Thank you, IRC. You've done an excellent job proving my point. All of these are stupid, from the restaurant example to my UPS example. "Should every business have to cater to every potential permutation? " No, that's why eHarmony should get to decide the permutations regarding MFT seeking MFT that they cater to!!!
I have a legal question here. Lets presume that eHarmony knew it would lose the case or at least thought there was a good chance. In other words, the fact that sexual orientation is a protected class in NJ and Cal meant they either can't operate in those states or have to allow gays to be memebers. For now lets ignore whether this is stupid or not. OK, so why can Augusta exclude women? I don't understand the technicality here that allows a private club like Augusta to exclude a protected class and a privately (I assume it's private) owned business like eHarmony can't exclude a protected class. The only thing I can think of is that Augusta operates in a private place and eHarmony operates in the public over the internet. But I don't think that is the case or a site such as hornfans could not censor posts because that would violate freedom of speech. So, what am I missing? Or, maybe that is it actually...maybe freedom of speech is handled differently by the courts than discrimination.
This seems like a suit brought just to spite EHarmony. I know this is most likely not the legal definition of discrimination, but my interpretation is that you can't exclude a particular group from enjoying the same services as other groups. In this case, there is nothing that prevents a gay, straight, red, white, black etc. person from using EHarmony. Might not be too effective, but it is available to anyone who wants to sign up. The restaurant analogy fails in my opinion because no one is saying a person can't sit/eat in this resaurant. This is like the patron suing because a particular item is not on the menu.
Softly... you walking a thin line. When is it a business or a club? eHarmony requires a registration, which can be rejected... much like a private club. You assume they are not a club because they make money? How much does Augusta National rake in every year from the Masters? From their CBS contracts? Moreover, your state law argument holds no weight regarding Augusta. If Augusta was in NJ or CA they would still be allowed to keep women out because no state law can violate their First Amendment right to freedom of association.
I'll just go ahead and answer what I think you're saying. The right to association isn't explicit in the First. It's a right derived from the freedom of speech. As such, an association is seen, to an extent, as something where speech is implicated - it protects, mainly, "expressive organizations." eHarmony is clearly not an organization that one joins so that a particular POV you and that organization hold is announced and amplified through greater membership. Plainly, it is not an expressive organization. The court has also recognized a right to "intimate associations," which may give you some room to argue. But being refused by eHarmony isn't a refusal from joining an intimate association - which is a relationship or a family, etc. - rather it is a refusal to access to a service to FIND an intimate association. eHarmony is clearly NOT an association.
if i represented eHarmony in this lawsuit, i'd make an "access v. content" type argument, which i have made in lawsuits brought by disabled persons against my clients, where they allege they have been denied "access." under Title III of the ADA, public accommodations, like Barnes & Noble, must provide disabled persons with access to the store. there must be disabled parking, an accessible entrance, accessible aisles, etc. access must be ensured so that a disabled person can enter the physical store. however, the DOJ regs are clear that Barnes & Noble does not have to change the goods it provides in order to accommodate the disabled. thus, Barnes & Noble does not have to stock Braille books for the blind or audiobooks for the deaf if doing so in the normal course of its business. so i'd argue that the NJ AG is essentially doing the same thing to eHarmony - unlawfully requiring eHarmony to change the content of its goods and services. eHarmony is not discriminating against homosexuals. they have every ability to "access" eHarmony's website. there is not a "If you are gay, you cannot log-on" requirement. and equal "access" is all that is required under the law. courts cannot and should not tell public accommodations what goods and services must be offered once access is granted. As the Fifth CIrcuit in McNeil v. Time Ins. Co. held in the Title III:
I'm gay. But it's not my right to be able to find people like me on eharmony. There are rights. This is not a right. I don't understand why a gay guy would want to do business with and give money to people that don't want him. I suppose this ruling makes the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs obsolete.
There are all kinds of bad arguments on this thread. Let me say up front, I wouldn't give my money to eharmony.com because I do not agree with the political positions of the guy who will take my money. I also think this guy has every right to decide who he will provide services to and those he will ignore. Having said that, the thread title is ********. eharmoney agreed to start this service, they were not forced to. They decided they would rather do it than to continue to pay their lawyers and take the chance their position would carry the day. I may have more later, but I just wanted to take a second to reply to some of this nonsense.
The thread title is taken from the article title: 'UPDATE 1-Suit forces eHarmony to offer gay dating service" And without the suit, they would not have offered the gay dating service. So I think it's fair to say their hand was forced.
zzzzzzzz, The only thing I think its fair to say is that eharmony decided that saving money on lawyer fees was more important than their principles. Until they actually lost the suit, they would not have been forced to do anything. They chose to offer such a service before finding out if they had a winning legal argument. And the headline was ******** just like your thread title was ********.
I can't help but think that the people who are actually bothered by this somehow or another find a way to frequent rest stops a little more often than the rest of the general population. And you know you're in some for learnin' whenever someone refers to an Art. III judge as a
NAIU, so we were holding our breath for the response that the "headline was ********". Wow, I am just flattened by the sheer brilliance of what you have brought to the discussion. I also like how SoftlyNow took a ignorant shot at the South, Laphroaig called him on it and it hasn't been answered since. I score this thread for Wesser and similar posts.
The website helped men and women connect. As I understand it, gay people might not enjoy the service as much, but were not unable to utilize it in the unlikely event that they wanted to do so. There are people attracted to the same sex who willingly choose heterosexual mates and marriages, believe it or not. This lawsuit is not about equal treatment; it is about forced catering. It is wrong, and it represents an incremental failure of our country's promise to keep us free.
I think that the suit in the first place was ******** but find more culpability with e-harmony for selling out their principles to avoid defending it. I'm guessing that damn site is a money printing machine. If they felt that strongly about it they should have insisted that they have their day in court. And the guy who filed the suit is a doucebag. Is there really not enough gay centered sites on the internet for you? I don't understand the compulsion to be somewhere you aren't wanted. I refuse to shop at Walmart and Sams b/c they check reciepts of customers on the way out the door. I guarandamntee you I wouldn't give any of my hard earned cash to someone that I though loathed or despised me. The entire thing is slightly bizzare to me. That being said- I have often wondered if these agenda groups, on both sides of the coin, are working in concert with each other. The RR uses the homosexuals as the bogeyman and the GLBT community uses the RR as the bogeyman to keep their people in line. Maybe I'm just really overly cynical.
