eHarmony Settles Case, Will Now Do Gay Matches

[runzwithsizorz]

I can hardly wait for the next TV commercial, " Hi, I'm doctor Neil Clark Warren, founder of Eharmony.com, -----
LOL, and you thought the super bowl commercials were good.

 

[Genx87]

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.

Since when is not offering a service discriminating against people?

 

[Pacemaker]

Doesn't eHarmony base it's matches on long term successful marriages? I could see that with the smaller segment of the population it might be difficult to find willing gay people who had been in relationships for 30+ years. BTW eHarmony doesn't just reject gay people it also rejects people that don't fit the patterns they've found. I guess those people should sue as well.

 

[Adam8281]

I'm going to sue the local vegetarian restaurant if they won't serve me ribeye next time I go.

 

[halik]

WTF, that absolutely ridiculous. How can you force a company to offer a different service. That's analogous to forcing a barber to style female hair.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker
Doesn't eHarmony base it's matches on long term successful marriages? I could see that with the smaller segment of the population it might be difficult to find willing gay people who had been in relationships for 30+ years. BTW eHarmony doesn't just reject gay people it also rejects people that don't fit the patterns they've found. I guess those people should sue as well.

Yes, they reject anyone who they think they will be unlikely to find a match for. They do that because their success rate is their main selling point.

However, I suppose they can maintain separate success rates for heterosexuals and homosexuals and that fixes that problem. And all they have to do is try to match homosexuals, they don't actually have to try to do it well.

Note to self:
Try to sign up for exclusively gay matchmaking site; sue exclusively gay matchmaking site.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
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"?

IIRC eharmony is not able to match people who fall outside certain norms.

However, guy/girl is a fundamental biological difference, whereas race and age differences have more to do with culture. Culture is flexible, and we can learn to adapt. Guy/girl relationships are a bit more difficult, and we can never really learn to think like the other gender. There are a lot of established protocols for making a relationship work under these circumstances, and eHarmony has studied and applied these principles.

I guess now they'll be doing it for gay relationships too...frankly, I believe that this should be easier, since ultimately there's less of a fundamental divide. "Do you guys agree on a minimum number of issues? Good, throw 'em together and see if sparks happen!"

 

[Adam8281]

Originally posted by: 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's a good question. Similarly, I wonder what would happen if after a year or two eHarmony realizes that the gay-match part of the business just isn't doing well: gays seem to be prefering other exclusively gay sites, the gay part of the business is losing money, etc. Would they have to keep that part of the business up and running, regardless of profitability, or else risk more lawsuits?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Adam8281

Originally posted by: 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's a good question. Similarly, I wonder what would happen if after a year or two eHarmony realizes that the gay-match part of the business just isn't doing well: gays seem to be prefering other exclusively gay sites, the gay part of the business is losing money, etc. Would they have to keep that part of the business up and running, regardless of profitability, or else risk more lawsuits?

They'll have to obey. This is getting more than a little ridiculous. I don't give a crap if someone wants to get married or not, but if you want a gay dating service have one. Don't force yourselves on others. BTW, I would say precisely the same thing if heterosexuals wanted to force themselves on a gay dating site. It's just wrong.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Adam8281

Originally posted by: 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's a good question. Similarly, I wonder what would happen if after a year or two eHarmony realizes that the gay-match part of the business just isn't doing well: gays seem to be prefering other exclusively gay sites, the gay part of the business is losing money, etc. Would they have to keep that part of the business up and running, regardless of profitability, or else risk more lawsuits?

Good point, this is why I think it's a very bad ruling.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: 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.

I have a feeling their algorithm is a little more sophisticated than that and has zero to do with boobies, big or ortherwise.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Pacemaker
Doesn't eHarmony base it's matches on long term successful marriages? I could see that with the smaller segment of the population it might be difficult to find willing gay people who had been in relationships for 30+ years. BTW eHarmony doesn't just reject gay people it also rejects people that don't fit the patterns they've found. I guess those people should sue as well.

Yes, they reject anyone who they think they will be unlikely to find a match for. They do that because their success rate is their main selling point.

However, I suppose they can maintain separate success rates for heterosexuals and homosexuals and that fixes that problem. And all they have to do is try to match homosexuals, they don't actually have to try to do it well.

Note to self:
Try to sign up for exclusively gay matchmaking site; sue exclusively gay matchmaking site.

From what I understand, eHarmony rejects individuals who test positive for depression or who are found to have lied on their application/questionaire.

 

[Adam8281]

The unfortunate part is that it's not actually a "ruling;" it's a settlement, meaning the case never went fully through court where a verdict would have been reached. I don't know why eHarmony settled. Maybe the company didn't care that much - they might make money off this change, after all. Or maybe the prospect of expensive litigation with no upside (even if eHarmony was victorious through a series of appeals, they'd be out millions of dollars in legal costs) was the deciding factor. If this were a verdict, then it could be appealed, and hopefully somewhere up the chain of courts this kind of madness would be definitively ended. But as it is, the state of NJ was able to strong-arm a settlement out of eHarmony, and will be able to continue similar strong-arming with companies that don't have the will or resources to keep it in court.

 

[K1052]

It's a bad settlement that forces a private business to offer a service that they do not want to provide. New Jersey should not have the authority to enforce such requirements.

Conversely, the reasoning behind eHarmony not offering its services to homosexuals is total horseshit. They should own up to that fact.

 

[RightIsWrong]

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.

Yes I do think that it is the same. You are taking the same factors and trying to scientifically determine through the use of some made up criteria that subject A is a compatible match with subject B. You are not asked to add in any sexual fetishes and/or preferences that could be a disqualifying factor for ruling out a candidate.

What would be different about it in your and the other supporter's of eHarmony's "right" to discriminate?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Adam8281

Originally posted by: 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's a good question. Similarly, I wonder what would happen if after a year or two eHarmony realizes that the gay-match part of the business just isn't doing well: gays seem to be prefering other exclusively gay sites, the gay part of the business is losing money, etc. Would they have to keep that part of the business up and running, regardless of profitability, or else risk more lawsuits?

Good point, this is why I think it's a very bad ruling.

It's not a ruling, it's a settlement. Part of the settlement was Nolo Contendre by eharmony, so it's not a precedent by any means.

 

[Rainsford]

I would normally agree that this is a bad ruling, and that dating sites should be allowed to cater to any subset of the community that they want (nobody should be forcing gay dating sites into matching straight people). But in this case I'm willing to make an exception since eHarmony's ignoring of the gay dating market doesn't seem based on practical or business reasons so much as on the fact that the people who back and run the site don't like gay people very much. There is reason it's heavily supported by Christian evangelicals (like Focus on the Family).

When it comes to "discrimination", context and motive matter. Of course every business shouldn't have to cater to every group, but when businesses refuse to serve a group based on the fact that they don't like that group...THAT is discrimination. Now obviously I'm making some assumptions here, but if I'm right, then I think eHarmony should have lost this case. And the fact that it's support comes from people who DO have a history of gay bashing tends to support the idea that eHarmony IS trying to discriminate against gay people.

 

[Adam8281]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I would normally agree that this is a bad ruling, and that dating sites should be allowed to cater to any subset of the community that they want (nobody should be forcing gay dating sites into matching straight people). But in this case I'm willing to make an exception since eHarmony's ignoring of the gay dating market doesn't seem based on practical or business reasons so much as on the fact that the people who back and run the site don't like gay people very much. There is reason it's heavily supported by Christian evangelicals (like Focus on the Family).

When it comes to "discrimination", context and motive matter. Of course every business shouldn't have to cater to every group, but when businesses refuse to serve a group based on the fact that they don't like that group...THAT is discrimination. Now obviously I'm making some assumptions here, but if I'm right, then I think eHarmony should have lost this case. And the fact that it's support comes from people who DO have a history of gay bashing tends to support the idea that eHarmony IS trying to discriminate against gay people.

So as long as you are a fan of homosexual relationships you don't have to actively promote their formation; but if you are not a fan of homosexual relationships, you must actively promote them?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: 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.

I have a feeling their algorithm is a little more sophisticated than that and has zero to do with boobies, big or ortherwise.

No wonder they failed to match me. 🙁

😉

 

[brandonb]

Should "Catholic Singles" allow athiests, or gays in their website? No its Catholics!

eHarmony is known to match only "normal" people. Many factors will make you not match to someone. Contrary to popular belief, gay people aren't normal. Its not normal for a guy to put his penis in another guys ass. No matter how you want to say otherwise. Evolutionists should understand that, and they are the least to understand it.

Anyways, the ruling is horseshit.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Should "Catholic Singles" allow athiests, or gays in their website? No its Catholics!

eHarmony is known to match only "normal" people. Many factors will make you not match to someone. Contrary to popular belief, gay people aren't normal. Its not normal for a guy to put his penis in another guys ass. No matter how you want to say otherwise. Evolutionists should understand that, and they are the least to understand it.

Anyways, the ruling is horseshit.

With all due respect (which on this topic you have shown to deserve zero), you're an idiot.

Nothing in the entire universe is "normal". There are things that are more prevalent than other things, but "normal" is a very subjective term. To say that homosexuality is abnormal and goes against evolution is to ignore the fact that it occurs naturally in humankind and greatly in the animal kingdom.

And just as it has been pointed out previously, this wasn't a ruling. It was a settlement that was entered into by the plaintiff and eHarmony because eHarmony realized that their grounds for discrimination were weak at best and utter horseshit at worst and would have been ruled as such costing them even more.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Should "Catholic Singles" allow athiests, or gays in their website? No its Catholics!

eHarmony is known to match only "normal" people. Many factors will make you not match to someone. Contrary to popular belief, gay people aren't normal. Its not normal for a guy to put his penis in another guys ass. No matter how you want to say otherwise. Evolutionists should understand that, and they are the least to understand it.

Anyways, the ruling is horseshit.

How about hypocritical closeted preachers who do crystal meth with their prostitute boyfriends?

Does it match them as well?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It was a settlement that was entered into by the plaintiff and eHarmony because eHarmony realized that their grounds for discrimination were weak at best and utter horseshit at worst and would have been ruled as such costing them even more.

Spin and assume much? It could just as easily be assumed they did so due to the way our courts are these days and they didn't want to risk an activist judge. But you can have your assumption if you wish...

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It was a settlement that was entered into by the plaintiff and eHarmony because eHarmony realized that their grounds for discrimination were weak at best and utter horseshit at worst and would have been ruled as such costing them even more.

Spin and assume much? It could just as easily be assumed they did so due to the way our courts are these days and they didn't want to risk an activist judge. But you can have your assumption if you wish...

You really need to get some new catch phrases. The use of "activist judges" is getting old and has shown to be very, very small in its practice and if it were truly based on some "activist judge" ruling, it could be just as easily appealed and overruled by a "non-activist" judge.

Anyway, whatever makes you sleep easier at night.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It was a settlement that was entered into by the plaintiff and eHarmony because eHarmony realized that their grounds for discrimination were weak at best and utter horseshit at worst and would have been ruled as such costing them even more.

Spin and assume much? It could just as easily be assumed they did so due to the way our courts are these days and they didn't want to risk an activist judge. But you can have your assumption if you wish...

You really need to get some new catch phrases. The use of "activist judges" is getting old and has shown to be very, very small in its practice and if it were truly based on some "activist judge" ruling, it could be just as easily appealed and overruled by a "non-activist" judge.

Anyway, whatever makes you sleep easier at night.

Uhhh... hello? I offered a plausible assumption(filled with spin) as an alternative to your spin and assumption. No where did I say that it was MY opinion. So keep tilting at windmills if you must...