E-harmony.
ForestBrain
Posts: 460
Okay, heard this on the news this morning.
Gays are suing...suing!...e-harmony because they don't provide services for homosexuals. Does anybody else think this is a bit extreme? What if they couldn't find anybody that wanted to play match maker for homosexuals?
Honestly!! I'm sure there are gay match making companies out there, and I highly doubt they provide services for straight people.
Sorry, this made me mad. It's another stupid thing people use as an excuse to sue.
Lawsuits have gone way too far. I wish the stupid courts would look at some of these lawsuits and just laugh while throwing it away.
Gays are suing...suing!...e-harmony because they don't provide services for homosexuals. Does anybody else think this is a bit extreme? What if they couldn't find anybody that wanted to play match maker for homosexuals?
Honestly!! I'm sure there are gay match making companies out there, and I highly doubt they provide services for straight people.
Sorry, this made me mad. It's another stupid thing people use as an excuse to sue.
Lawsuits have gone way too far. I wish the stupid courts would look at some of these lawsuits and just laugh while throwing it away.
When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
it's one person.
http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN3122132120070531
cross the river to the eastside
I'm all for equal rights and think that sexual orientation should be covered under the civil rights act, but there is nothing preventing gays or lesbians are prevented from using eharmony, it just won't give them the results that they are looking for.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
that's ridiculous. that's almost like saying gays have the right to marry, just not a person of their preferred gender.
a better question is why wouldn't eharmony want to provide services to gays? we typically have more money and more partners, and are less likely to have families to provide for. we're like the best possible market. not to mention people who are too afraid to go to gay clubs and would rather meet someone online. you'd think they'd want to try to make more money than less.
One HUGE difference in my opinion... the government and states are dictating who can and can't be married.... this is a private company offering a service, and as far as I am concerned, they can do with it what they like. If I or anyone else don't agree with how they run their business, then I am free to go somewhere else. Marriage is a whole different ballgame... there is no other option (in most states) to get the same lawful benefits of marriage.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
why? because they're christian. although they say they don't have 'the research'.
take your money to match.
cross the river to the eastside
I think you miss the point of their site...there are not trying to potray themselves as a hookup sight to meet a bunch of partners...their site is about finding "the one" and less likely to have families? Well again this site isnt about cheating on your partner... So those are fairly irrelivent points... and again ITS A PRIVATE COMPANY! I bet you I can find a couple of gay matchmaking sights that wont tailor to me to help me find a women... Is that discrimination?!?
However, I agree with the person who said it's like a strip joint. A "gentlemens" club if you would. They are aimed at straight men. They aren't going to put men up there.
But my whole point was....why do people have to freaking sue over everything?!
I'm going to sue Pearl Jam because they won't play a show in my backyard.
This is the most ridiculous lawsuit ever, maybe just 1 step behind hot coffee lady. Don't get me started.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yeah, you got me there.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
where would miss john edwards stand here? on one hand, you gotta lawsuit...(cha ching $$$$) on the other hand...he'd have to represent "those people" that make him uncomfortable...tough one.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
naděje umírá poslední
This is sad for private businesses
I think I'm going to sue the Ten Club for not selling Soundgarden T-shirts.
I actually agree with the lawsuit assuming California has anti-discrimination laws in place with regards to gay people. If you run a business in any state, there are regulations you have to follow, and most states have anti-discrimination rules put in place (in addition to many many other rules like restrictions on importing certain items like tobacco, alcohol, nunchuks, etc.
I think anti-discrimination rules are a good thing for business...I'm surprised so many people don't seem to agree with that. I sure as hell wouldn't want some clothing store in my state denying my business because I'm a heterosexual.
Although the legal grounds of this lawsuit were borderline, the result and the effect of the suit were positive. Companies cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. Period. And as you see, the tides are changing quickly in favor of gays. The lobbies are taking advantage of that tide, just as the black lobbies did in the 60's. That is how change happens. It's not about one lawsuit.
If a business doesn't offer a service you need, you can't sue them.
Geez.
Speaking of E-harmony.. funny stuff..http://donchavez.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/eharmony.jpg
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
True. If private clubs want to keep women, blacks, Hispanics or Asians out, they should be able to. Same thing for gays. If private companies want to discriminate, they should be able to. It's definitely their right to say, "You're not the right kind. Get out. Ick." In fact, I think this board should get rid of some undesirable types. It would make it a better board if not everyone could just drop in. A more exclusive board is a better one. Pearljam.com is a private company and can do what they like, after all. Since I'm the right kind--a PJ fan of more than wow, 14 years--I'm staying. But, let's get rid of straight fans of less than 5 years official club membership. Let's start there. Then we'd have MUCH better board, don't you agree? Don't whine. It's for the best. The morally correct long-time fans should be served. Get rid of the ones that aren't the right kind. Ick.
You're generalizing it too much. What you're saying would be an appropriate reaction to someone suing a salon that offers haircuts but not manicures...it's not the same thing as a salon that offers haircuts to homosexuals only. One of those salons is improperly discriminating, and the other is not.
Businesses should not be free to discriminate when it alienates a portion of the community for no good reason. Sometimes discrimination in business is necessary and appropriate, and sometimes it's not. That's why states have laws on it.
So eHarmony doesn't have an option that benefits gays... there's plenty of sites that do. Shop around!
Seriously, thats like me going into a store that sells womans clothing and feeling descriminated against because I can't find mens clothing. They are catering to woman and ignoring men, right? Does that make them sexist?
It's stupid. Another reason for someone to sue in a sue happy country. I'm sure the guy is laughing his way to the bank because he felt frustrated when trying to use a website and a light bulb turned on in his head.
Dramatic much? I wrote that over a year ago, and while the wording could have been better, I still believe my original point.
e-harmony is a service of matching men and women. We are not talking about clubs or businesses of other services that deny business to people based on race, religion, sexual preference, etc. Matching men and women is their service.
A relative of mine works for a company that provides assistance and transportation for disabled people. Should they be forced by law to provide transportation to the grocery store for some perfectly healthy college kid who is just too lazy or doesn't have a car?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
No, it doesn't make them sexist. Like I said, states have laws that define what is discrimination, and what is not. Obviously, men and women generally have different needs for clothing. So it's not sensible to say a woman's clothing store is sexist. But when a business specifically denies their services to a certain group when they have no good reason to do so, that's different.
It isn't so black and white like you're trying to make it out to be. An intelligent society doesn't define laws based on things being absolutely right or absolutely wrong. You can't apply the exact same rules to all groups of people all of the time. That doesn't make sense. It only makes it easier to define and debate the topic on a message board
http://www.eharmony.com/about/eharmony
It says nothing about "matching men and women". It talks about creating healthy, lasting relationships.
yes, but there "matching" process is done based on psychological/sociological testing between a man and a women.
This makes their service about matching men with women/women with men.
Instead of suing E-Harmony, why doesn't a smart business entrepenuer see this as an opportunity to start up a matching business that caters to only gay people?
Yes, but again, the problem is that they don't advertise and present themselves that way. They're misrepresenting themselves by defining their business as shown on their website. So I think they either have to redefine their business, or offer their services to everyone who would want a "relationship service provider". If they're legit about using research that was only done for hetero relationships, then I think they can still do business in California, but they have to clearly define what their business is.
I'm sure that's already happened, and the same rules would apply to them. They'd have to clearly advertise and present their business as a "gay relationship service provider" or something like that. And they'd have to show good cause why they can't offer their services to non-gays.
Maybe they changed it because they lost the case...
naděje umírá poslední