E-harmony.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

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?).

Yea, that's discrimination unless they can show good cause why they can't offer the service to heteros. Same goes for those sites.

Pj_Gurl wrote:

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".

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Collin wrote:

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.

You can't do one but not the other.

Collin

Saturnal wrote:

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.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Collin wrote:

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.

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.

meistereder

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.

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.

mammasan

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Saturnal wrote:

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.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

mammasan wrote:

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.

Collin

Saturnal wrote:

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'.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

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.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Saturnal wrote:

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.

meistereder

Collin wrote:

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.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Collin wrote:

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'.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2335035,00.asp

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.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

mammasan

Saturnal wrote:

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.

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.

Collin

meistereder wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Saturnal wrote:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2335035,00.asp

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Saturnal wrote:

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.

Collin

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

edit: well, someone received $5,000.