Maybe they changed it because they lost the case...
I don't think that would make much sense though. If they're defining their business as they are now, they'd also have to be offering m4m and w4m options. It doesn't look like they are yet.
That's not their business, and they don't advertise it that way either. They define themselves as a "relationship services provider". Look at the About section on their site:
It says nothing about "matching men and women". It talks about creating healthy, lasting relationships.
A person/persons came up with an idea to make some money. They're niche is/was to match certain personalities to increase chances of making a match. These people spent money/resources to find out what makes hetro matches work....they did it and aparently it worked. This was their niche'.
As much as it makes me cringe that their decision may be based on homophobic views, but to think a holy roller is forced to sponsor homo relationships is just some funny stuff.....okay I'm torn...its wrong that their forced....but funny as hell they have to do this....ha ha ha
A person/persons came up with an idea to make some money. They're niche is/was to match certain personalities to increase chances of making a match. These people spent money/resources to find out what makes hetro matches work....they did it and aparently it worked. This was their niche'.
As much as it makes me cringe that their decision may be based on homophobic views, but to think a holy roller is forced to sponsor homo relationships is just some funny stuff.....okay I'm torn...its wrong that their forced....but funny as hell they have to do this....ha ha ha
Again, if their niche is strictly matching hetero people, then they have to do 2 things:
1. Represent and advertise the business clearly, and stop calling it a "relationship service provider". You can't describe your business like it's offered to everyone, and then deny certain people of your services.
2. Show good cause for the discrimination. If their research seriously can't be applied to gay people, then they may be ok to operate, but only if they've completed step #1.
Their other choice, of course, is to offer their services to gay people.
And on top of the legal debate about this, I think it's sad that many people immediately sympathize with a business rather than people and say "it's wrong that e-Harmony is forced to change their business practices". The first thing I thought about when I read about the lawsuit is how sad it is that the largest "relationship service provider" on the internet excludes gay people. If discrimination laws can be applied here, I think they definitely should be. We need to quit talking about businesses as though they have some God-given right to exist like people.
It's a free world, if it really bugs someone that much....hey, start your own...fill the void...make a million dollars...capitalize on someone else's mistake.
Is anyone being forced to use this service at any point in their lives?
silly...plain silly
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It's a free world, if it really bugs someone that much....hey, start your own...fill the void...make a million dollars...capitalize on someone else's mistake.
Is anyone being forced to use this service at any point in their lives?
silly...plain silly
Is anyone being forced to use this service? No. Is anyone forced to use public bathrooms at a park or at Macy's? No. Should those places be allowed to label their bathrooms as "hetero men's room" or "gay ladies room" or "black kids room"? No. I don't want businesses in my community doing that and then say "oh well hey...if you don't like it, build your own....capitalize on my mistake if you want". It's a retarded argument, which is why we have laws that illegitimize it. Organizations providing a public service are not "free" to discriminate unless there's a legit cause for it.
Is anyone being forced to use this service? No. Is anyone forced to use public bathrooms at a park or at Macy's? No. Should those places be allowed to label their bathrooms as "hetero men's room" or "gay ladies room" or "black kids room"? No. I don't want businesses in my community doing that and then say "oh well hey...if you don't like it, build your own....capitalize on my mistake if you want". It's a retarded argument, which is why we have laws that illegitimize it. Organizations providing a public service are not "free" to discriminate unless there's a legit cause for it.
Show me how going to the bathroom has anything to do with sexual preference and you might have something...
I could sell shit on a stick, if people buy it...great.... if no...so what?
don't shop there...
Maybe change the channel, or sue the maker of the commercial? hmm
ridiculous....it's nonsense.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Show me how going to the bathroom has anything to do with sexual preference and you might have something...
I could sell shit on a stick, if people buy it...great.... if no...so what?
don't shop there...
Maybe change the channel, or sue the maker of the commercial? hmm
ridiculous....it's nonsense.
Exactly, going to the bathroom has nothing to do with sexual preference. That's why we have rules that prevent Macy's from putting up bathroom signs like the ones I just mentioned. And the bathroom thing is one of a hundred comparisons you could make here. The shit on a stick thing doesn't fit though because you're offering it to everyone. You're not saying heteros can buy these but gays can't. You can sell popsicles and call them "Fag Sticks" if you want...you just have to offer them to everyone, or show good reason why you can't offer them to everyone.
If you stop and consider, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of online matchmaking services available to gays and lesbians, and, many of those services cater exclusively to homosexuals, thereby "discriminating" against heterosexuals. (hypocrisy much?).
If i was looking for a heterosexual partner, would i go to a site that caters exclusively for homosexuals and expect to find my ideal match? No. I'd go to the site which had the most members of my sexual prefererance to give me the best chance of finding someone i was interested in. Why the hell would you want to go to a bible bashing site who had closed minded views like eharmony anyway. It makes no sense to me. Why would you even bother.
Even more so, why the hell would you even want to go to one that is not offering you a wide choice of prospective partners.
This law suit isn't about "discrimination," it's about power and control.
Is anyone being forced to use this service? No. Is anyone forced to use public bathrooms at a park or at Macy's? No. Should those places be allowed to label their bathrooms as "hetero men's room" or "gay ladies room" or "black kids room"? No. I don't want businesses in my community doing that and then say "oh well hey...if you don't like it, build your own....capitalize on my mistake if you want". It's a retarded argument, which is why we have laws that illegitimize it. Organizations providing a public service are not "free" to discriminate unless there's a legit cause for it.
They had a legitimate cause not to offer that service, they didn't have the means. They invested in psychological/sociological testing to match men and women. Now they are forced to invest more money, expand their business etc.
So, if they had just changed their discription to 'relationship service provider for heterosexuals' it would have been solved, in your opinion?
Of course not, it's the homosexuals who have a problem with the 'for heterosexuals' part.
I agree with LikeAnOcean: "It's stupid. Another reason for someone to sue in a sue happy country."
It's funny how everyone states these noble causes, yet, that's not enough, they want to fight the good fight and earn a lot of money with it.
You know, a gay couple tried to sue one of my teachers because he didn't sell his house to them but to another couple. It's sickening that people start to use their minority status to get some money (or power and control as Pj_Gurl rightly pointed out).
edit: Saturnal, question, if they now offer their services to homosexuals as well, but never invest in research to match them, would you be okay with it?
If you stop and consider, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of online matchmaking services available to gays and lesbians, and, many of those services cater exclusively to homosexuals, thereby "discriminating" against heterosexuals. (hypocrisy much?).
If i was looking for a heterosexual partner, would i go to a site that caters exclusively for homosexuals and expect to find my ideal match? No. I'd go to the site which had the most members of my sexual prefererance to give me the best chance of finding someone i was interested in. Why the hell would you want to go to a bible bashing site who had closed minded views like eharmony anyway. It makes no sense to me. Why would you even bother.
Even more so, why the hell would you even want to go to one that is not offering you a wide choice of prospective partners.
This law suit isn't about "discrimination," it's about power and control.
If you stop and consider, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of online matchmaking services available to gays and lesbians, and, many of those services cater exclusively to homosexuals, thereby "discriminating" against heterosexuals. (hypocrisy much?).
Yea, that's discrimination unless they can show good cause why they can't offer the service to heteros. Same goes for those sites.
If i was looking for a heterosexual partner, would i go to a site that caters exclusively for homosexuals and expect to find my ideal match
Of course you wouldn't. But again, that's not comparable to this situation, because E-Harmony doesn't present themselves as an exclusively hetero matching site. Go on their site and see for yourself.
It's discrimination when you say "we're a relationship services provider, but we're denying our services to gay people who are looking for relationships". If they can prove they have a legit reason to discriminate, then they can operate, but they'd have to stop misrepresenting themselves as a "relationship services provider".
They had a legitimate cause not to offer that service, they didn't have the means. They invested in psychological/sociological testing to match men and women. Now they are forced to invest more money, expand their business etc.
So, if they had just changed their discription to 'relationship service provider for heterosexuals' it would have been solved, in your opinion?
Well, first of all, they SAY they have a legit cause, but that's to be determined in court. After all is said and done, their research is probably bogus anyways, even for hetero matching.
But yea, if they stopped misrepresenting themselves, that would be one way to resolve the issue. I still wouldn't like the fact that the #1 matching site on the internet excludes gays, but this is likely why they won't change their business description to specifically exclude them...they'd definitely drop in the ratings. What this lawsuit is saying is 2 things:
1. You can't describe/advertise your business like it's offered to everyone, and then not actually do that.
2. If you want to deny your services to a certain group of people, you have to show a legit reason.
It's discrimination when you say "we're a relationship services provider, but we're denying our services to gay people who are looking for relationships". If they can prove they have a legit reason to discriminate, then they can operate, but they'd have to stop misrepresenting themselves as a "relationship services provider".
from the article:
"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages," it said in a statement.
"Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted," eHarmony added.
Good enough, legit enough reason, if you ask me. They don't have years of research to match homosexual couples.
"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages," it said in a statement.
"Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted," eHarmony added.
Good enough, legit enough reason, if you ask me. They don't have years of research to match homosexual couples.
Maybe it is legit, sure. But like I said, you can't meet one requirement and not the other. They should either add services for gays, or properly advertise/define themselves.
So gay people are a race now? Last I checked they were the same as you or I. They have different preferences. I don't think businesses are obligated to satisfy everyones preferances.
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.
Sexual orientation is a protected class, according to the Supreme Court. Not a race, but just like gender and disability, you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
I am all for gay rights but E-Harmony is a private company and they have the right to pick and choose who they provide a service for. There are plenty of other on-line dating networks, many geared specifically to the gay community, for them to use.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Exactly, going to the bathroom has nothing to do with sexual preference. That's why we have rules that prevent Macy's from putting up bathroom signs like the ones I just mentioned. And the bathroom thing is one of a hundred comparisons you could make here. The shit on a stick thing doesn't fit though because you're offering it to everyone. You're not saying heteros can buy these but gays can't. You can sell popsicles and call them "Fag Sticks" if you want...you just have to offer them to everyone, or show good reason why you can't offer them to everyone.
Can you not see that you're complaining about the something, and then turning around and doing the very same thing yourself? Maybe they should offer fetish, and that's also discrimination to a lot of people. Where does it end? It doesn't according to your principles of right and wrong. What if someone feel discriminated because The Gap, Sears etc... doesn't sell sex toy accessories, leather whips, and crotchless panties. It's ridiculous.
If it were the only dating service available, you would have a point, but it's not.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
E-Harmony is a private company and they have the right to pick and choose who they provide a service for. There are plenty of other on-line dating networks, many geared specifically to the gay community, for them to use.
They have that right to choose IF:
1. They're discriminating with a legit reason
2. They're not misrepresenting themselves
IMO, E-Harmony is definitely not meeting requirement #2, and they're questionable on #1. That's why they got sued and lost.
Maybe it is legit, sure. But like I said, you can't meet one requirement and not the other. They should either add services for gays, or properly advertise/define themselves.
First of all, I don't know where you got those criteria. Did the judge in the case mention these, if so do you have a link.
Either way, I think it becomes fairly obvious that they don't add services for gays when you can't actually look for same-sex relationships on the site.
Is this really a question of semantics or rather, like Pj_Gurl suggested, a question about power and control.
E-harmony had to pay a $55,000 fine. They won't change their site to include gay people, by the way, which goes against the criteria you keep on mentioning. Instead the site will stay the same, they will not meet this criterion of 'proper advertisement'.
true.com does extensive background searches everyone, and claims it has the right to sue members if they are married, or have a legal record and it's not disclosed.
I'm not forced into signing up, and going along with this program. It's 100% an opt in process, and quite simply I have the freedom of choice. If my rights to choose were being taken away, there would be an issue, but there is no such thing going on here.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Can you not see that you're complaining about the something, and then turning around and doing the very same thing yourself? Maybe they should offer fetish, and that's also discrimination to a lot of people. Where does it end? It doesn't according to your principles of right and wrong. What if someone feel discriminated because The Gap, Sears etc... doesn't sell sex toy accessories, leather whips, and crotchless panties. It's ridiculous.
If it were the only dating service available, you would have a point, but it's not.
E-Harmony clearly defines themselves as a "relationship services provider", and they go onto describe what type of relationship they're talking about...their definition doesn't include fetish, but it does include gay people. Yet their services excludes them.
And again, Sears not selling sex toys isn't a good analogy. Sears isn't misrepresenting themselves. They don't say "our main purpose is to sell this and that", and then not sell this and that. They say "look, we're a general department store that sells things like this, this, and that"...AND they're offering what they sell to everyone. They're not saying "we sell relationship matching services" and then deny their main service (the core of their business as they represent themselves) to a certain group of people who is protected under anti-discrimination laws.
E-Harmony clearly defines themselves as a "relationship services provider", and they go onto describe what type of relationship they're talking about...their definition doesn't include fetish, but it does include gay people. Yet their services excludes them.
And again, Sears not selling sex toys isn't a good analogy. Sears isn't misrepresenting themselves. They don't say "our main purpose is to sell this and that", and then not sell this and that. They say "look, we're a general department store that sells things like this, this, and that"...AND they're offering what they sell to everyone. They're not saying "we sell relationship matching services" and then deny their main service (the core of their business as they represent themselves) to a certain group of people who is protected under anti-discrimination laws.
Relationship with what? Maybe the bestiality groups can sue them next for not offering that scenario, and hiring animal interpreters.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
First of all, I don't know where you got those criteria. Did the judge in the case mention these, if so do you have a link.
Either way, I think it becomes fairly obvious that they don't add services for gays when you can't actually look for same-sex relationships on the site.
Is this really a question of semantics or rather, like Pj_Gurl suggested, a question about power and control.
E-harmony had to pay a $55,000 fine. They won't change their site to include gay people, by the way, which goes against the criteria you keep on mentioning. Instead the site will stay the same, they will not meet this criterion of 'proper advertisement'.
Where are you reading anything about a fine? The story I read said they settled the case. If they settled the case, the judge didn't rule on anything. It's just a settlement, and under part of the settlement, they agreed to do the separate service. Nothing more nothing less. No rulings came out of this, but eHarmony changed its service to include gays. Unless I am missing another article.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
First of all, I don't know where you got those criteria. Did the judge in the case mention these, if so do you have a link.
Either way, I think it becomes fairly obvious that they don't add services for gays when you can't actually look for same-sex relationships on the site.
Is this really a question of semantics or rather, like Pj_Gurl suggested, a question about power and control.
E-harmony had to pay a $55,000 fine. They won't change their site to include gay people, by the way, which goes against the criteria you keep on mentioning. Instead the site will stay the same, they will not meet this criterion of 'proper advertisement'.
They're adding the services for gays as a sister site that will be linked from e-Harmony. That's how they settled that part of the issue.
And it's not about semantics. Debates like this always boil down to that, but I think it's good to have laws in place that discourage discrimination like that. It's not about control and restriction for the sake of control and restriction...it's about what those restrictions are encouraging and/or discouraging.
Relationship with what? Maybe the bestiality groups can sue them next for not offering that scenario, and hiring animal interpreters.
bestiality groups aren't protected by anti-discrimination laws as far as I know (not to mention bestiality is illegal in most states I'd imagine)...so those people really have no say in the matter.
1. They're discriminating with a legit reason
2. They're not misrepresenting themselves
IMO, E-Harmony is definitely not meeting requirement #2, and they're questionable on #1. That's why they got sued and lost.
Just because they lost the case doesn't mean that it was the right decision. There are so many online dating sites with a specific criteria out there. Sites for gays online, Christian sites, sites for people making over a certain amount yearly, sights for hispanics, for black. So are we now supposed to tell all of the online sites that they have to cater to everyone. These are private entities offering a service to a specific clientele, whether it be heterosexuals, multi-million dollars executives or gay men that only like it bare back and the courts have no right to interfere.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Where are you reading anything about a fine? The story I read said they settled the case. If they settled the case, the judge didn't rule on anything. It's just a settlement, and under part of the settlement, they agreed to do the separate service. Nothing more nothing less. No rulings came out of this, but eHarmony changed its service to include gays. Unless I am missing another article.
A different article, I reckon. Just do a google search. $5,000 goes to the guy who sued, the rest of the money will cover the expenses.
Yeah, I realized that about the judge after I posted.
They're adding the services for gays as a sister site that will be linked from e-Harmony. That's how they settled that part of the issue.
And it's not about semantics. Debates like this always boil down to that, but I think it's good to have laws in place that discourage discrimination like that. It's not about control and restriction for the sake of control and restriction...it's about what those restrictions are encouraging and/or discouraging.
If the main site isn't changed nothing at all was really accomplished. They outsource a link to a gay site and now get paid extra by them for routing some traffic their way, and drop a name. More money for Eharmony for not doing anything at all except write one line of code.
All that for what already exists in the first place minus the drama.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
bestiality groups aren't protected by anti-discrimination laws as far as I know (not to mention bestiality is illegal in most states I'd imagine)...so those people really have no say in the matter.
But you missed the point. Define relationship. Maybe the sex doll group will step up soon, and feel discriminated against.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
If the main site isn't changed nothing at all was really accomplished. They outsource a link to a gay site and now get paid extra by them for routing some traffic their way, and drop a name. More money for Eharmony for not doing anything at all except write one line of code.
All that for what already exists in the first place minus the drama.
Yep, e-harmony still exists exactly as before, still not properly defining their website (as it still says people, instead of heterosexuals), all that was accomplished that they will created a new site, like there are already hundreds.
Comments
A person/persons came up with an idea to make some money. They're niche is/was to match certain personalities to increase chances of making a match. These people spent money/resources to find out what makes hetro matches work....they did it and aparently it worked. This was their niche'.
As much as it makes me cringe that their decision may be based on homophobic views, but to think a holy roller is forced to sponsor homo relationships is just some funny stuff.....okay I'm torn...its wrong that their forced....but funny as hell they have to do this....ha ha ha
1. Represent and advertise the business clearly, and stop calling it a "relationship service provider". You can't describe your business like it's offered to everyone, and then deny certain people of your services.
2. Show good cause for the discrimination. If their research seriously can't be applied to gay people, then they may be ok to operate, but only if they've completed step #1.
Their other choice, of course, is to offer their services to gay people.
And on top of the legal debate about this, I think it's sad that many people immediately sympathize with a business rather than people and say "it's wrong that e-Harmony is forced to change their business practices". The first thing I thought about when I read about the lawsuit is how sad it is that the largest "relationship service provider" on the internet excludes gay people. If discrimination laws can be applied here, I think they definitely should be. We need to quit talking about businesses as though they have some God-given right to exist like people.
Is anyone being forced to use this service at any point in their lives?
silly...plain silly
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Show me how going to the bathroom has anything to do with sexual preference and you might have something...
I could sell shit on a stick, if people buy it...great.... if no...so what?
don't shop there...
Maybe change the channel, or sue the maker of the commercial? hmm
ridiculous....it's nonsense.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If i was looking for a heterosexual partner, would i go to a site that caters exclusively for homosexuals and expect to find my ideal match? No. I'd go to the site which had the most members of my sexual prefererance to give me the best chance of finding someone i was interested in. Why the hell would you want to go to a bible bashing site who had closed minded views like eharmony anyway. It makes no sense to me. Why would you even bother.
Even more so, why the hell would you even want to go to one that is not offering you a wide choice of prospective partners.
This law suit isn't about "discrimination," it's about power and control.
That's exactly what it is.
They had a legitimate cause not to offer that service, they didn't have the means. They invested in psychological/sociological testing to match men and women. Now they are forced to invest more money, expand their business etc.
So, if they had just changed their discription to 'relationship service provider for heterosexuals' it would have been solved, in your opinion?
Of course not, it's the homosexuals who have a problem with the 'for heterosexuals' part.
I agree with LikeAnOcean: "It's stupid. Another reason for someone to sue in a sue happy country."
It's funny how everyone states these noble causes, yet, that's not enough, they want to fight the good fight and earn a lot of money with it.
You know, a gay couple tried to sue one of my teachers because he didn't sell his house to them but to another couple. It's sickening that people start to use their minority status to get some money (or power and control as Pj_Gurl rightly pointed out).
edit: Saturnal, question, if they now offer their services to homosexuals as well, but never invest in research to match them, would you be okay with it?
naděje umírá poslední
I completely agree.
naděje umírá poslední
Of course you wouldn't. But again, that's not comparable to this situation, because E-Harmony doesn't present themselves as an exclusively hetero matching site. Go on their site and see for yourself.
It's discrimination when you say "we're a relationship services provider, but we're denying our services to gay people who are looking for relationships". If they can prove they have a legit reason to discriminate, then they can operate, but they'd have to stop misrepresenting themselves as a "relationship services provider".
But yea, if they stopped misrepresenting themselves, that would be one way to resolve the issue. I still wouldn't like the fact that the #1 matching site on the internet excludes gays, but this is likely why they won't change their business description to specifically exclude them...they'd definitely drop in the ratings. What this lawsuit is saying is 2 things:
1. You can't describe/advertise your business like it's offered to everyone, and then not actually do that.
2. If you want to deny your services to a certain group of people, you have to show a legit reason.
You can't do one but not the other.
from the article:
"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages," it said in a statement.
"Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted," eHarmony added.
Good enough, legit enough reason, if you ask me. They don't have years of research to match homosexual couples.
naděje umírá poslední
Sexual orientation is a protected class, according to the Supreme Court. Not a race, but just like gender and disability, you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Can you not see that you're complaining about the something, and then turning around and doing the very same thing yourself? Maybe they should offer fetish, and that's also discrimination to a lot of people. Where does it end? It doesn't according to your principles of right and wrong. What if someone feel discriminated because The Gap, Sears etc... doesn't sell sex toy accessories, leather whips, and crotchless panties. It's ridiculous.
If it were the only dating service available, you would have a point, but it's not.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
1. They're discriminating with a legit reason
2. They're not misrepresenting themselves
IMO, E-Harmony is definitely not meeting requirement #2, and they're questionable on #1. That's why they got sued and lost.
First of all, I don't know where you got those criteria. Did the judge in the case mention these, if so do you have a link.
Either way, I think it becomes fairly obvious that they don't add services for gays when you can't actually look for same-sex relationships on the site.
Is this really a question of semantics or rather, like Pj_Gurl suggested, a question about power and control.
E-harmony had to pay a $55,000 fine. They won't change their site to include gay people, by the way, which goes against the criteria you keep on mentioning. Instead the site will stay the same, they will not meet this criterion of 'proper advertisement'.
naděje umírá poslední
I'm not forced into signing up, and going along with this program. It's 100% an opt in process, and quite simply I have the freedom of choice. If my rights to choose were being taken away, there would be an issue, but there is no such thing going on here.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
And again, Sears not selling sex toys isn't a good analogy. Sears isn't misrepresenting themselves. They don't say "our main purpose is to sell this and that", and then not sell this and that. They say "look, we're a general department store that sells things like this, this, and that"...AND they're offering what they sell to everyone. They're not saying "we sell relationship matching services" and then deny their main service (the core of their business as they represent themselves) to a certain group of people who is protected under anti-discrimination laws.
Relationship with what? Maybe the bestiality groups can sue them next for not offering that scenario, and hiring animal interpreters.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Where are you reading anything about a fine? The story I read said they settled the case. If they settled the case, the judge didn't rule on anything. It's just a settlement, and under part of the settlement, they agreed to do the separate service. Nothing more nothing less. No rulings came out of this, but eHarmony changed its service to include gays. Unless I am missing another article.
They're adding the services for gays as a sister site that will be linked from e-Harmony. That's how they settled that part of the issue.
And it's not about semantics. Debates like this always boil down to that, but I think it's good to have laws in place that discourage discrimination like that. It's not about control and restriction for the sake of control and restriction...it's about what those restrictions are encouraging and/or discouraging.
Just because they lost the case doesn't mean that it was the right decision. There are so many online dating sites with a specific criteria out there. Sites for gays online, Christian sites, sites for people making over a certain amount yearly, sights for hispanics, for black. So are we now supposed to tell all of the online sites that they have to cater to everyone. These are private entities offering a service to a specific clientele, whether it be heterosexuals, multi-million dollars executives or gay men that only like it bare back and the courts have no right to interfere.
A different article, I reckon. Just do a google search. $5,000 goes to the guy who sued, the rest of the money will cover the expenses.
Yeah, I realized that about the judge after I posted.
naděje umírá poslední
If the main site isn't changed nothing at all was really accomplished. They outsource a link to a gay site and now get paid extra by them for routing some traffic their way, and drop a name. More money for Eharmony for not doing anything at all except write one line of code.
All that for what already exists in the first place minus the drama.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
But you missed the point. Define relationship. Maybe the sex doll group will step up soon, and feel discriminated against.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Yep, e-harmony still exists exactly as before, still not properly defining their website (as it still says people, instead of heterosexuals), all that was accomplished that they will created a new site, like there are already hundreds.
edit: well, someone received $5,000.
naděje umírá poslední