What's the most stupid act: a. filing this lawsuit b. defending this lawsuit c. using the service to find a gay partner I can't decide. This is one step ahead of forcing someone to sell sand in the Sahara or ice in Siberia.
Cali's anitdiscrimination laws are exactly the reason some left leaning do-gooder whacko activist judge will most likely strike down prop 8. Prop 8 never went through the house/senate/gubernatorial process, it was a voter initiative.
But some people were obviously mad enough to fight. Maybe they just didn't like seeing the TV commercials and being reminded over and over that they couldn't use that service. _________________________________________________ like the dude that sued hooters because he wanted to wear tight shorts and a t-shirt...same deal, same result. some people just got to have something to ***** about
It is news to me that some states have laws that say you can't discriminate based on 'sexual orientation.' That is very interesting to me. I would love for someone to please post, if you can find it, a definition of sexual orientation. What exactly is the legal definition of sexual orientation?
If the problem was that they rejected applications due to the fact that they were gay, why didn't they just agree to stop rejecting those applications? The algorithm that they used to match people (which they've had since before the lawsuit) just wouldn't have shown up very many matches for them... But, maybe, they've figured out that they can set up a ****** website for the gay folks and use that to help finance their primary website... At least, that's how I'd do it... And I'd name the site eWWWHarmony.com...
One thing I think a number of you are missing is that just because you aren't gay doesn't mean that gay rights may not be important to you. As an American the rights of all other Americans are important to me. It seems to me because racial discrimination has become so taboo that a lot of this anger is being transferred to the gay community. It is only progress if we stop this bigoted behavior, simply aiming it on a different group is not progress. It must be part of the human condition for some people to want to look down on a group of people and feel superior. Anytime you feel superior to another human being and it didn't take some monumental effort to be better at something than everyone else than most likely you are just being a bigot. Simply put this is the worst kind of human behavior and holds back all of mankind.
Here's the problem I have with this, one analogy that keeps coming up is serving or not serving someone of a different race, and that's definitely a legitimate way of looking at it. However, considering that the eHarmony has to reconfigure it's site and possibly it's trademark algorithm, how is this not like forcing a blue jean company to make jeans available in every conceivable human size?
Seattle, I appreciate your attempt to find a definition, but you also pointed out what I have not been able to understand. I went to a grad school that had an anti discrimination policy. I have no problem with anti discrimination policies or laws. What I had a question about was the inclusion of the term 'sexual orientation.' I wrote our director of students (or whatever the guys title was) and asked him to define 'sexual orientation.' He wrote me an email back and said essentially, we don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I told him that was fine, and I wasn't asking if they did, but rather what is 'sexual orientation.' I know of no medical or scientific definition of the term, much less a legal one. The matter to me is what is 'sexual orientation' and why should this class (I believe that is the correct legal term) have special status? There is still a huge debate about sexual orientation v. sexual preference. I will have to look in my grad school paperwork, but I recall one study where young women, about the ages of 18-25, 'changed' how they recorded their sexual preferences. It was an amazing number who self identified differently over just a few short years. I hope I am making sense with where I am going here. I believe we are protecting a behaviour or preference and not a status or class. The above is short I know. I know there are still debates among medical and psychologists as well. As best as I can read the information there are at least 2 seperate types of lesbianism, and that both types might even be different from gayness in males. I don't know if any others here have done research on this. My research has been more on an understanding the medical scientific and psychological data and relating it to issues of morality and ethics, so that is where my focus begins and ends.
Has it really come that we have a discussion on rights based on a hokey online dating service? Glad I don't have a dog in this hunt, either way. But certainly the civil union discussion would merit more attention.
This is how homosexuals gradually chip away at the discrimination against them. It's sloppy, but what other choices do they have, if they want to be able to do the same things as heterosexuals. Is seperate Equal? Having a box stating man seeks man, or woman seeks woman, has no effect on me whatsoever. Nor anyone here unless they mischeck a box and get a surprise list of compatible mates. I could care less.
In my opinion, this is less of a civil rights access matter than it amounts a freedom of association matter. eHarmony is NOT a lunch counter. You have to register for its use and your registration must be approved. That makes it more akin to a private club than a place of public accomodation. This is more similar to the Augusta National debate than it is to the civil rights debates of the 50s-60s. You might find eHarmony's position distasteful, then don't join. I find the Klan's positions distasteful, so I don't join. However, the Klan has a right to associate with whom they choose and exclude those whom do not believe in a manner commiserate with them. Augusta National has the right to remain an all-male club and exclude females from membership. The Junior League has the right to keep men out of membership. eHarmony has the right to not provide its member services to segments of society that they believe do not maintain the viewpoints of the members of their organization. Moreover, no state can infringe any organization's First Amendment right to free association.
I am going to sue UPS to force them to deliever to PO Boxes (or USPS for not letting UPS deliver to PO Boxes). That is discriminating against my right as a PO Box owner to receive packages. Should I just ship through USPS? If so then gays should just use gaylesbianintroduction.com instead of eHarmony.com
It's amazing to watch some of the gymnastics you guys use to rationalize virtually anything! This is ridiculous. Let's say I am a residential real estate broker in Austin. Some lady walks in and wants to buy a house in Pasadena. Should I be "required" to drive her to Pasadena? Of course not! Should I help her find a broker in Pasadena and maybe make a referral fee? If I want to. But should I "have" to? Should a Cajun restaurant be "required" to serve blueberry pancakes just because some random customer wants them? Of course not. Should every business have to cater to every potential permutation? Ridiculous!
