysis.

[yardwork]

162. Thanks for reminding everybody that gay people have no rights or protections.

It sounds like that's just fine with you.

[LostinVA]

182. Yup and yup

[SweetieD]

217. What? Don't make a value judgment against me.

How can you propose to change the law if you don't understand how the current law works? You were the one stating that other people were ignorant of the law, when it is you who didn't understand one of the key factors that led to this settlement.

[Realityhack]

212. You can't frame away the question that easily.

The site could just as easily say that they offer a service to the unique set of clients known as strait singles seeking a relationship... see no married people, or gay people, etc.

And the Irish only site can be reframed as excluding everyone who isn't Irish, substitute white for Irish and you see the problem. They would claim they don't keep out one group but all kinds of non-whites.

I think it is actually fairly merky.

[robinlynne]

126. Who wants e-harmony? You have to believe in God to join. Don't you?

That is a club I am already eliminated from and would not want to join.

[Qibing Zero]

134. I don't think I've seen a single relevant analogy on either side of this

Most of them have already been called out, of course. Usually it just comes down to people not understanding the difference between a decision someone makes and who they are based on genetics. More specifically though, one example I'd like to note:

Affirmative action based companies (and programs) such as the UNCF are operated on the principle that blacks in this country have been historically discriminated against to such a degree that they are, on average, in more need of financial aid. If the situation ever somehow evens out economically (unlikely barring massive wealth redistribution), 'What if there was a whites-only college fund?' would become an appropriate argument, but until then it is not.


The best analogy I can think of would be that of a tailor. Can a tailor refuse to fit you because of your body shape and size? It isn't reasonable that they would choose not to (just as is isn't reasonable eHarmony would choose not to match gay couples), but it is wrong? Should we force the tailor to provide their services to all, regardless of how tall, lanky, short, or stout?

Just something to think about.

[yardwork]

139. You don't get it. Any business can refuse to serve individuals.

The analogy would only match if the tailor stated that he would accept clients of all kinds except one specific group. Any business has the right to refuse to serve individuals.

eHarmony stated that they would provide dating services to everybody except gay people. That's singling out a group. The equivalent analogy would be a tailor refusing to accept gay clients.

Or a tailor refusing to accept Jewish clients. Or a tailor refusing to accept African American clients.

[Qibing Zero]

143. You're nitpicking my example. I'll fix it for you.

I left it open on purpose, but we'll consider a specific example:

The tailor refuses to offer their services to anyone over 6'5.

[yardwork]

148. I'm not nitpicking your example, and your follow-up is not the same thing.

People over 6'5" require a certain level of service that a tailor might not be able to provide. Nobody is saying that eHarmony has to offer certain services. The law does say, however, that eHarmony can't post a sign saying "no gays allowed."

[LostinVA]

168. The old "special rights" argument -- di you catch that?

[Qibing Zero]

172. Explain how they wouldn't be able to provide the service based on height.

What is intrinsically different about what they're doing?

And the sign thing is bogus. In the same way you would walk into the tailor's shop and try to get fitted only to be turned away, you would 'walk' into eHarmony and ask them to find you someone of the same sex only to be turned away. Neither advertises the fact they discriminate.

[mondo joe]

211. There isn't a height based class of persons. nt

[LostinVA]

154. Not the same thing at all, but you know that already

[LostinVA]

153. So, now equal civil rights - a tailor?????

How insulting. You are truly embarrassing yourself.

[Qibing Zero]

174. I'm sorry, do differently shaped people not deserve rights as well?

You're confused here.

tailor - eHarmony
shape - sexuality

[LostinVA]

180. You really are a tool

[Qibing Zero]

194. Yes, I'm the tool.

Because people have never been historically discriminated against based on being short, or tall, or on breast size, etc. What a far-fetched idea.

I stand by my analogy being completely legitimate. If you don't think it's as serious an issue, that's fine - you could have just said so. Just keep in mind that all of us have a cause, but we don't all let it blind us toward those of others.

[mondo joe]

198. Gay people are a class. There is no class of shaped persons. nt

[mondo joe]

195. You need to learn the difference between a person and a class,.

[Qibing Zero]

215. Responding to your horde of no-text comments here

Would you be satisfied if I included the 'class' of people who are so short it is legally considered a disability?

Perhaps you'll tell http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4229000.stm">people such as this man they aren't in any particular class and therefore don't have a reasonable claim. Goodness.

[mondo joe]

216. Disabled persons are a class.

Did you not understand that?

[lelgt60]

160. You're getting lost in legalities. eharmony is being unfair.

Whether what they're doing is legal, or not, logically justifiable, or not, is besides the point. Someone else said it in a prior post. Progressives support equal rights for all. Having a site like eharmony is simply additional evidence of a homophobic society. We shouldn't support it.

[undeterred]

164. EHarmony is a fundamentalist Christian matching service.

[gollygee]

226. I've seen a slew of ads and I've never seen them say that

There are TV ads all the time and they don't say anything about being only for Christians.

[undeterred]

235. They don't say it but that's what I've heard-

There is a conservative set of values underlying their business and I'm not sure they are as up front about it as they ought to be. Apparently they screen out some people as "non-marriageable"... if someone drinks or uses drugs they may not get matched with anyone.

You also have to be in "good health" to use their services. Does that mean they don't match people who have MS, or are overweight, or lost a limb in the war? What if someone suffers from depression or bipolar disorder?

Check this out...http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2007/06/11/why-does-eharmony-reject-people/

[Hugabear]

165. What about Christian or Muslim dating sites?

What happens to them now?

Personally, I'd love to see ANY religion that discriminates against gays lose their tax-exempt status.

[blurp]

173. Make them illegal. All must be included.

We can't pick and choose who gets defended against discrimination and who doesn't.

Any group that can't welcome others, isn't welcome here and doesn't deserve protection.

Our economic system has move beyond the time when people can pick and choose whom they can and cannot serve. Service must be given to all without discrimination. "Free to Choose" is over. And the era of selfishness is done.

[Hugabear]

176. If only we could take it even further than that

I think the best thing we can realistically hope for is for churches to lose their tax-exempt status for discriminating against gays.

Personally, I'd love to see any group or organization that engages in this behavior BANNED. Religion has been the leading force in crafting homophobic attitudes. If a church wants to accept everyone regardless of sexuality, gender, race, etc then they're allowed to stay. But if they exclude anyone, if they preach against homosexuality, if they continue to foster hatred and non-acceptance, then shut them down. I don't give a flying fuck about "religious freedom". We don't allow human sacrifice, why should we allow other anachronistic practices?

[Qibing Zero]

179. How many religions would survive under that argument?

Hell, I like the argument personally (though there are stronger ones I'd use first). It's just that most of the religions out there (in the west) are exclusive and a large part of their message involves alienating others.

[Qibing Zero]

175. We're all over the place here

While I disagree with the tax-exempt status of religious organizations in the first place, this is a completely different cup of tea.

A company discriminating against religious beliefs is different than one discriminating against genetics.

[Hugabear]

177. Do you think that a fundie Christian or Muslim dating site is going to allow gays?

Some religious beliefs are the same as discriminating against genetics.

[Qibing Zero]

186. Continuing down that line

Can we really trust a fundie Christian or Muslim dating site to foster only healthy relationships based on equality? Both religions place the woman in a subordinate role, so I doubt it.

Now we're at a point where it's tough to argue this, though. We have individuals who are both strongly independent women and Christian/Muslim, and who are both gay and Christian/Muslim. Where do we draw the line?

[gollygee]

225. That wouldn't bother me

You have to look at intent. It certainly could be hard for Muslims to find dates through general online dating sites. And even Christians - particularly hard core fundamentalist Christians - could have trouble finding someone with similar religious views. Like if you don't believe in sex before marriage you might have trouble on general dating sites. But the fact is that straight people are never going to have trouble finding straight people on a general dating service. Therefore, the intent is not to find someone from a particular group because you've been having trouble finding people from that group - the intent here is clearly to discriminate against a group of people.

[KitchenWitch]

167. I am with you on this.

Thank you for posting this.

:applause:

[newtothegame]

171. 99% I'm right on board...and I was devastated by Prop 8...

but forcing a private business to cater? I'm not sure about that...if they are receiving some kind of government funding or something...

edited for spelling

[LostinVA]

184. You can't have Whites Only restaurants -- same thing

Laws "force" businesses to cater all the time.

[Eric J in MN]

183. Website owners are publishers. A better analogy would be...

...telling a book publishing company it need to print books about every subject.

[LostinVA]

190. It's a business, no different than a brick and mortar -- it's NOT a publisher at all

[Eric J in MN]

201. Their business is to print words and photos on the internet.

That makes them a publisher.

[mondo joe]

208. Incorrect. Their business is matchmaking. The website is a tool to facilitate

that business.

[Realityhack]

229. Do they get paid by the match or by the publish?

Newspapers printing a personal ad are clearly publishers. Wouldn't a dating website be similar?
I think how the law viewed it would depend upon how the pricing worked. If it is a subscription ($10/month to view stuff) then they are essentially a publisher.
If it were $10/date you go on then it would be some kind of service.

Then of course there are various guarantees they throw in that could make it very hard to figure out.

Anyway, I am not sure that they do not count as a publisher.

[gollygee]

231. They get paid by the attempt to match.

I don't think you have to pay to just see things - only if you want to correspond and try to match. I'm married and not in the market, but my sister has used eharmony and I think that's how it works.

[mondo joe]

232. Not similar. In the case of personal ads, the publisher just puts the ads out

and readers use them.

eHarmony uses some personality matrix to link member (assuming membership is their method) with other members.

They're a publisher the way United Airlines is a publisher - they both use web interfaces.

[mondo joe]

192. False. The website provides a service, but is selectively deciding a class of people

can't use the service.

[gollygee]

224. No, they are not publishers. They sell a dating service.

Not the same thing by a long shot.

[Alter Ego]

199. eHarmony is run by a guy who's buddies with James Dobson.

[Eric J in MN]

202. Freedom of the press isn't just for people we agree with. NT

NT

[Alter Ego]

205. I know that--that's why you'll never get eHarmony to match gay folks.

They're a fundie-driven website.

[mondo joe]

207. Wholly unrelated to freedom of the press. Neither Dobson nor eHarmony are "the press".

eHarmony is, however, providing a service in a way designed to exclude a class of people from using the very same service.

[liberalhistorian]

234. Should gay dating sites then be forced

to match straight couples?

[Political Tiger]

236. I don't know of any gay dating sites

that match couples, which seems to be the thing people don't understand.

Most dating sites just have people put their pictures up with some info about them and let the person looking for a match choose their match on their own. Anybody can participate.

eHarmony does the matching for the people looking for someone based on some criteria they have set up. They do the "matching" for you! By refusing to match people based on sexual orientation they are discriminating against a certain group of people.

[Realityhack]

238. Interesting question.

And this is purely thinking out loud...
what if they claimed that their proprietary matching criteria was only normed for strait individuals and might not work for gay or bisexual relationships? Would they be able to claim the 'technology' they use is only tested for men and women seeking the opposite?