Calif. woman sues eHarmony alleging discrimination against gays - SFGate/ Associated Press

A Northern California woman sued the online dating service eHarmony on Thursday, alleging it discriminates against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

Linda Carlson said she tried to use the Internet site in February but could not based on her sexual orientation. When Carlson wrote to eHarmony to complain, the company refused to change its policy, according to the lawsuit filed on her behalf in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The lawsuit claims that by only offering to find a compatible match for men seeking women or women seeking men, the company was violating state law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Questions for debate:
1) From your perspective, does eHarmony's failure to provide matching for GLB relationships constitute invidious discrimination?

2) Do you believe eHarmony's implicit contention that its research on heterosexual marriages does not translate for GLB relationships?

3) Does this discrimination warrant corrective action by government?

From your perspective, does eHarmony's failure to provide matching for GLB relationships constitute invidious discrimination?

Under California Law, it does:





Does this discrimination warrant corrective action by government?

Well, it does appear to violate the laws of California, so I'd say yes.

Since entspeak has given us answers for questions 1 & 3, I'll bypass them for question 2.

2) Do you believe eHarmony's implicit contention that its research on heterosexual marriages does not translate for GLB relationships?

That's not exactly how I interpreted the quotetation in the original link.



From BD's original link.

Although eHarmony said the research was done on "heterosexual marriages," I can't find anywhere they say it doesn't, couldn't or wouldn't translate to gay relationships. I think that's BD's interpretation or perhaps embelishment.

I do agree with BD that eHarmony's statement implicitly contends that its research on heterosexual marriages would not directly translate to same-sex relationships.

They use the research as the reason why the option isn't available - without having access to the statement itself, I can only assume that this means they feel the results of their research wouldn't translate.

This is, ultimately, irrelevant, of course, because what they are doing is illegal in California. Chances are very good that they will lose the lawsuit.

Do they ban homosexuals from using the service or do they ban homosexual activity?

For instance, I hear the "we're denied our rights!" everyday from the homosexual community as if they are denied the "right" to marry. But they are not. They can get married just like any hetero couple. But they want the additional right to marry someone of the same sex. Given that additional right, they do not forfeit their right to marry someone of the opposite sex. So, the point is, there is no either/or situation. They can use eHarmony to find an opposite sex partner just like everybody else. So no - eHarmony is not breaking any laws. Gays can use their service all day as long as they are involved in heterosexual activity. Same with bi-sexuals. They can use eHarmony to look for the woman of their dreams while joining a gay website to look for the man of their dreams.

So, my point isn't to rehash the gay marriage issue, but point out that much like marriage today, nobody is being denied a right to use this service. They have as equal opportunity as everyone else that uses eHarmony. It's not eHarmony's fault their service does not accommodate gay needs. There are plenty of other services that offer that business model.

eHarmony is a private enterprise with plenty of competition. It's not up to the government to interfere with their business model.

I must strongly disagree.

I will ask this question. And I would ask people keep an open mind.

Are homosexuals refused service?? Are certain races refused service?? The answer is no. So by reading the laws shown by Entspeak I have to ask in what ways are homosexuals denied service.

The organization does not provide the service of introducing same-gender couples. This does not translate to homosexuals are being refused. If a homosexual male seeks to hookup with a female, is that homosexual refused.

Does eHarmony have to change it's services to accomondate homosexuals who want to hook up?? That is the exact equivelant of saying that restaurants should be required to sell Kosher food so that our Jewish population can eat there. Or a restaurant that specializes in pork, must serve chicken and beef so that Muslims can eat there. And by not doing so is an infringement under California Law on discrimination against their religion.

here is a quote from E-Harmony website.



To further illustrate the absurdity, based on the laws given so far, we see that there can be no discrimination based on marital status. So, using previous arguments, do all the married people have a right to sue E-Harmony based on the fact that the service does not accommondate their right to search for mistresses and pool boys??

1) From your perspective, does eHarmony's failure to provide matching for GLB relationships constitute invidious discrimination?

Of course it does not. The service is what it is. I don't think the law intended companies to be forced to offer extra (although similar) services.

Should a company that offers abortions also be forced to offer vasectemies? Shoud a company that sells women's shoes be forced to sell men's shoes? Should a company that sells condoms be forced to offer protective gear designed for lesbian sex (a diaphragm type barrier along the lines of CPR barriers)?

The company's position is entirely defensible: it offers a service based upon a specific dataset of research that it has conducted. Its recommendations for mates is based upon research conducted on heterosexual married couples. It cannot guarantee that its services will provide satisfaction to people who desire other types of relationships (casual dating, one night stands, etc.).

2) Do you believe eHarmony's implicit contention that its research on heterosexual marriages does not translate for GLB relationships?

I have no basis to say one way or the other. All I can say is that the company's founder is a clinical psychologist that says that he cannot guarantee that the company's research cannot be reliably translated into successful GLB relationships.

3) Does this discrimination warrant corrective action by government?

I think the plaintiff needs to find a significant other and quit wasting her time with frivilous lawsuits. A company does not offer a service that you want them to offer. Get over it.

You bring up a very interesting point, droop. However...

In the restaurant business, you have a product... food. The restaurant serves that product. It is one thing to say we don't have the type of food you want - product. It is another to say, we won't serve you the product we have - denial of service.

Now, what is the product offered by eHarmony? "The first relationship service on the Web to use a scientific approach to match highly compatible singles." I could find no mention whatsoever on the site of sexual orientation or any indication that this product is incompatible with someone seeking a lifelong same-sex match. They simply refuse to offer the product to someone seeking a same-sex match. Perhaps you could provide some documentation on the website, in some advertisement or press release that indicates this is not the product this woman is seeking and that she is, in fact, seeking some other product?

The homosexual seeking a "highly compatible" match discovers that they aren't allowed to do so because of their sexual orientation.

Now, regarding "marital status". The product is "The first relationship service on the Web to use a scientific approach to match highly compatible singles." Being that a married person is not, by definition, single... this wouldn't be the product they are seeking and you're restaurant analogy then makes sense.



You are right... it doesn't even guarantee that satisfaction for heterosexual couples seeking lifelong relationships - it can't and the founder says as much. However, there is no indication whatosoever that the service will not work for homosexuals looking for a lifelong relationship with a same-sex partner.

By that reasoning, I should be able to go into a topless establishment in California and demand a right to view naked male entertainment, as that would suite my sexual preference. Would this be upheld in court? I agree with others that this is a frivolous lawsuit.

See droop's restaurant analogy. Of course, it depends on the product advertised by the topless establishment... but, assuming that by topless establishment you mean they offer the opportunity to see naked women - that is their advertised niche, it would be ridiculous to require them to add a product to suit your desires. There are establishments that offer the type of product that you seek, you can go there.

But that isn't the case here. The product advertised is the product sought... the product is denied based on sexual orientation.

That statement is completely false. Homosexuals can use the services of eHarmony if they want to meet someone of the opposite sex. Just because they don't want to doesn't mean they are being denied anything.

When does this pity party stop? Can't gays go to a competing service that offers what they desire? Or is there too much to be gained by constantly acting like a victim?

Nobody is being denied anything. They have the exact same opportunities as any other person using eHarmony. EXACTLY - no more, no less.

Yes, yes... and black people can still marry black people with anti-miscegenation laws. Gotcha.

Perhaps you could show me where this service is advertised as being suitable only for opposite sex matches?



Sure... show me the website that uses the patented Compatibility Match System that homosexuals can use to find same-sex matches.

So eHarmony needs to completely change their entire business model and core competency because gays don't want to use the product as advertised?

That's idiotic.

I know a ton of very gay, extremely intelligent programmers who could (and probably should) put together a gayer version of eHarmony. eHarmony is not for homosexuals. Why is this a problem?

eHarmony is not a government service. You don't pay for it if you don't use it. You don't even need to know about it if you don't want to. This lawsuit should be thrown out post haste.

Go to their website: http://www.eharmony.com/ It asks you a few questions to get started. First name, followed by this one:

I'm a:
"Man seeking a woman" or
"Woman seeking a man"

As for your last request, it is ridiculous to ask a company to ensure that there is some competitor offering a service which they don't provide or to allow some competitor to use their patented system for an application which they don't choose to use it for (or it is incompatible with) before deciding whether or not they are discriminating against someone.

E harmony offers a "man seeking woman" and a "woman seeking man" service. If you don't find that type of service helpful--because you are married, you are in a relationship, or you are a man seeking a man, for instance-- then for God's sake don't use the service. But don't complain that they don't offer a service that you want them to offer. Go to true.com or www.LesbianPersonals.com or some other service that offers what you want.

While I can see justification on both sides of the issue, I don’t believe the lawsuit will go anywhere. After all, it’s a business like any other, and there are other business that do offer dating services for the GLB community.

As an aside, anybody who thinks eHarmony (or any other dating site) will find them a “perfect” mate, heterosexual or not, is most likely headed for disappointment. People lie.

I believe the reason eHarmony does not offer gays their matching service is a direct result of its founder’s religious beliefs and its former ties to Focus on the Family. Now, THAT might provide some grounds for an interesting lawsuit…but then again, I’m no legal expert. Why a gay person would want to use the service of someone who loathes them is beyond me.

I still love the chemistry.com ad with the guy looking at a Playboy for a minute or so and going “nope, still gay”.

Yes, this is the point at which they restrict the service, but this not where the service is advertised as being suitable only for opposite sex matches.



No. eHarmony offers a service for singles seeking lifelong relationships. The "man seeking woman" and "woman seeking man" is the restriction of that service to those parameters. It is never stated anywhere that the service will not work or is not intended to work for homosexuals seeking a lifelong same-sex relationship. Therein lies the discrimination.



Well, the law specifically refers to businesses, so I don't see your point. Just because other dating services exist that do cater to the GLB community, doesn't mean that this one can discriminate, does it?

1) From your perspective, does eHarmony's failure to provide matching for GLB relationships constitute invidious discrimination?
It is discrimination, of a ridiculously minor sort.

2) Do you believe eHarmony's implicit contention that its research on heterosexual marriages does not translate for GLB relationships?
Absolutely not. They've also stated that because gay marriage is not legal "We don't really want to participate in something that's illegal."

3) Does this discrimination warrant corrective action by government?
No. The solution is to publicize the campany's ties with hate groups like Focus on the Family, and the like. Let the market be aware of what the company is, and it will take care of itself.
Of course, attempts to do that, such as the chemistry.com ad DaffyGrl mentions have been shut down by eHarmony's own spurious legal threats...



As an aside, to watch eHarmony's own ads gives you the impression they won't match interracial couples either. The couples they show are always, without a single exception, of matched ethnicity...

Doesn't entspeak's citation of the relevant California law end this argument? eHarmony either need to change their business model or stop operating it in California.

Whether my perspective agrees with it or not.

And I'm not sure I agree with the argument that having the filter of "men seeking women" and "women seeking men" indicate that the site is only advertised as a heterosexual service. Firstly, under the California law cited, any type of business "of every kind whatsoever" (which must include internet dating) that confines itself to offering it's services to heterosexuals is already breaking the law. Case closed.

But if this argument is valid, I can open a bar and say that I only want to serve white people there, because the service I offer is not "sellling booze", but "selling booze to white people". Therefore, the logic goes, I cannot possibly offer a service to black or brown people not because I'm a racist or even because I am being discriminatory, but because that isn't the service I offer.

Yup - that's really solid logic, folks. Let the business itself define the service it offers regardless of the legislation that may apply. Why can't I, therefore, offer a service to shoot people in exchange for payment? It breaks laws on murder, conspiracy to murder, and a whole host of others, but I'm a business and I've done my research and found that I can be really good at shooting people for money. Therefore the laws cannot touch me.

Er, no. eHarmony had better get their chequebook out, because, on this evidence, they are going to lose.

Entspeak



I disagree. In fact your words have solidified my view that the restaurant analogy is dead on.

If a Jew went to Burger King and says... "you say you sell beef, so serve be a Burger made of Kosher Beef."

The Cashier says... "but we don't serve Kosher meat"

The Jew says... "But you didn't specify that in your advertisements. You said you serve burgers, I want a burger. Could you please provide me the burger I want... or are you refusing to serve me."

The cashier says... "No sir we didn't specify but this is the product we serve, you are welcome to it, if you want it"

You are saying that the site claims to serve singles searching for compatible matches... which it does. But your complaint if I understand it is... it does not specifiy which kind of matches it serves. In e-harmony case, once there you see you only have the choice between "men seeking women" and "women seeking men". There is no query engine created for a men seeking men or women seeking women query, you want them to produce one.

In E-harmonies case there is a product. That product is "matching singles" Just because it doesn't have every style and flavor of possible couples does not mean that it is not willing to provide it's product to all or thatit is unwilling to service certain singles. All singles are welcome, but all types of matches are not provided.

The Rabbi is welcome to burger king, even if the meat there is non-Kosher.


Julian


Not at all, booze is what they sell, great. They can't make a rule saying only these type of people can buy booze. But how ridiculous would it be if I went to a liquor store and said...

"Hey where's the Schlitz Malt Liquor, Mickey's, or Old English" and the clerk says, "we don't serve malt liquor." I say, "Well you serve booze where is my kind of booze?? You know the brotha's love malt liquor"

The service provided is the business's decision. They just can't stop people from participating in it, based on their sexual orientation.

E harmony is not saying that Gays are not entitled to join, they just aren't providing a service they want.

A Gay man is still a man correct?? A Gay female is still a woman, correct??


So the sole options of "man seeking woman" or "woman seeking man" does not exclude Homosexuals.

Well, how does the law deal with gender-specific businesses and avoiding gender discrimination suits? I don’t see men suing to have men’s clothing sold in a maternity-wear shop. It looks to me like eHarmony’s founder has found a tidy loophole by claiming their site is aimed at marrying people off, and since gay marriage isn’t legal…well, there ya go.

The more I read about eHarmony, the more icky it sounds. First of all, I loathe these sites that take advantage of lonely people. They lure you in with the “free” test/ad, then hit you with a hefty monthly fee. That said, at least in most cases, the “buyer” is the one doing the “selecting”. Not so with eHarmony (which, ironically, charges the highest fee). You take what they give you; IF they give you anything at all. Eliminating people with depression? Eliminating those who eHarmony thinks are lying? How many shiny, happy people are left? Is Dr. Warren trying to create a world of fresh-scrubbed, bland pod people?

And people pay for this abuse? Ugh.

OK, now I see your point. And I certainly hope you're right about eHarmony.

Again with the facile illogic. Your liquor store "analogy" (and I use that word in the loosest sense possible) would only make sense if all black people liked malt liquor and only malt liquor.

I'm not that concerned with the legality of the case because I think it's the wrong course of action. Those of us opposed to discrimination need to publicize exactly what sort of company eHarmony is, and it's ties with Focus on the Family. The market can take care of the rest soon enough when light is shined on them. To the extent the suit garners publicity it has some value, but it allows the willfully ignorant to reframe the problem with eHarmony.

1) From your perspective, does eHarmony's failure to provide matching for GLB relationships constitute invidious discrimination?
No, it doesn't. The restaurant analogy one poster used here fits well. If I enter a Vegan restaurant on a Friday where my religion requires that I eat fish, are they discriminating against me? No.

A homosexual is free to use the service, they just don't have anything on the menu they would want. I know, mixing analogies is bad.

Reading the law to say eHarmony committed discrimination makes the law overbroad, in my opinion.

2) Do you believe eHarmony's implicit contention that its research on heterosexual marriages does not translate for GLB relationships?
Yes. Unless the plaintiff can prove otherwise.

3) Does this discrimination warrant corrective action by government?
Not at all. Even if GLBT is a protected class in California, eHarmony is not explicitly refusing them business/service. I will be curious to see how this plays in court, however. eHarmony is headquartered in Cali, so that might add some weight to the plaintiff's claim.

One could say the same about the fact that some homosexuals choose to have liasons and relationships with the oppossite sex.

The point is simple with the booze analogy... There is a difference between being denied service and a service not being availible. Can we agree to this??

Questions for debate:
1) From your perspective, does eHarmony's failure to provide matching for GLB relationships constitute invidious discrimination?

No. The only way to argue against EH having this choice in the service it provides is to argue under the old interstate commerce rubric that it adversely affects commerce and therefore free movement of people and products to so discriminate; I feel certain E-harmony gets no Federal or State grant money; I fail to see, especially in light of a recent SCt case narrowing--a little--the scope of the commerce clause that this type of problem falls in line with the failure to provide for food and shelter in interstate commerce, a la the Heart of Altanta Motel case.

2) Do you believe eHarmony's implicit contention that its research on heterosexual marriages does not translate for GLB relationships?

Yes. Anyone who actually knows any homosexuals implicitly knows there are major differences.

3) Does this discrimination warrant corrective action by government?

Absolutely not.

Let's look at it this way--if I provide marriage counseling and I am a licensed therapist, do I have some obligation to counsel gay "couples"? I think not.

There is no fundamental right to matchmaking services...

At most they may have a legal loophole. That doesn't make discrimination the right thing to do.

Suppose a competing liquor store were to advertise that unlike their competition they do carry malt liquor, and the store that refused to carry it threatened legal action to stop the ads. I'm wondering how the pro-discrimination folks choose to justify eHarmony's own spurious legal threats?

1) From your perspective, does eHarmony's failure to provide matching for GLB relationships constitute invidious discrimination?

2) Do you believe eHarmony's implicit contention that its research on heterosexual marriages does not translate for GLB relationships?

3) Does this discrimination warrant corrective action by government?

Quite frankly, this lawsuit approaches the "Burger Wars" lawsuit referenced in another thread in this forum, but with the California courts... goodness only knows how far it will go. It seems to me the plaintiff in this lawsuit would be better served starting up her own website and all it eHermony or something like that and cater to the GLB community.

If I want to create a website directed at people who have Pugs as pets does that open me up to a lawsuit by someone who has a Golden Retriever? Maybe not under California law, but it's the same concept. Businesses, successful ones anyway, set up a business model and part of that model is to focus on a certain portion of the consumer base. Shakey's Pizza used to have a sign up in their restaurants that said, "We made a deal with the bank. We don't cash checks and they don't sell pizza". That's not discrimination against people who don't carry cash, that's a business model and people who don't carry cash aren't the target of that model. It seems to me this lawsuit is more a social statement than it is a legitimate grievance and I'm getting more than a little bit tired of tying up our justice system with this sort of thing.


Aquilla

Suppose your pug website were closely associated with groups promoting discrimination and hate against golden retriever owners. Do you not think that should be kept in mind as well, and publicized so that those pug owners who don't support hatred and discrimination can decide against giving their business to a company like that?
I'd agree a lawsuit isn't the answer, but eHarmony are not innocent victims here. Does anybody have any response to eHarmony's own spurious legal threats against chemistry.com, or is it only bad when bigots are threatened with lawsuits?

Grendal


First I'd say it is a whole different matter totally irrelevent to what we are talking about now. Secondly, I would simply agree with you that their lawsuit is frivolous. They admit they rejected over 1 million people, largely based on age, marital status( which is illegal ) and inconsistent answers, and another company (Chemistry.com) is putting it in their ads that EHarmony did just that. But that deals with business ethics not discrimination.

I think it's relevant in that eHarmony's associations demonstrate that they do intend to discriminate, legal loopholes aside.
When discussing why government interference is not the solution to such discrimination it is important to discuss what the best solution is. Acknowledging the need to allow something to be legal does not ever require that we accept it is right, and we must discuss social answers to the problem when we acknowledge that legal answers are problematic in themselves. The chemistry.com ad is part of that solution.

The thoughts of a hardened cynic.

I want to go back to BD’s second question. I think it’s the most important.

2) Do you believe eHarmony's implicit contention that its research on heterosexual marriages does not translate for GLB relationships?

My question to eHarmony is how well does application of your research do in the real world?

I never really paid much attention to eHarmony until this case came up. Fortunately I have a DVR and if I record a program I can just blitz through all the commercials ad nauseam. You know, eHarmony, NutriSystem, that flakey looking guy that tells us, "Countrywide is on your side," and so on.

It seems eHarmony has been around for about seven years. I have no doubt that whatever “research” they have done has been on heterosexual participants. What I don’t know is how their claims match up against reality. I found one case where they apparently didn’t do a very good job in matching couples.



http://www.blacktable.com/keller040811.htm

I’m skeptical about the whole thing. I grew up in a rather conservative Bible-belt type church – those that are so prevalent in Texas. I don’t know how many people I saw swear before other people and god that this was “till death do us part” type of thing. The problem is that many of those unions didn’t last. I doubt the divorced rate much different from marriages performed by a justice of the peace.

Here’s what I’m wondering. Has eHarmony or an independent investigator done any research to show that their matches last any longer than those that come about by people meeting at a singles bar?

I'm not convinced the "research" is particularly valid for anyone.

Of course they did.



A Kosher burger would be a different product than a regular burger. A reasonable person could see that. It requires very specific preparation... they'd have to have a different set of utensils, a grill dedictated to kosher beef. And the end result would be known... people know that if you a particular cut of beef is prepared a particular way, it is kosher.

This is more like someone stopping a Jew at the door and saying... "You can't come in."

"Why? I just want a burger."

"You're Jewish... and we don't know if our food will meet your exacting dietary standards and, therefore, provide a satisfactory experience."

"Can't you let me in to make that determination for myself?"

"No... in determining the best process to make burgers that would be satisfactory, we only studied the burger preparation methods of people who weren't Jewish."

"But you say you have burgers... I would like a kosher burger. Are you saying your burgers are not kosher?"

"No, I'm saying that we determined the best way to make a satisfactory burger based on the preparation methods of people who weren't Jewish... we don't know if the result is kosher."



Because it is a maternity-wear shop. It would be ridiculous to assume that a maternity wear shop sold something other than maternity related items... if a man wants to wear maternity clothes, he might buy something at a maternity wear store.

eHarmony claims to be a dating service. It advertises a system that, they claim, is the best way to find a highly compatible match for a lifelong relationship. They don't claim (and probably can't prove) that the system will not work for homosexuals, they simply refuse to offer it to them.

So, this would be like a man who wishes to buy maternity clothes suing a maternity shop for refusing to sell him maternity clothes because he is a man.

So now we're filing lawsuits over "association" and using that association as proof of "intent to discriminate"? Does that mean that I can sue a vegetarian restaurant down the street if I find out they are supporters of PETA? Is that proof that they hate me because I eat meat?

Aquilla

The chemistry.com ad is misleading, which is why the legal action is required. The E harmony service is aimed at single people who want to get married. Thus if you self admit that you are married, you're out. If you've been married four plus times, you're out (since you are very unlikely to satisfy the other half of the transaction in the long run). They offer fairly specific service which is slightly different than other dating services. They charge more for this (I guess).

chemistry.com is implying that E Harmony discriminated against 1 million gays since 2000, which is simply not the case. They want a disclaimer to put the claim by chemistry.com in context. That isn't unusual when a competitor makes claims about a rival.

In addition, I don't know why you continue to characterize E Harmony as closely related to Focus on the Family when the founder has clearly attempted to distance himself from that organization, even going so far as to buy his book rights back from them so he could take their name off of the front cover. Yes, at one time, Warren was closely connected to Focus on the Family. That doesn't seem to be the case any longer.

No, the eHarmony service is aimed at single people looking to find a suitable match for a lifelong relationship. They claim that many people get married as a result of using their service... kudos to them... while the founder claims that the service probably isn't for casual daters, he in know way claims that the service is restricted to those who wish to get married.

Interestingly enough, the rejection of people who are separated or who've been married four or more times might be a violation of California's laws... as might the age requirement.

Y'know, some people might be capable of reading an entire quote, including the part disagreeing with using a lawsuit to remedy the discrimination before stringing up a strawman to flail at.


A company "formerly" associated with an anti-gay hate group chooses to deny their services to gay people. What an amazing coincidence! I'd never expect something like that to happen in a million years.

Should the difficulty in making the accomondating changes to follow the law should not be relevant should it??



No it is not like stopping a Jew from entering. Your first point is the most misleading.

Entspeak are homosexuals denied the right from becoming a single on E-Harmony? Yes or No??

From all I read the answer is "No". So they are not denied entry. Nor are they deenied a "burger". They can seek a relationship. But they do not want a heterosexual relationship (burger made of beef) they want a homosexual relationship (a burger made from Kosher Beef). EHarmony (Burger King) does not facilitate this type of "hook-up".

And you are claiming that E-Harmony advertises that it hooks singles up into relationships. Just as burger king claims to sell burgers. E-harmony does hook up singles in relationships, Burger King does sell burgers. E-harmony does not hook up homosexual relationships, Burger King does not sell Kosher Burgers.

If this women was denied service because she is a homosexual, then I agree with you Entspeak. If she simply wants E-Harmony to make a product that services her needs or caters to her desires, she is out of line. Like someone suing a rifle company because they chose not to make left-handed rifle.

Grendal


Show me where Gay people are denied from joining.

Only if the discrimination is unreasonable.



They are denied access to the site, yes... unless they lie about their sexual orientation. They don't even get to answer the free questionnaire... unless they lie about their sexual orientation. They can look around the site and read all about lifelong relationships and how this site helps them to find suitable matches for that... a gay person says, "yippee!!! that's for me." With no indication whatsoever that the system will not work for same-sex couples. Goes to join the site and can't even get past the first page. Now, the Jewish person could lie and say he isn't Jewish and get access to the restaurant to look at the menu - to determine if the food will satisfy his dietary standards. But being honest about his religion gets him denied access... and the restaurant doesn't even know if the food is kosher.

Are you really going to pretend that allowing gays to pay a fee while providing no services to them is anything more than a legal loophole? And that it's completely unrelated to their "former" association with an anti-gay hate group?
Legally the company way be well within their rights, that doesn't make what they are doing right. We don't have to pretend we're blind and stupid, unable to see what is right in front of us and unable to understand what they are doing. I don't think a lawsuit is the solution, but I fail to see how it's even possible for people to pretend they aren't doing what they so obviously are doing.

Ya know, some people might actually pay attention to the actual TOPIC for debate. It ain't that hard, not rocket science, it's listed in the title to this thread. "sued". That means a lawsuit, and that was the subject of my post. This is a frivilous lawsuit designed in my opinion more to make a social/political statement than it is to actually recover damages. I take issue with people using the justice system to make social/political statements. It's kind of like you using this thread as a platform not to debate the actual issue at hand, but rather to throw rocks at some organization you don't happen to like very much.

Aquilla

The questions for debate include: From your perspective, does eHarmony's failure to provide matching for GLB relationships constitute invidious discrimination? The discussion has been very much on topic, much as you'd prefer to ignore that topic.
You never answered the question about eHarmony's own frivolous legal threats, since you're so opposed to people using the justice system to make statements...

I was going to say without even knowing of the site founder's ties to Focus on the Family that I don't think you could force eHarmony to provide matching services for gays, just like you can't force homosexual sites to offer matching services for straights. If this was the case "serial divorcers" could possibly claim discrimination too. Though now that I know eHarmony has philosophical ties to Focus on the Pro-Death Family, it's too bad chemistry.com backed out. eHarmony could've filed a trade libel complaint in civil court, but with California's anti-discrimination law...

The questions posed for debate in THIS THREAD are the following.......



I don't see anything in there at all about legal actions eHarmony has taken against anyone. Now, if you want to discuss that topic, you might want to consider starting a separate thread. And, for the record, I don't consider eHarmony's business model to be "discrimination" any more than I'd see a website dedicated to the care and feeding of pugs to be discrimination against Golden Retrievers.

Aquilla

Entspeak


I admit I didn't go through the initial setup, but at what point do they ask you your sexual orientation? Do they ask this question directly??

Didn't go through the initial setup? What?! All you have to do is go to the main page, droop - the one you get when you type in www.eharmony.com. Did you even do that? Right there on the first page it says "Register to begin." There is a box that says, "I am a..." and then you simply have two choices... "man seeking a woman" or "woman seeking a man." Two heterosexual choices. If you don't choose, you don't gain access to the site. Now a homosexual can lie and say he is seeking someone of the opposite sex but that's pretty much the only way they can gain access to the site. And they don't have to ask the question directly in order for it to be discrimination.

Entspeak


Good ol' Entspeak, up to his old tricks....

Basically they don't have to lie about their sexual orientation.... because they are never asked.

I asked this earlier... is a gay male adult a man?? Is a Gay female adult a woman??

A man seeking a woman.
A woman seeking a man.

That is the MENU, those are the burgers served. Do you want to eat or do you not want to eat?? A gay male is a MAN, first and foremost. And if he is seeking a woman... for whatever reason he has decided... maybe he wants to hide in the closet... maybe he feels forcing himself into a heterosexual relationship will improve his success... that is none of our business... but he can do that at E-harmony with out lying.

You on the other hand... well let's say I fully aware of you elastic capabilities with words....

1) From your perspective, does eHarmony's failure to provide matching for GLB relationships constitute invidious discrimination?

No. Its providing a service to a select part of the market which should be their right. It would be discrimination if eHarmony had a monopoly on the market for online dating and barred a man from finding another man or a woman finding another woman. But eHarmony does not have a monopoly and there are plenty other online dating sites to choose from.

2) Do you believe eHarmony's implicit contention that its research on heterosexual marriages does not translate for GLB relationships?

Insignificant.

3) Does this discrimination warrant corrective action by government?

No. Nobody should be able to tell me how to run my business as long as I am not negatively affecting another. And i dont mean negative in the manner of hurting someone's feelings. If eHarmony wants to run a business that does not allow homosexuals to find mates, than that is there business. The notion that they be coerced into providing this service is ridiculous. Its a business decision whether or not they want to include matching homosexual couples on their site. What if it would not be profitable to do so? (perhaps this case is a bad example, but for similar cases). Should they be forced to undertake in a service that would hurt their business? If matching homosexuals was a lucrative business, then they would be a part of it.

Time to answer toss the hat into the ring of my own thread:

Questions for debate:
1) From your perspective, does eHarmony's failure to provide matching for GLB relationships constitute invidious discrimination?
No. Matchmaking does not constitute a critical need, such as food or lodging.

Furthermore, I believe that the suit is without merit because it is based upon the plaintiff's desire that eHarmony act as her agent in order to discriminate based upon sex. The plaintiff is not "looking for a compatible single", she is "looking for a compatible single woman. She is discriminating against men.

2) Do you believe eHarmony's implicit contention that its research on heterosexual marriages does not translate for GLB relationships?
Yes, I do. Gays seek different characteristics in their partners than straights. While there are extensive overlaps, there are also significant differences, especially with regards to the issue of fidelity.

3) Does this discrimination warrant corrective action by government?
No, since it isn't government discrimination. It should be noted that I do not believe that the government has the constitutional authority to interfere with our freedom of association, and I find nothing in the Constitution that places commercial association outside the umbrella of that freedom. Thus, 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...



Now, some observations:

First, take a read of this with regards to compatibility testing. Informative, although it doesn't answer either way regarding the efficacy of eHarmony's methods. The last paragraph is a keeper!

About a year ago, a legally separated, yet still married, man (John Claassen) brought suit against eHarmony because they refused to provide service to him. I've yet to find any indication of the outcome, perchance somebody else can?

Second, I find the kosher analogy to be dead on, not surprising, as I've crafted the same analogy myself. Still, the treatment here fails to fully examine a simple fact. Specialization. All businesses specialize. There are dating sites that specialize in gays, just as there are many businesses that specialize in providing services exclusively to women, to blacks, to Hispanics, etc. One good example in California of "illegal discrimination" (at least based on the law cited) is Curves, the women's fitness chain, with 159 locations within 30 miles of Anaheim alone. Sorry, no men allowed.

Why do businesses specialize? Because they have limited resources.

Third, the plaintiff's grounds for action are, again, suspect. She has concluded that her own values and expertise are insufficient to locate a match, so she is seeking to employ the values and expertise of eHarmony. Oddly enough, she is simultaneously saying that their values and expertise are in error? duh, then why use them?

Fourth, the irony. One argument frequently advanced here on to rebut legal prohibitions on homosexual activity is "what business does the gov't have in our bedroom? None!" Yet, here we have some of those same regulars arguing that government force should be used against a third party to facilitate somebodys' bedroom activity. Remember, this isn't about something like housing, or getting a stack of pancakes, where the argument can be made that sexual orientation has no relevance to the service. In this instance, that's clearly not the case. This is about the most intimate and private relationships in our society. It is about "who you sleep with."

I personally think the lawsuit is frivolous, the result of an overly litiginous society. However, I do want to point out that there is a problem with your logic here droop.

You say that is the 'menu', nobody is prevented from joining they just have to pick from the 'menu'. Well what if the 'menu' contained four choices instead of two?

Are you a:
-White man seeking White Women
-White women seeking white man
-Black man seeking black woman
-Black woman seeking black man.

Isn't that exactly the same, according to your logic? Nobody is being denied entry, blacks and whites can join freely. And its not the fault of the site if what you want doesn't happen to be on the 'menu'. Seems like exactly the same thing. But you would not say THAT is acceptable, would you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bikerdad: Are you serious? Somebody should add this quote as a signature file:



So in other words, (according to you) as long as the bus system or restaurant is private, the sign saying 'no blacks allowed' or 'blacks to the back of the bus' is just fine? Same, I assume with private hospitals and private schools? According to you there is nothing illegal with the shopkeeper who puts the sign in his window saying 'Juden Raus'?

One person here has posted in favor of the lawsuit. But I guess we're all alike, right? Kind of like how no gays are monogamous:

Anyway, I'm through with this thread. Nobody's mind is going to be changed and most people aren't even going to respond to actual arguments posted in the thread, preferring their own personal strawmen.

Vermillion


Vermillion, in your example aren't you placing racial identifiers in the scenario?? If I say "man seeking woman" I am missing those identifiers. E-harmony allows men to seek women and women to seek men. That's what they offer. If I throw any identifier say, jewish woman seeking jewish man, then yes I am being discriminatory. Because now I am placing parameter on which men can seek which women based on their religion, in your scenario, based on race.

Now if E-harmony specifically denies homosexuals than my position changes... :snap: just like that. If they don't then my position must remain the same.