Well that's the point, e-Harmony already defined it, not me. And their definition obviously didn't match their services. If it did, they probably wouldn't have had to pay what they paid.
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.
I know, the semantics part of the issue is separate. But the courts absolutely have a right to interfere if people are being discriminated against for no good reason or if a business is misrepresenting themselves.
Yes, there are plenty of online sites that cater to certain groups...and most of them will clearly define themselves as catering to a certain group, and they should be providing good cause why they can only cater to that group. E-Harmony didn't do both of those things.
Well that's the point, e-Harmony already defined it, not me. And their definition obviously didn't match their services. If it did, they probably wouldn't have had to pay what they paid.
I think they just fooled you into thinking you got what you want is all that happened.
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.
Well that's the point, e-Harmony already defined it, not me. And their definition obviously didn't match their services. If it did, they probably wouldn't have had to pay what they paid.
Yeah, they defined it and the core of the definition is rooted in christian values. The research was based on married couples, and was done in order to find out what makes a marriage succesful and what makes it fail. Marriage which was (is?) illegal for homosexuals.
I think they just fooled you into thinking you got what you want is all that happened.
Exactly, they didn't change their website. Those homemade criteria are not being meant. The site stays the same, except now it says; go there! Not here.
I know, the semantics part of the issue is separate. But the courts absolutely have a right to interfere if people are being discriminated against for no good reason or if a business is misrepresenting themselves.
Yes, there are plenty of online sites that cater to certain groups...and most of them will clearly define themselves as catering to a certain group, and they should be providing good cause why they can only cater to that group. E-Harmony didn't do both of those things.
The minutes you go on E-harmony and attempt to do a search it is clear as day that they do not cater to the gay community. There is no misrepresentation there. This is simply a frivolous case fueled by uber political correctness.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
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.
It's a settlement. In other words, there is no ruling on this. The parties agreed to settle the case without going to trial. The court didn't decide anything one way or another.
It's an important distinction because all of the people complaining about the injustice of this result have to remember the parties agreed to this. There is no precedent reached as a result of this either. eHarmony agreed to do what they did as a compromise, and it will probably make the other lawsuits moot.
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]
Exactly, they didn't change their website. Those homemade criteria are not being meant. The site stays the same, except now it says; go there! Not here.
It's kinda funny actually. It's like taking someone by the hand, and specifically guiding them, instead of them just doing it themselves in the first place.
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 settlement. In other words, there is no ruling on this. The parties agreed to settle the case without going to trial. The court didn't decide anything one way or another.
It's an important distinction because all of the people complaining about the injustice of this result have to remember the parties agreed to this. There is no precedent reached as a result of this either. eHarmony agreed to do what they did as a compromise, and it will probably make the other lawsuits moot.
It was an injustice to take this to court in the first place. What followed is just that, the result of a ridiculous lawsuit.
Exactly, they didn't change their website. Those homemade criteria are not being meant. The site stays the same, except now it says; go there! Not here.
But it will be changed when they link the sister site. Then the company won't be denying their services to gays. They did the sensible thing in this settlement imo.
But it will be changed when they link the sister site. Then the company won't be denying their services to gays. They did the sensible thing in this settlement imo.
I think they did the sensible thing as well by showing people how to use their web browsers more efficiently.
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.
Yeah, they defined it and the core of the definition is rooted in christian values. The research was based on married couples, and was done in order to find out what makes a marriage succesful and what makes it fail. Marriage which was (is?) illegal for homosexuals.
Their description of their business doesn't say anything about it being Christian, and they definitely don't advertise it that way. I've seen a bunch of e-harmony commercials, and they just talk about "meaningful, lasting relationships"...that's it.
Their About section on the site does mention that their research is based on data coming from married couples, but they go on to say they're using that data to match people so they can have successful "long-term relationships". They don't say "we will match a man and a woman so they'll have a successful marriage". This is trivial to some people, but the way they advertise is definitely misleading.
The minutes you go on E-harmony and attempt to do a search it is clear as day that they do not cater to the gay community. There is no misrepresentation there. This is simply a frivolous case fueled by uber political correctness.
Of course it's clear as soon as you attempt to do a search. That's the whole problem. They don't make that clear anywhere in their commercials or description of their business. That's misrepresentation....plain and simple.
I'm gonna go sue some cows because I may be lactose intolerant.
They should put labels on their udders....very misleading.
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.
Of course it's clear as soon as you attempt to do a search. That's the whole problem. They don't make that clear anywhere in their commercials or description of their business. That's misrepresentation....plain and simple.
Now nothing will change accept they will guide you to another site, not e-harmony. E-harmony stays the same, with the same misleading description, except there will be an option to go to a different website.
The misrepresentation is still there, except they now offer an alternative on a different site. Before this entire case you could already find alternatives anywhere, easily.
Now nothing will change accept they will guide you to another site, not e-harmony. E-harmony stays the same, with the same misleading description, except there will be an option to go to a different website.
The misrepresentation is still there, except they now offer an alternative on a different site. Before this entire case you could already find alternatives anywhere, easily.
Well yea, it's a settlement. The misrepresentation is still there, but at least they'll offer services to gay people now. So they're not totally discriminating. I think that's a good thing. The way E-Harmony advertises will still be misleading, but the parent company can't be sued over it now that they're offering their services to everyone.
Sounds like anything hetero has to be labeled as such for some, or should everything be labeled from now on?
Seems that way. Some people were suing lawnmower companies for not putting labels that the spinning blades might cut your fingers or toes off.
Warning: This brush may cause hair to fall out if used as directed.
Maybe stairs should be labeled in case people fall down them and sue the building owners.
Shoelaces: Warning....may cause knots, and render shoes harder to remove.
Cars: Warning may cause you to go fast or slow, or be parked, or crashed.
Water: Caution may cause drowning, or serious refreshment. Please use accordingly.
Air: Warning may prolong or reduce life expectancy, or cause light headedness. Exercise caution.
Feet: Warning may cause unexpected falling down.
Website: Warning may contain large numbers of heterosexual clientele please look away if you are sue happy and uptight.
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.
Well yea, it's a settlement. The misrepresentation is still there, but at least they'll offer services to gay people now. So they're not totally discriminating. I think that's a good thing. The way E-Harmony advertises will still be misleading, but the parent company can't be sued over it now that they're offering their services to everyone.
I don't get it. You said they needed to meet two criteria:
1. They're discriminating with a legit reason (research was lacking/alternative website)
2. They're not misrepresenting themselves
(they still are)
I guess the criteria don't matter that much after all, but it's rather about alternatives, which already existed, abundantly.
I don't get it. You said they needed to meet two criteria:
1. They're discriminating with a legit reason (research was lacking/alternative website)
2. They're not misrepresenting themselves
(they still are)
I guess the criteria don't matter that much after all, but it's rather about alternatives, which already existed, abundantly.
Now that they're going to offer their services to gays on a linked site, they're meeting the criteria. Now E-Harmony (the COMPANY, not just http://www.eharmony.com) can call themselves a "relationship services provider" because they're not discriminating, and it's not a misrepresentation.
Now that they're going to offer their services to gays on a linked site, they're meeting the criteria. Now E-Harmony (the COMPANY, not just http://www.eharmony.com) can call themselves a "relationship services provider" because they're not discriminating, and it's not a misrepresentation.
cough *bullshit* cough
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.
Comments
Yes, there are plenty of online sites that cater to certain groups...and most of them will clearly define themselves as catering to a certain group, and they should be providing good cause why they can only cater to that group. E-Harmony didn't do both of those things.
I think they just fooled you into thinking you got what you want is all that happened.
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)
(")_(")
Yeah, they defined it and the core of the definition is rooted in christian values. The research was based on married couples, and was done in order to find out what makes a marriage succesful and what makes it fail. Marriage which was (is?) illegal for homosexuals.
naděje umírá poslední
Exactly, they didn't change their website. Those homemade criteria are not being meant. The site stays the same, except now it says; go there! Not here.
naděje umírá poslední
The minutes you go on E-harmony and attempt to do a search it is clear as day that they do not cater to the gay community. There is no misrepresentation there. This is simply a frivolous case fueled by uber political correctness.
It's a settlement. In other words, there is no ruling on this. The parties agreed to settle the case without going to trial. The court didn't decide anything one way or another.
It's an important distinction because all of the people complaining about the injustice of this result have to remember the parties agreed to this. There is no precedent reached as a result of this either. eHarmony agreed to do what they did as a compromise, and it will probably make the other lawsuits moot.
It's kinda funny actually. It's like taking someone by the hand, and specifically guiding them, instead of them just doing it themselves in the first place.
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)
(")_(")
It was an injustice to take this to court in the first place. What followed is just that, the result of a ridiculous lawsuit.
naděje umírá poslední
I think they did the sensible thing as well by showing people how to use their web browsers more efficiently.
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)
(")_(")
Their About section on the site does mention that their research is based on data coming from married couples, but they go on to say they're using that data to match people so they can have successful "long-term relationships". They don't say "we will match a man and a woman so they'll have a successful marriage". This is trivial to some people, but the way they advertise is definitely misleading.
They should put labels on their udders....very misleading.
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)
(")_(")
Now nothing will change accept they will guide you to another site, not e-harmony. E-harmony stays the same, with the same misleading description, except there will be an option to go to a different website.
The misrepresentation is still there, except they now offer an alternative on a different site. Before this entire case you could already find alternatives anywhere, easily.
naděje umírá poslední
Seems that way. Some people were suing lawnmower companies for not putting labels that the spinning blades might cut your fingers or toes off.
Warning: This brush may cause hair to fall out if used as directed.
Maybe stairs should be labeled in case people fall down them and sue the building owners.
Shoelaces: Warning....may cause knots, and render shoes harder to remove.
Cars: Warning may cause you to go fast or slow, or be parked, or crashed.
Water: Caution may cause drowning, or serious refreshment. Please use accordingly.
Air: Warning may prolong or reduce life expectancy, or cause light headedness. Exercise caution.
Feet: Warning may cause unexpected falling down.
Website: Warning may contain large numbers of heterosexual clientele please look away if you are sue happy and uptight.
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)
(")_(")
Remember that woman that sued McDonald's because their coffee was 'defective' :rolleyes:
naděje umírá poslední
I don't get it. You said they needed to meet two criteria:
1. They're discriminating with a legit reason (research was lacking/alternative website)
2. They're not misrepresenting themselves
(they still are)
I guess the criteria don't matter that much after all, but it's rather about alternatives, which already existed, abundantly.
naděje umírá poslední
Now that they're going to offer their services to gays on a linked site, they're meeting the criteria. Now E-Harmony (the COMPANY, not just http://www.eharmony.com) can call themselves a "relationship services provider" because they're not discriminating, and it's not a misrepresentation.
cough *bullshit* cough
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)
(")_(")