eHarmony Settles Case, Will Now Do Gay Matches

[Adam8281]

From the LA Times:

Coming soon to EHarmony -- Adam and Steve.

The Pasadena-based dating website, heavily promoted by Christian evangelical leaders when it was founded, has agreed in a civil rights settlement to give up its heterosexuals-only policy and offer same-sex matches. Started by psychologist Neil Clark Warren, who is known for his mild-mannered television and radio advertisements, EHarmony must not only implement the new policy by March 31, but also give the first 10,000 same-sex registrants a free six-month subscription.

"That was one of the things I asked for," said Eric McKinley, 46, who complained to New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights after being turned down for a subscription in 2005.

The company said that Warren was not giving interviews on the settlement. But attorney Theodore Olson, who issued a statement on its behalf, made clear that the company did not agree to offer gay matches willingly.

"Even through we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business," Olson said, "we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the Attorney General since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable."

The settlement, which did not find that EHarmony broke any laws, calls for the company to either offer the gay matches ...

... on its current venue or create a new site for them.

Warren had said in past interviews that he didn't want to feature same-sex services on EHarmony -- which matches people based on long questionnaires concerning personality traits, relationship history and interests -- because he felt he didn't know enough about gay relationships.

McKinley, who works at a nonprofit in New Jersey he didn't want to identify, said that he had originally heard of EHarmony through its radio ads. "You hear these wonderful people saying, 'I met my soul mate on Eharmony.' I thought, I could do that too," he said.

But he couldn't. When he tried to enter the site, the pull-down menus had categories only for a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man. "I felt the whole range of emotions," McKinley said. "Anger, that I was a second-class citizen."

But instead of just surfing over to a dating site that admits gay lonely hearts, he contacted the New Jersey civil rights division to file a complaint.

The settlement also calls for EHarmony to pay $50,000 to the state for administrative costs, and $5,000 to McKinley.

But he's still a bachelor. EHarmony has to offer him a year's free subscription on the new service, however he's not sure he'll take them up on it.

"They are going to know my name," McKinley said. "They could be watching my membership."

-- David Colker

I think this is pretty ridiculous. eHarmony isn't discriminating against gays simply by offering a service gays aren't interested in, i.e. matching men with women. Although proponents of the settlement have been touting racism analogies, this is not like the case of a 1950s diner that doesn't serve blacks. Unlike the racist diner, eHarmony doesn't forbid gays from accessing or using the service; rather, it offers a service that gays aren't likely to be interested in (similarly to how a restaurant may admit all races, but happen to serve a particular ethnic cuisine which people of a certain ethnicity are most likely to want to eat). Or another analogy: eHarmony is like a strip club that features only naked women, not naked men. By having only female dancers, the club isn't discriminating against gays - they can come in if they want. But the club is offering a service that gays are probably not interested in. Similarly, the male strip club down the street is not discriminating against straights by only having male dancers - it's just offering a particular type of product that particular types of people are going to be interested in.

BTW, I got mod permission to repost this, after the previous thread was locked because I just quoted the article, without any commentary

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

This is total bullshit.

How can the goverment tell a private business what services they must offer?

Aren't they free to offer whatever services they want, or don't want?

EDIT: eHarmony isn't run by a church is it? Under tax free excemption? If it is thats a different story.

 

[dmcowen674]

Hate and discrimination has no business in the United States.

If you like that, go to a country better suited for you.

 

[CycloWizard]

I agree that it's ridiculous. The site tries to psychologically profile people to predict who they will match up with. The algorithm used will, in all likelihood, fail for homosexual persons because a gay guy obviously isn't looking for a woman with big boobs. Fail. Unfortunately, they didn't take it to court because there's no way to tell whether the ruling in court would be at all rational or simply more politicking.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

lol, suing to force someone to provide a service they don't have enough knowledge to provide. Brilliant! :roll:

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Hate and discrimination has no business in the United States.

If you like that, go to a country better suited for you.

Actually, hate and discrimination are at the heart of democracy.

Liberty is the opposite of Equality.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Hate and discrimination has no business in the United States.

If you like that, go to a country better suited for you.

When are you moving?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
This is total bullshit.

How can the goverment tell a private business what services they must offer?

Aren't they free to offer whatever services they want, or don't want?

EDIT: eHarmony isn't run by a church is it? Under tax free excemption? If it is thats a different story.

Yeah, how dare they do that! Oh wait, that's what happened with some of the Civil Rights Act...

But I agree, this is obviously a little different.

 

[trenchfoot]

Gee, I just can't wait for some other alternative lifestyle advocates to pursue some similar complaint against eHarmony. That should be pretty interesting. The precedence set in this case seems to be open-ended.

 

[gevorg]

I will sue eHarmony for not letting me use their service for finding 7 virgins. What a bunch of bigots!!

 

[Slew Foot]

How come eHarmony wont let me searchfor underage goats? I want underage goats dammit!

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
How come eHarmony wont let me searchfor underage goats? I want underage goats dammit!

Beastaility is illegal, homosexuality isn't. Imagine if they refused to match mixed race couples.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
lol, suing to force someone to provide a service they don't have enough knowledge to provide. Brilliant! :roll:

Ya, my restaurant only serves white people, because we know how to serve them, but we aren't sure we know how to serve black people. What do they eat, anyway?

 

[StageLeft]

That ruling sounds, well, gay.

Agree the restaurant analogy is ridiculous.

 

[sportage]

eHarmony Settles Case, Will Now Do Gay Matches

Nawwwww...
Gays should leave eHarmony to hetro losers.
They don't need no stinkin eHarmony.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
That ruling sounds, well, gay.

Agree the restaurant analogy is ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? Because discrimination against gays is still somewhat acceptable but discrimination against blacks is abhorrent after 50 years?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
lol, suing to force someone to provide a service they don't have enough knowledge to provide. Brilliant! :roll:

Ya, my restaurant only serves white people, because we know how to serve them, but we aren't sure we know how to serve black people. What do they eat, anyway?

wow, i figured you to be a bit more intelligent than that....

Anyway, a better analogy would be if someone went into a diner and then sued them because they didn't have ____ on the menu. It's F'n ridiculous.

 

[Red Dawn]

What's next, forcing them to provide their services for those with HIV, STDs. Convicted Felons, Pedophiles ect?

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
lol, suing to force someone to provide a service they don't have enough knowledge to provide. Brilliant! :roll:

Ya, my restaurant only serves white people, because we know how to serve them, but we aren't sure we know how to serve black people. What do they eat, anyway?

wow, i figured you to be a bit more intelligent than that....

Anyway, a better analogy would be if someone went into a diner and then sued them because they didn't have ____ on the menu. It's F'n ridiculous.

They do have _____ on the menu, they just won't serve it to gays.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
lol, suing to force someone to provide a service they don't have enough knowledge to provide. Brilliant! :roll:

Ya, my restaurant only serves white people, because we know how to serve them, but we aren't sure we know how to serve black people. What do they eat, anyway?

wow, i figured you to be a bit more intelligent than that....

Anyway, a better analogy would be if someone went into a diner and then sued them because they didn't have ____ on the menu. It's F'n ridiculous.

They do have _____ on the menu, they just won't serve it to gays.

No, they don't have it on the menu. Do you really think match making is the same for hetro vs homo? Sheesh.

 

[Red Dawn]

So what's to stop EHarmony from just going through the motions and creating a haphazard system for gays? Why should they make an extra investment?

That said it would make sense that they try to make it as profitable as possible by doing the research and offering a good service since they have to offering to that segment of the population. Don't get me wrong though, I disagree with the ruling

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
lol, suing to force someone to provide a service they don't have enough knowledge to provide. Brilliant! :roll:

Ya, my restaurant only serves white people, because we know how to serve them, but we aren't sure we know how to serve black people. What do they eat, anyway?

wow, i figured you to be a bit more intelligent than that....

Anyway, a better analogy would be if someone went into a diner and then sued them because they didn't have ____ on the menu. It's F'n ridiculous.

They do have _____ on the menu, they just won't serve it to gays.

No, they don't have it on the menu. Do you really think match making is the same for hetro vs homo? Sheesh.

Instead of asking you to enter male/female, you enter pitcher/catcher for men and butch/lipstick for lesbians.


If the difference between hetero/homo relationships is significant enough, why isn't the difference between white and black relationships? The subcultures are drastically different. What about young/old? Again, drastically different. But do they have an upper age limit? No octegenerians allowed because "we don't know how to match them"?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
lol, suing to force someone to provide a service they don't have enough knowledge to provide. Brilliant! :roll:

Ya, my restaurant only serves white people, because we know how to serve them, but we aren't sure we know how to serve black people. What do they eat, anyway?

wow, i figured you to be a bit more intelligent than that....

Anyway, a better analogy would be if someone went into a diner and then sued them because they didn't have ____ on the menu. It's F'n ridiculous.

They do have _____ on the menu, they just won't serve it to gays.

No, they don't have it on the menu. Do you really think match making is the same for hetro vs homo? Sheesh.

Instead of asking you to enter male/female, you enter pitcher/catcher for men and butch/lipstick for lesbians.


If the difference between hetero/homo relationships is significant enough, why isn't the difference between white and black relationships? The subcultures are drastically different. What about young/old? Again, drastically different. But do they have an upper age limit? No octegenerians allowed because "we don't know how to match them"?

I'm not saying it can't be done - it just that it's not on the menu and to force a business to add a service not otherwise provided is absurd. Sure, they settled and will now do something to appease the sue happy zealots - but the idea of a court forcing this sort of thing is absurd.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm waiting for lawsuits from gay activists to sue churches and force them to marry them, which is the reason many oppose gay marriage. The separation of church and state is two ways, but I can see some using the state to force religious doctrine on churches, and I'd be against that.

 

[Adam8281]

If the difference between hetero/homo relationships is significant enough, why isn't the difference between white and black relationships? The subcultures are drastically different. What about young/old? Again, drastically different. But do they have an upper age limit? No octegenerians allowed because "we don't know how to match them"?

That's a good point as far as it goes - eHarmony already takes account of some personal factors that might cause relationships to be "drastically different" from the norm. But the point, I think, is that this seems a pretty draconian intrusion into a company's business model. Many businesses choose a certain market niche that they seek to fill. Would we expect a "Senior-Citizens Dating Site" to have to accommodate 18 year-olds who are looking to date other 18 year-olds? Should we require gay dating services to facilitate heterosexual matching? Should an Orthodox Jewish dating website have to build a section for Hindus, Muslims, etc.?

Additionally, the article I quoted in the OP didn't state this, but another aspect of the settlement is that eHarmony has to start showcasing pictures of successfully-matched gay couples on their website and in promotional materials. Again, this seems a rather tyrannical requirement by New Jersey. Would we force Jet magazine to have a certain percentage of white cover models? It seems a blow against free enterprise and the creative filling of market niches to force a dating service to be "everything to everybody."