Conservative Dates
Democrats Passions

Vermillion, the point is that this site should be able to cater to whatever crowd they want to. I point to the links above which are dating sites for Republicans or Democrats. Obviously there is discrimination going on here. But that isnt necessarily wrong. People choose to go to this site with the knowledge of what its all about. A person who identifies as a Democrat cannot go on Conservative Dates and demand that their needs be met for a liberal mate (and vice-versa). You are not limited by a lack of choices, so you can take your business elsewhere. Furthermore, there is no right to find a mate online. So even if the breakdown is by race as you create in your hypothetical, it still doesn't matter. I havent checked, but I am sure there are plenty of dating sites that deal with people who are looking for a specific mate whether it be by race, gender, or political affiliation. If there was no choice involved, then yes, perhaps there could an argument made. But because people want certain perameters in choosing a date, I do not see a problem.

So it isn't discrimination so long as it isn't overt. If it discriminates in practice, then fine... just so long as they don't make it obvious?

What if the choice was as is and there was an item in the questionnaire regarding attraction to people of a different race. Statements that you have to rate yourself on like... "I like to look at people of a different race than my own." or "I greatly appreciate the physical beauty of people of races other than my own." What if you responded to these questions honestly... that you greatly appreciated the physical beauty of people of races other than your own... and you were rejected. Would this be discrimination?



Wow.

As far as I know, the outcome of Claasen's case is still pending. He was not granted his preliminary injunction... couldn't find anything further.



No, but a Democrat can go on Conservative Dates and post a profile... he or she can participate in the service (and vice-versa). I saw nothing on those sites indicating that you had to be a Conservative or a Democrat in order to participate. You might not get the most out of the service... you might eventually dump the service... but you can still join.

Also, you should know that a conservative Democrat is still a conservative.

No it's not discrimination if they are not excluded based on their sexual orientation. That simple.



A little more complex, not that I am dodging your question, but you are getting into a shade of gray where I have to honestly say... it depends. They are not denying me service because of my race, but because of my preference in other races. So I can't say it's not discriminatory, only it gets harder to prove.

Are they denying me due to my desires for other races or are they denying me because they don't see other fitting my compatibility... which would be odd seeing that they offered the choice.

Hmmm...



Now, sexual attraction plays a role in eHarmony's site... they have advice columns about it. It is... how do people put this... intellectually dishonest... to claim that the choices provided do not reflect sexual orientation. This is a dating site. So, while a homosexual male is a male (that is his gender)... it is a male who seeks other males when it comes to dating (his sexual orientation). Now a person may choose to pretend they are of a different sexual orientation for whatever reason (to "hide in the closet" or because adopting a heterosexual orientation might make him more successful) ... but that doesn't make the choices any less about sexual orientation.



The discrimination occurs based on race... it doesn't have to be your race, but can be the race of your prefer. Such was the case with interracial marriage bans... discrimination based not on the race of the individual making the choice, but based on the race of the person chosen. Oh, but that's right... you don't believe we have the right to choose our partners - despite evidence provided to the contrary.

Let's change it up a little.

What if the questions were:

"I like to look at women of my own race."

"I greatly appreciate the physical beauty of women of my own race."

What if you chose "not at all" as your ranking for these statements and was rejected. Would that be discrimination?

A review of my extensive postings in the past will reveal that yes, I am serious about this, as I've stated this principle numerous times.

"Fine" in what sense? "Fine" in the sense that if I owned a bus system I'd put those signs up in my buses? No. "Fine" in the sense that I'd knowingly patronize a restaraunt with a "No Blacks Allowed" policy. No. "Fine" in the sense that I believe such discrimination is morally righteous and good? No. "Fine" in the sense that I believe individuals have certain rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution, and freedom of association (which includes freedom to not associate) is one of those rights, yes. There was once a time when liberals were fond of saying "I may not agree with what you say, in fact I find it disgusting and morally reprehensible, but I defend your right to say it." My "fine"ness with this is analagous.

Correct. Nothing illegal, per the Constitution. I fail to see what is "liberal" in the classical sense with forcing, at the end of a gun, one party to do business with somebody with whom they do not wish to do business. Such a policy is involuntary servitude, which, btw, is explicitly forbidden in the Constitution.

Actually, Entspeak explicitly endorses the lawsuit. BoF, the second poster, appears to endorse it. Droop disputes whether or not the discrimination is taking place, but if you can convince him that it is taking place, then he's all for the lawsuit. Just to be clear though, I did say "some."

Perhaps you can take up the cause of explaining why its wrong for government to be in GLB's bedroom business, but right for government to force somebody else to help GLB get busy in the bedroom?

Yes I am placing racial identifiers in the scenario. So what? Your argument is based on the claim that nobody is being discriminated against as anyone can join the site, and it's not the fault of the site if people don't happen to find what they like 'on the menu'. That is exactly the same as the situation above.

I am using race here, but that changes nothing. Anyone can join regardless of their colour, and is it the fault of the site if people interested in interrascial dating can't find their choices among the 'menu'? You say religion and race are different from sexuality; sadly, according to the laws of california, that is simply not true.



The example above does not [i]deny[/b] blacks the ability to join, they can join if they like. They just have to choose from the 'menu' provided.

lederuvdapac :




Except that political party membership is not one of the criteria listed under California law; sexuality is.


Bikerdad: So you have said that (according to your opinion) it should be legal for restaurants to ban blacks and buses to force blacks to sit at the back 9as long as they are privately owned) due to freedom of association, or freedom to not associate. I assume then you have no problem with somebody positing a job in their (privately owned) company stating 'blacks need no apply'? That is after all, the right of the company owner to not associate, right? Or for Real estate people to not sell houses to blacks? You think all this should be perfectly legal?

Race and religion are listed. So a Jewish singles site is ripe for a discrimination suit? Google "Jewish Singles" and you'll get a litany of responses (ironically eHarmony was the first featured listing ).

Please help me understand how that is different from what is being argued against eHarmony.

This is why analogy about the Burger fits, IMO. You are not complaining that Gays are denied. You are complaining that the options Gays would likely prefer are not availible. When I ask you are Gays denied, you respond, "yes, unless they lie". I point out that they don't have to lie. If you are saying that gays are excluded based on the fact that the choices they would likely pick are unavailible, then yes you are correct. But that puts it on par with a Jew who can't eat Burger King because they don't offer Burgers made of Kosher beef. It does not mean the Jew can not eat at Burger King, just that if he holds true to his religious beliefs, he is excluded simply based on the options not availible to him, which is to say he truly is not excluded at all, he just chooses not to participate in the options availible.

I can't say sexual orientation doesn't play any part in a dating site, but I can say that Gays are not excluded from participating in the options availible. If they choose to participate.

In every analagous scenario you or any one else comes up with you are adding adjectives and trying to differentiate "what kind" of woman or man to make your point. However, E-Harmony is not. They are not dictating what type of man needs to seek what type of woman, or vice versa.

So I'll make you a deal when it comes to intellectual honesty for the sake of this debate.

You admit that homosexuals are not restricted from participaing in E-Harmony, and I'll admit that the options availible for matches are such that homosexuals would feel they are not welcome to participate.

Well firstly because most of these sites, importantly including EHarmony, actually allow anyone to register regardless of religion, and then inside the program there are means to search among eligible singles, filtering by various criteria including religion: quite a different situation than what we are talking about.

Secondly, I don't know personally as I have not had time to look, but how many others (ones that only allow jews) are based in California?

Actually, most of those places are advertised as "gentleman clubs". So I suppose it could be argued on the grounds you have given above that gentleman clubs must offer nude male entertainment to suite the tastes of homosexual or bi men who might choose to frequent said club.



That's a very good example. There are also gay dating services, services for finding black singles, ect...All exclusive to sexual orientation and/or race.

Vermillion


That is not what I am saying Vermillion. What I am saying is in your example you are putting up identifier, E-Harmony is not. Just like races has categories so does sexual orientation. You have Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Straight.

Does E-harmony dictate that the man seeking a woman has to be straight??

Sexual orientation is determined by the choice of whom one is attracted to.

So, yes... homosexuals can enter the site if they identify themselves as heterosexual. This is a dating site. The product provided is not "women" or "men"... it is a matching service. The gaining of a partner is the end result of using the product and is not the product itself. The option lets the provider know that you will be using their service to meet a woman or meet a man. As dating involves attraction and sexual orientation is determined by attraction... "man seeking woman" defines a heterosexual orientation. While it is true that a homosexual can access the service... they may not do so if they would want to use the service to find someone compatible with their homosexual orientation. There is nothing on the site or in any advertisement that states that they shouldn't be able to... there is nothing on the site that says the service won't work for them... they just can't get in. Single people... that's all they say about their service... it's for single people looking for a long term relationship. But, if you would like to use the site as a homosexual - to find a highly compatible match - which, being a dating site, would involve someone you are attracted to, you can't even get in.

They are discriminating based on sexual orientation... that is clearly against the law in California.




Really, that's all they're advertised as... they make no other claims as to the service they provide?

To repeat myself: I believe that individuals have the right to discriminate in economic transactions for any reason they choose, including religion, race, age, sexual orientation, sex, hair color, height, weight, handedness, competence, sanity, looks, education, smoking, tatoos, pimples, etc, etc...

What's difficult to understand about any reason? And while some bigoted bozo is busy discriminating, you can discriminate against her! Because you find her bigotry to be morally repugnant, or just because you feel like it! It doesn't matter, because you have the right to associate, or not. There's nothing in the formulation of that right that speaks to "why" one chooses to associate.

It is no more legitimate for the government to prohibit discrimination than it is for the government to force discrimination.

So now the complaint is reduced to the fact that a user can't register? It seems to me that this is nothing more than showing your menu before you enter the restaurant. So if a user were permitted into eHarmony and then presented with the limiting hetero choices, that would be ok? How is that different?


I'm not sure, but to be honest it doesn't really matter, as we are using these as examples, not additional fish to fry.

Choice???



Screeeeeeech!! Pump those brakes turbo. I can seek to have a homosexual experience or a reationship and not be attracted to a man. Hell, I've sought women I weren't attracted to plenty of times, as long as I was wearing my beer goggles... My sexual orientation is not dictated by the relationship I am having, hence we call some homosexuals... "closeted" Meaning they live a life like they are heterosexuals, though they truthfully are... homosexuals. Ones choice of relationship does not determine one's sexuality.

Bubba in the penitentrary may be having his ways with fresh prison meat, but upon release, with women around, he is back to women. Now maybe bubba likes boys, but doesn't want to be talked about on the street. Or maybe Bubba, just had sex or raped men in prison because he was a bully on a power trip with no female in sight, or maybe Bubba really enjoys both.

I'm not Bubba and neither are you, so we don't know what his orientation is. What we do know is that no liason or relationship dictates what a persons sexual orientation is.

So the conclusion you've come to

"As dating involves attraction and sexual orientation is determined by attraction... "man seeking woman" defines a heterosexual orientation."

is waaaaaay off base. "Man seeking a women" dictates a heterosexual relationship. But it does not dictate the sexual orientation of the male or female seeking the opposing sex.



This has been disproven. There is nothing preventing a homosexual from joining. There are no questions presented that ask the sexual orientation of an individual. You are in denial.

Let's go with a simple yes or no.

Can a homosexual male join E-Harmony if they are seeking a woman??
yes or no

Can a heterosexual male join e-harmony if they are seeking a woman??
yes or no

Can a homosexual male join E-harmony if they are seeking a man??
yes or no

Can a heterosexual male join E-Harmony if they are seeking a man??
yes or no

To my knowledge, few of them advertise much at all. Is advertisement required? Is eHarmony being sued for false advertisement?

A person goes to eHarmony to choose a partner. They look at the large picture with a happy man and woman holding each other, then start the poll and the second question asks if he/she is a man looking for a woman or a woman looking for a man. A homosexual can quickly deduce from this that the site doesn't cater towards them. They might join, but they won't find what they are looking for. The end.

There have been numerous very direct examples of similar things. The gentleman's club, the Jewish dating service, the non-Kosher eating establishment....all can be frequented, but a person might not find what they are looking for. I could mistakenly go into a gay bar. Oops! I could choose to stay and mingle, but wouldn't find the company I might be looking for (if I frequented bars for such a purpose that is). Yet they do not have to change their business models to suite me. If the basis for argument rests on the difference between one "discriminating" service and eHarmony being advertisement, it's a pretty shaky foundation.

Oh I understand 'any reason', I was just curious to know the full extent of your rather startling opinion: such as your belief that it should be legal for private health care providers to deny service to blacks, private insurance companies refusing to insure them, real estate companies refusing to sell them homes and businesses refusing to hire them. I find it curious that you think so little of the Bill of Rights, and was just wondering how far your disregard of it actually went.




You misunderstood me. On these other sites anyone can enter and likely seek anyone they want. They may 'choose' to filter results by religion if thats what they seek, or they may choose not to. That is a world of difference from this situation.

Frankly, I still cannot see any difference between 'limiting the menu' as you have suggested here, and 'limiting the menu' as I did above. Either they are both wrong or both right, you can't have it both ways.



It most certainly does matter, it is the crux of the debate. In californis the law states you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation: other states do not have such laws. If this case with eHarmony happened in texas, the legal case would not have a leg to stand on. In california, it does.

I don't think there's much difference at all. eHarmony has their menu on the front door, much like Jdate.com (a jewish dating site) does. In both cases its clear that non-Jewish people and homosexuals can enter, but they likely wouldn't be interested in the services offered.


Fair enough, but in my example with the Jewish dating service, discrimination based on religion is illegal in all 50 states. So why is JDate.com still able to do business? According to your criteria, they shouldn't be allowed to.

I almost wonder if this is a separate topic, but in your mind is there a difference between marketing or targeting a service at a specific group (Jews, Catholics, beagle owners, African Americans, Hispanics) vs. explicitly refusing service to a specific group?

All the more reason not to pass "anti-discrimination" laws. The unintended consequences have us doing backflips and seriously proposing that the government regulate dating services? Is that really what we want?

I have done a fair bit of business with the gay community, and it certainly requires sensitivity to their needs, targeted marketing, staff connected to and familiar with the GLBT community, etc. Are we saying that the government should use the force of the State to compel eHarmony to provide a service that they:
- do not wish to offer
- will not do with excellence
- directly conflicts with their mission and reason for being

If forced to do so, based on my experience, they will fail. Great job, California.

As DocLotus points out regarding jdate, I suppose that soulsingles.com would be illegal on similar grounds?



I suppose that gay dating services are also illegal? I have a hunch that there are a few of those based in California.

Advertise much at all... What does that have to do with the advertising they do?



Not that I'm aware of.



Ummm... no.

A person goes to eHarmony to choose a partner... they look at the picture, they go to select the type of partner they are looking for (thereby expressing their sexual orientation) and find that they can't even get to the poll.


If the company allowed them, they might find them just what they are looking for... just what the site is offering... a dating service that is geared towards finding highly compatible matches for long term relationships. But the company won't let them use the service.



I'll grant you that they do not wish to offer their services to someone seeking a homosexual relationship.

However,

eHarmony's mission statement:


Explain to me how allowing access to those hoping to get empowerment for their same-sex relationships conflicts with this mission and reason for being? Does not allowing the service for those seeking same-sex marriage serve that mission statement? I think denying the service to those seeking a same-sex relationship directly contradicts the mission statement. Now isn't this mission statement different than, say, the mission statement of jDate or Soul Singles?

So eHarmony's mission is to empower people with knowledge and inspiration to grow and strengthen their most imporant relationships for a lifetime of happiness... unless of course, you want a same-sex relationship, in which case we don't believe you can commit and our research was done only using heterosexual couples so we can't fathom that homosexuals might be looking for the same sort of thing using the same sort of criteria... so we won't be able to do that with excellence... besides they can't get married and a lot of our customers end up doing that? Did I miss that somewhere in the mission statement?

That's not discrimination based on sexual orientation?

Here is JDate's mission statement:


Is eHarmony's problem, then, that it doesn't disclose its discriminating services in the mission statement? If their mission statement read "To empower heterosexuals with the knowledge and inspiration needed to grow and strengthen their most important relationships for a lifetime of happiness", would they no longer be denying same-sex singles a reasonable expectation of access to eHarmony's services?

Here's a related story about a site that provides profiling services for birth mother's seeking to place their child for adoption:

Federal Court Permits Gay Couple to Sue Internet Adoption Business Under California Discrimination Law

I don't have time to respond more at this point. Getting ready for a business trip. Will post more later.

So I should be forced to provide a service for someone? I am not the government. I do not have to treat people equally. You are telling me who I must deal with because of some moral law that you deem necessary. You say exclusion of a group is wrong, and I say that coercing someone into dealing with another is equally wrong.



Kind of a cop out. The point is that people are excluded all the time. People are free to go to whatever sites they want in order to fulfill their preference. As I said, I have not checked but I am sure there are online dating sites for single blacks or single hispanics to find people of a similar ethnicity. Thats because *gasp* a black person might want to find a black mate (etc.). Its just ludicrous to suggest that I should have to cater to YOUR needs. If i own an online dating service, I will service a segment of the population to the point that it is profitable to do so. If forgoing any limitation on sexual orientation is deemed profitable, then I could choose to partake or not. If I dont, then that business will go to a competitor. Its simple economics.

I recall doing this song and dance before and I will reiterate: I do not believe that the government has the right to coerce individuals into doing something that they do not want to. Just as it is wrong for people to discriminated against because of race, gender, or sexual orientation, I find it wrong for the government to have the ability to tell someone that they are doing something morally wrong.

As a gay man, I think it is utterly ridiculous. I could understand this suit if eHarmony.com was the only matchmaking service available. But there are an insane amount, including Gay.com, OutPersonals.com, and a whole slew of others. I understand the legal question raised, but it is honestly pointless.

Now, I do see both sides of this argument and I think both sides have valid claims. The analogy comparing eHarmony's practices to that of restaurants with "No Coloreds" signs in their windows is appropriate, although ludicrous in that it seems to equate racism with a website's refusal to accomodate every single type of person there may be. I find the whole situation to be rather sad and pathetic more than anything. The judge should laugh the lawsuit out of court and criticize the woman for bringing it up. It's a waste of time and money.

I don't know how you can say that analogy is "appropriate". There's no "sign on the door" (in the digital sense) that says gays are not allowed. As mentioned over and over and over again, gays are free to use this service. They CAN use it regardless if they WANT to or not. The "no coloreds allowed" analogy is completely counter to this premise. For that analogy to be equal, "coloreds" would be allowed entrance, but be provided nothing on the menu that would appeal to them.

In my opinion - as a flaming heterosexual only attracted to women (are gay people the only ones that needs to state their sexual preference in any discussion, or can I play too?) - discrimination can be found in anything if you look hard enough for it. This issue is no exception.

Your comparison is dishonest for two reasons. Firstly, this is not like coloreds walking into a five-star restaurant and being denied Orange Crush soda to go with their calamari and king crab dinner. This is like a black family walking into a restaurant and waiting half an hour for a waitress. When they realize they're not going to be served—not welcomed, not allowed on the premises—served—they get up and leave. Secondly, this comparison is as annoying and fake as the pro-hetero marriage argument that gays can't be discriminated against because they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Gay men can get married—they just need to marry a woman. It's not even an argument, just a stalling tactic and the top anti-gay marriage response that gets on my nerve.

Let's not kid ourselves or try to validate anti-gay marriage arguments by stealth, shall we? Homosexuals can't use eHarmony unless they ask James Dobson to cure them of the spiritual gay disease.

However, what may be true for the private sector, in this case, the freedom to discriminate based on religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.* does not wash with the government. The analogy does hold and anyone against gay-marriage and/or against forcing eHarmony to change their business model can live with it. I don't have to like it and no one has to make an insincere comparison to feel better about supporting eHarmony.

*per Moose Lodge v. Irvis (1972) and as long as the "private" business doesn't receive federal assistance

Odd, I think I have been clear that I base my argument on the Constitution. To be specific, the Freedom of Assembly clause (aka Freedom of Association), found in the First Amendment, obviously part of the Bill of Rights. As a result, I'm somewhat at a loss to understand how you think the Bill of Rights applies here. If you could clarify your thoughts on the matter for us, I would appreciate it.

p.s., I probably won't be back on until Saturday or Sunday.

There seem to be several different lines of argument going on here and what I've found most interesting is that, to my mind, they all apply.

To start with a summary opinion, however, I guess I agree mostly with Vermillion (oddly enough) in that it's a stupid lawsuit but the nature of the wording of the CA legislation makes it, at minimum, a reasonable case. Again, stupid but within the law. To be honest, I don't envy the judges called to decide here. If you find for eHarmony, you set a precedent gutting the law. If you find for the plaintiff, you open the floodgates to the very arguments folks here are making, that if eHarmony is discriminatory than so are Jewish dating sites, African-American dating sites, even GLB dating sites.

I suspect that the suit (should it ever come to trial) will revolve around an issue being discussed in this thread; what exactly is the service being provided by eHarmony and is the focus of that service artificially constrained due to discrimination? If one believes eHarmony is in the matching people business and that any sort of further focus is artificial and meaningless (that is, there is little material difference between matching hetrosexual pairs and homosexual pairs much as there is no difference between cooking food for a white patron and a black patron, the "No Coloreds" analogy) then, given that sexual orientation is protected under CA law, eHarmony is being discriminatory and must either change it's business model or stop operating in California. If you believe that there is a fundamental difference between matching hetro- and homosexual pairs (the "kosher BK example), then you could plausibly argue that eHarmony is not discriminatory, simply focused on a particular niche. Which brings me to my original statement that the biggest surprise (for me) was that most of the analogies being offered on the thread apply equally to the case as the ALL involve discrimination. BOTH the "Burger King" example AND the "No Coloreds" example are discriminatory to a degree It's not a difference of type but of seriousness and impact. Indeed, you might argue that fast food operations are MORE discriminatory against religions that eHarmony is against sexual preference as McDonalds (and I suspect the others) DO offer kosher menu items in Israel (and non-beef items in India) but do not do so in California. Having said that, I don't think you should force either McDonalds to offer kosher burgers nor eHarmony to offer it's services to homosexuals but both are discriminatory and both DO run afoul of the CA statute as represented here (which doesn't seem to allow for a qualitative judgment as to the actual harm being done via said discrimination)

Which doesn't mean I think the suit is justified or any less of a waste of time. I also wonder how long it will take for someone to sue a GLB site for discrimination as well....

I have stayed away from this issue because it is a total farce.

1) From your perspective, does eHarmony's failure to provide matching for GLB relationships constitute invidious discrimination?
They are not required to provide any services period. They can choose which services they do provide, since they are not the government.

2) Do you believe eHarmony's implicit contention that its research on heterosexual marriages does not translate for GLB relationships?
Of course is doesn't translate. I have several homosexual friends and what they are looking for in a partner is basically same, how they arrive at that is a totally different set of criteria.

I would have a very hard time believing that they would be the same. But in any case eHarmony is a private company and can offer the services they want.

3) Does this discrimination warrant corrective action by government?
Not a chance, nor will even this liberal state get involved. There is no legal requirement to provide services to a specific sexual orientation. They just can't deny what services they do offer to people based on their sexual orientation. This fundamental fact is what a lot of folks here seem to misunderstand.

A restaurant can not discriminate over color, gender, etc. But it is not required to serve a menu that a patron demands. eHarmony offers a dating service and the two choices are male seeking females and females seeking males. If they only offered services to males seeking females or the other way around it would be just as legal. Nobody can force them to offer services at all. It is a business choice.

McDonalds has expanded it's menu to reach a wider set of patrons. We have another out West called In and Out Burgers. They offer hamburgers with or without cheese, with or without onions. Fries or Onion rings, sodas or milk shakes and nothing else. That is their choices, want a salad or chicken sandwich, go to McDonalds.

Discrimination is allowed even under California law. Seems that the state approves of discrimination by age every single day. For that matter so do the other 49 states too. Retirement and/or adult communities flourish in this state. Requiring at least one of the owners to be at least 50 years old. That sure sounds like discrimination, yet it is prefectly legal.

Well, the law disagrees with you. In terms of business in California, people have, for the most part, to be treated equally.

_______________

I've been looking into possible precedents and interpretations of the Unruh Act. I came across something that should explain a bit - or confuse even more, who knows...


The way the Unruh Act is intrepreted - and this I got from a quote from one of eHarmony's lawyers - in order for the discrimination to be legal under the Act, it must not be arbitrary but serve a legitimate business purpose. So, that should shed some light at least on interpretation of the Act.

To me, this explains away some of the analogies I've read so far... the various niche dating sites that clearly state their mission, for example. Okay... tired... jetlagged. More later.

Please. Like that is a valid defense. When slavery was an institution in this country were the slave owners justified because the law agreed with them? No. Just because something is a law, doesnt mean it is smart, or a good law.

Are they delivering what they've advertised? Obviously they can't guarantee a successful match or marriage, however they offer their services based on research. That research was done solely on opposite sex match-ups if I'm not mistaken. They'd be false advertising if they just simply added "men seeking men" and "women seeking women" to the menu on the first page. They haven't done any research on same sex match-ups.

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of sites out there that cover every possible match-up you can think of. I'm not gay, but if I were, and I was looking for a match online.....I think I'd rather go to a site that specifically deals with same sex match-ups, wouldn't you? Just doing a quick google search brought up hundreds of pages of them.

I don't think this lawsuit has a chance to win, if anything, they'll make the site reword certain things. I have enough lawyers in my family to know that these types of lawsuits aren't designed to "win". I'd bet the farm that the plaintiff tried for some quick cash to keep the lawsuit out of the media circus. In hindsight, maybe they should've slipped her a modest check..... They've certainly already paid that much and more on lawyers for this thing already....