E-harmony.

know1

Seems like a stupid lawsuit to me.

DixieN

blackredyellow wrote:

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.

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.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

LikeAnOcean wrote:

If a business doesn't offer a service you need, you can't sue them.

Sure, but that's not the case here. In this case, a business is offering a service to one group of people and denying that same service to another group. That's discrimination, and we should discourage discrimination when it's unfounded.

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.

LikeAnOcean

Saturnal wrote:

Sure, but that's not the case here. In this case, a business is offering a service to one group of people and denying that same service to another group. That's discrimination.

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.

blackredyellow

DixieN wrote:

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.

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?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

LikeAnOcean wrote:

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.

No, they're not a race. They're a group of people.

LikeAnOcean wrote:

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?

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 In the real world, we have gray areas to deal with.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

blackredyellow wrote:

Matching men and women is their service.

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:

http://www.eharmony.com/about/eharmony

It says nothing about "matching men and women". It talks about creating healthy, lasting relationships.

mookeywrench

Saturnal wrote:

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:

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?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

mookeywrench wrote:

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.

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.

mookeywrench wrote:

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?

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.

Collin

Saturnal wrote:

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...

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Collin wrote:

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.

callen

Saturnal wrote:

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:

http://www.eharmony.com/about/eharmony

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

lalalalaaaaaaaa

callen wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

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

lalalalaaaaaaaa

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Saturnal wrote:

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.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

Anon

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.

That's exactly what it is.

Collin

Saturnal wrote:

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?

Collin

Pj_Gurl wrote:

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.

That's exactly what it is.

I completely agree.