06/01/2007
eHarmony Sued for Discriminating Against Gays
eHarmony, the dating site with strong ties to right-wing religious organization Focus on the Family, has been sued by a woman in Los Angeles for discriminating against gays and lesbians.
According to Reuters: "Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a 'men seeking men' or 'women seeking women' option. They were seeking to make it a class action lawsuit on behalf of gays and lesbians excluded from the dating service."
The company called the claims "false and reckless" in a statement to the press:
"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. 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."
The lawsuit seeks damages for those discriminated against, as well as a change in the company's policy.
The ad below, produced by rival dating company chemistry.com, took advantage of eHarmony's policy by promoting themselves as an inclusive alternative.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 10:55 AM EST by Andy in Discrimination, News, Religion | Permalink
Comments
If eHarmony doesn't offer gay matches, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. What a waste of time and money to sue a company like that.
It's like suing a dry cleaning company because they won't cook dinner for you.
Sorry folks, but I have to vote for eHarmony on this one.
Posted by: Joshua | Jun 1, 2007 11:05:41 AM
I don't think they should be sued for not offering GLBT matching. It's a private company. They can offer the services they want. But the excuse they use is pretty lame. Unless it's just a sex hookup site, the relationship values that people have are pretty similar across sexual orientations. The fact is, the dude who owns eHarmony is an evangelical Christian who simply doesn't want to own up to his own prejudice. That doesn't make him legally culpable in my opinion, but it does make him look like an asshole... which may end up being even more costly for the company that a settlement would be.
Posted by: Brian | Jun 1, 2007 11:10:12 AM
Company A doesn't offer service to a market.
Company B,C,D,E,F, etc offers services to the market that Company A doesn't offer to
Problem solved.
The issue that I have is this woman is using a site that has little to offer her in ways of finding a date. Me thinks she or her lawyer is just hard up for money.
Posted by: yoshi | Jun 1, 2007 11:13:09 AM
Yeah, this is stupid and only makes the gay community look stupid. Come on guys, we're better than that and we should be smarter too. There are plenty, and I do mean PLENTY of other gay dating sites to choose from.
When I find a company with anti-gay policies or practices I simply don't give them my money.
Posted by: monkey | Jun 1, 2007 11:14:08 AM
Terry Gross interviewed Neil Clark Warren, founder of eHarmony, back in August of 2005. Warren is an evangelical Christian--'nuff said. Terry pressured him on the subject of why he didn't offer homosexual matching services and he tried to slime out of it by saying he had no experience with homosexual relationships and therefore didn't think he could best serve the gay community in that regard. Or some such bullshit like that. I wish Terry had pressed him more on the subject...
Posted by: Michael W. | Jun 1, 2007 11:14:24 AM
Amen to the above---why any self-respecting homo would want a bunch of evangelicals hooking them up is beyond me. There are plenty of alternatives out there.
Posted by: Acolyte | Jun 1, 2007 11:15:40 AM
Of course, if it is the object of the lawsuit to bring the idiocy behind E-harmony to light, then more power to them...
Posted by: Acolyte | Jun 1, 2007 11:18:07 AM
This lawsuit should be tossed by noontime.
eHarmony is a private company with a penny of government funding. They can, despite what this woman believes, can do as they please.
If this proves successful, then every college campus with fraternities and sororities will have to include the opposite sex. The Girls Scouts would have to include boys. High school and college yearbook photos would have to include nude formals for nudists, giraffes for pet lovers, etc. Major League sports would have to include both sexes, no more WNBA, etc.
It is not as if same sex dating services are unavailable or illegal. They are plentiful.
It wrankles me when I read extremist attempts at obtaining money, such as this one.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 1, 2007 11:19:12 AM
that should read, "without a penny of government funding"
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 1, 2007 11:23:35 AM
I think we are all in agreement. Should I sue Playboy magazine for discriminating against gay men?
Posted by: anon | Jun 1, 2007 11:40:49 AM
This is like a straight woman suing Manhunt for not offering a men seeking women. Gimme a break.
Posted by: TroyTooner | Jun 1, 2007 11:42:07 AM
One time they didn't let me in at LURE because I was wearing an Izod shirt and sandals. I didn't sue them, because I'm not an imbecile.
Posted by: LD | Jun 1, 2007 11:43:38 AM
The lack of government funding doesn't matter. Most companies don't receive government funding but are still bound by all relevant laws, including those prohibiting discrimination. While there is no federal law prohibiting discrimination against gays in public 'accomodations' such as this, there are plenty of state and local laws.
Posted by: Anon | Jun 1, 2007 11:46:34 AM
eHarmony's logic about 'we haven't done research on gays, so it's OK not to serve them' doesn't fly. If they had only done research on white people, they couldn't just refuse to provide services to blacks and get away with it under antidiscrimination laws.
Posted by: Anon | Jun 1, 2007 11:49:10 AM
I think it's kind of amusing that eHarmony's TV ads feature "heterosexual" men most of whom look like the most desperate suburban closet cases you could possibly dredge up. I guess their "research" department isn't as great as it's cracked up to be.
Posted by: Frank L | Jun 1, 2007 11:59:43 AM
According to the Match.com ads they are discriminating against black people. However, non-discrimination laws are not as universal you people think.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jun 1, 2007 12:00:27 PM
Has this woman thought this through at all? What exactly is she hoping to accomplish? She is suing for the right to give her money to an anti-gay person who supports anti-gay organizations like Focus on the Family. If her goal is to get a date and give her money to bigots she should just go to chemistry.com to get the date and then send a cashier’s check in the amount of an eharmony membership directly to:
Dr. James Dobson
c/o Focus on the Family
8605 Explorer Dr.
Colorado Springs, CO 80920-1051
U.S.A.
That way she can cut out the middle man and make sure that FOF gets the full amount of her contribution.
I don't believe in discrimination but for the life of me I can't understand why so many gay people work so hard to give their hard earned pink dollars to people that hate them and will turn around and give that money to political parties, organizations and churches that lobby to deny GLBT people legal rights and benefits; you know, the REALLY important stuff.
Seriously, we have to be smarter than that.
Posted by: Zeke | Jun 1, 2007 12:11:01 PM
My gut reaction is to agree with most here that a private company can market to whomever they please. It's the consumer's responsibility to call out the company's discrimination practices and spread the word on them, but I don't think legal action is required.
On the other hand, if E-Harmony is completely in their right to serve or not serve whomever they please, why don't they simply say that?
This idea that their research doesn't apply to gays and lesbians is bogus and flimsy.
If they're not worried about their own discrimination policies, why hide behind bogus research excuses?
And Stephen, your analogies about nudists in yearbooks and such is absolutely ridiculous. Straights and gays pretty much seek out the same characteristics in partners as heterosexuals do, so the two are not as disparate as boys vs. girls, clothed vs. nudists. Try again.
Posted by: mark m | Jun 1, 2007 12:14:59 PM
I'm a little surprised at the comments posted above. While I do not agree with suing at the drop of the hat (there are more important issues at hand, such as the War in Iraq and hate crime legislation and environmental law), eHarmony does allow for registration of homosexual profiles but doesn't STATE that they do not match for homosexual relationships until AFTER you have signed up and paid for the service.
Think of this analogy. A gay person walks into an establishment for a service that for all intents should be available, for example the dry cleaning scenario. However, the business states we don't offer dry cleaning for homosexual goods, or even African-American customers. It's a dry cleaning business, yet they chose not to offer their services to a specific demographic. Certainly it is their right, however it is also their right to be sued for discrimination, which is exactly what this is. The analogies offered are not on par with the situation at hand. If a company is going to offer a dating service presummed to be "the best", then it needs to defend itself for not offering that service to other demographics. Just because it is "dating" and not "dry cleaning" or "car washing" or that other services such as "Manhunt" exist doesn't justify the decision. A lot of internet services seem to get away with more as these are "virtual" services and not face to face. That is, has this woman walked into an office and been physically turned away there would certainly be more of an uproar, but because this all occurred online as opposed to a physical business turning someone away people seem less inclined to feel a bit resented.
As this is a lesbian lawsuit in particular holds more weight as there are very few dating services tailored to lesbian coupling. Many of the comments above suggest less sympathy for the woman as she is a lesbian (which is somewhat typical of the predominantly male homosexual community). If this had been a male homosexual bringing suit, perhaps the community might view this differently. Regardless, I believe there is some merit to this claim.
Posted by: Cory | Jun 1, 2007 12:34:21 PM
I'm a little surprised at the comments posted above. While I do not agree with suing at the drop of the hat (there are more important issues at hand, such as the War in Iraq and hate crime legislation and environmental law), eHarmony does allow for registration of homosexual profiles but doesn't STATE that they do not match for homosexual relationships until AFTER you have signed up and paid for the service.
Think of this analogy. A gay person walks into an establishment for a service that for all intents should be available, for example the dry cleaning scenario. However, the business states we don't offer dry cleaning for homosexual goods, or even African-American customers. It's a dry cleaning business, yet they chose not to offer their services to a specific demographic. Certainly it is their right, however it is also their right to be sued for discrimination, which is exactly what this is. The analogies offered are not on par with the situation at hand. If a company is going to offer a dating service presummed to be "the best", then it needs to defend itself for not offering that service to other demographics. Just because it is "dating" and not "dry cleaning" or "car washing" or that other services such as "Manhunt" exist doesn't justify the decision. A lot of internet services seem to get away with more as these are "virtual" services and not face to face. That is, has this woman walked into an office and been physically turned away there would certainly be more of an uproar, but because this all occurred online as opposed to a physical business turning someone away people seem less inclined to feel a bit resented.
As this is a lesbian lawsuit in particular holds more weight as there are very few dating services tailored to lesbian coupling. Many of the comments above suggest less sympathy for the woman as she is a lesbian (which is somewhat typical of the predominantly male homosexual community). If this had been a male homosexual bringing suit, perhaps the community might view this differently. Regardless, I believe there is some merit to this claim.
Posted by: Cory | Jun 1, 2007 12:34:23 PM
Sorry, odd that my comment got double posted, I only hit "post" once, so sorry 'bout that :(
Posted by: Cory | Jun 1, 2007 12:37:10 PM
Mark M, what Stephen wanted to say was that "gays can't have children naturally" and therefore shouldn't be allowed on regular people's dating websites. After all we are different and therefore should be kept separate at all times for the sake of the children. He's learned to be a bit more clever in how he says it but the bottom line is he still finds a way to work in the same old FoF talking point quackery that he always has.
The analogy about a straight woman on Manhunt was much more intelligent and applicable.
The thing that I find most annoying about eharmony's response to all of this was when they released a statement recently that said that gays were not discriminated against at their site because NO ONE, homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual was allowed to use eharmony to find a date of the same sex AND gays were perfectly free and encouraged to use the site to find dates of the opposite sex. I've heard that insulting argument before in the marriage equality debate.
My only question is: How good can their "scientific" matching be if it can find the "perfect", female, ROMANTIC match, and marriage candidate for a gay man?
Wouldn't this seriously cut into Exodus' and Love Won Out's match making territory?
Posted by: Zeke | Jun 1, 2007 12:44:11 PM
If she had to pay to find out she was never going to get a match she should sue for fraud and misrepresentation, not discrimination. A site like "manhunt" clearly broadcasts that you won't find women on the site for example, but if it said "matehunt" it might be more confusing. The paying first part is troubling.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jun 1, 2007 2:18:40 PM
I dont see how EHarmony allows for registration of homosexual profiles like you're saying Cody. The very first thing you fill out is
I am a:
Man seeking a Woman
Woman seeking a Man
Those are the only 2 choices. Thats it.
I dont see how you can compare it to car washing or dry cleaning. We all drive the same cars, and wear the same clothes. Those are not specialty services. On the contrary, if you took your 1 million dollar Persian area rug to your corner dry cleaner, and they said "im sorry, we dont have the equipment to work on that fancy of a material..Try one of these other dry cleaners that does."..Is that still discriminatory, or is it simply saying that you should take your business to a place that can better serve you?
Posted by: Chris | Jun 1, 2007 2:35:08 PM
Sorry, Cory, not Cody.
Posted by: Chris | Jun 1, 2007 2:38:18 PM
Whoah, back up Chris. See, this was my point earlier. You are assuming that same sex coupling is a "specialty" service. No it isn't. The criteria to match partners is not so specialized as to be completely different for hets and homos.
When you take hundreds of criteria that people look for in a mate, same gender is but ONE of the criteria. What about the rest? This argument that E-Harmony isn't equipped to provide matching service for gays is laughable.
Posted by: mark m | Jun 1, 2007 2:45:32 PM
I disagree. I dont believe that gay men are looking for the same things in men, as women are, or that lesbians are looking for the same types as women as straight men. Or do "women seeking men" personal ads have places to mark "top/bottom" on them now?
Posted by: Chris | Jun 1, 2007 2:49:05 PM
Also, where is the straight personals section on gay.com?
Posted by: Chris | Jun 1, 2007 2:50:28 PM
Chris, black women may want slightly different things in their men than white women do. By your logic, eHarmony should be able to bar blacks if their research happened to only be on whites.
Posted by: Anon | Jun 1, 2007 2:58:28 PM
You're correct in saying that gay men are not looking for exactly the same qualities in a man as a straight woman. But one straight man may seek different qualities in a woman than the next straight man. How do you account for these differences?
You don't use one model to match all men with women, thus you wouldn't be restricted to using the model of women seeking men to apply to gay men.
I'm not arguing for the sake of this law suit. I take specific issue with the owner and founder's logic. His response to NPR's Terry Gross was that he isn't gay, so he can't provide a service to match them. But what makes him an expert for finding what women want?
It's a copout. We know exactly why they don't offer the service, but they won't admit it.
Posted by: mark m | Jun 1, 2007 2:59:36 PM
Chris - gay.com doesn't bar straights. Straights may not want to post there, but they aren't excluded. You're really grasping at straws.
Posted by: Anon | Jun 1, 2007 3:01:46 PM
To: Zeke
From Wikipedia.org:
Artificial insemination (AI) is when sperm is placed into a female's uterus (intrauterine), or cervix (intracervical) using artificial means rather than by natural copulation.
That's all I have to say regarding your previous post.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 1, 2007 3:07:28 PM
I think Chris said it well (and succinctly) by asking where is the straight section on Gay.com
Frankly, I don't care if it's a sham or not about eHarmony's reason for not offering the service to gay people. The basics of dating may be the same, but I have to agree Chris on his point about the sexual preferences. Not every gay man is versatile. So unless a woman likes anal sex, top vs. bottom is not really a consideration between heterosexuals. So there's a pretty significant difference right there.
Further, if you look at the other complaints floating around about eHarmony, you will see that they have a habit of rejecting straight people as well based on their profile answers. Does it seem silly? Sure. But so what? They have their scheme and they have obviously designed it to maximize the potential of success by excluding people they don't think will be well-matched to others. And that happens to include gay men and women.
The dry cleaner analogy didn't work for some. So here's a different perspective (that's on the subject of discrimination):
A man visits an attorney because he was fired from a job because he is gay. The attorney hears his story but says "I'm not going to take your case because I specialize in gender and family status cases...I don't know much about sexual orientation cases...you should really seek an attorney that has more experience with your situation."
IS it a perfect analogy? No, but food for thought nonetheless.
Is discrimination pretty much the same on the basic level? Sure. But there are some nuances that could make a big difference. And that is why I have no objection to their claim about not having the research on gay relationships. It MIGHT be bullshit, but does it really matter if you consider what difference it would make it they just said they didn't like gay people?
An important question to ask is, do I really want to force someone to do business with me that doesn't want to because of silly "religious and moral" beliefs?
Discrimination sucks...it's wrong. But like it or not, they DO have a plausible reason. And if they really don't want to do business with me, then I don't want to do business with them. I'm happy knowing that my money isn't lining the pockets of bigots.
Frankly, I think this kind of case makes us look like the whiny sissies homophobes say we are. I'm personally more disgusted by the actions of that asshole with TB that decided to take a little world tour and risk the health of others when he knew he shouldn't have.
Not THAT is disgusting and selfish behavior which is worthy of a lawsuit.
Posted by: Patrick W. | Jun 1, 2007 3:43:46 PM
The most fundamental complaint against eharmony would be if their "matching" algorithm had a high failure rate. Then they can be sued for several causes: fraud, misrepresentation, neglect, etc. They are very vulnerable on that point alone. So, if she wins her case but still can't find the love of her life, can she sue again??
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jun 1, 2007 4:30:40 PM
Oh thank you, thank you, thank you Stephen for explaining AI to me. Without your brilliance I never would have known how my son was conceived.
Now explain to me again why he doesn't deserve married parents and explain to me again how unnatural my son and my family are.
You are still an idiot.
Posted by: Zeke | Jun 1, 2007 4:49:03 PM
I'm with Cory. I tried eHarmony a couple of years ago when they first started advertising. At that time they didn't have a "man seeking man" option, they just asked if I was male and then apparently assumed I was seeking a woman. However, one question specifically asked me how attracted I was to the opposite sex and gave me a scale to rate my answer-0 to 10, I think.
I rated myself a 1 and after another 45 minutes of filling out their forms was told that I matched NO ONE on their entire site. I wondered at the time if it was the gay thing or if some of my other answers had branded me a psychopath not deserving of love. It was, at least for a moment, kind of traumatic. At no time was I informed that they didn't match gays and I felt confused and that I had wasted a LOT of time.
To see the chemistry.com ad years later brought up those feelings of rejection and helped me close of little door of doubt that had eHarmony had opened. It wasn't just me!
If the woman filing the lawsuit has been working off of feelings like that, the suit makes sense to me. I don't believe she wants to give this reprehensible service her money. I would suspect that she wants eHarmony's idiocy brought to light. I had no idea of the site's evangelical bent until now either.
If anyone knows how to contact the class action suit, please post. I'll sign up in a minute if it would force eHarmony to run TV ads admitting their prejudices and religious affiliations.
Posted by: PrFodorski | Jun 1, 2007 5:11:53 PM
Geez, lots of defenders of the James Dobson-linked eHarmony on here. Weird and depressing.
Anyway, the bottom line is that eHarmony may be in violation of California law: http://pageoneq.com/news/2006/eh060107.html
Posted by: JOHN IN MANHATTAN | Jun 1, 2007 5:21:05 PM
Thats the thing about Eharmony. It does use one model to match all women and men. Its not like normal dating services where you fill out a profle yourself. With Eharmony, you fill out a preset quiz after you say whether you're a man seeking a woman, or a woman seeking a man, and if i remember correctly, it is pretty gender specific. For gays to use the site, they would have to come up with a whole new quiz. I dont know why they dont simply say that as their reasoning. Just deal with it. You dont expect a survey at a vegetarian restaurant to ask how you like your steak cooked..you shouldnt expect every service in the world to cater to every single type of person.
Posted by: Chris | Jun 1, 2007 5:23:53 PM
As a straight woman with plenty of gay friends, the minute I heard eHarmony discriminated they were off my list -- and I am an online dating junkie! I just won't ever use them and advise my friends to do the same. This society has become too litigious.
Posted by: JENNI | Jun 1, 2007 5:32:47 PM
This is absurd.
Let us assume for the moment that eHarmony has actually done some kind of research, maybe some "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" kind of thing that matches men and women up according to these Cosmopolitan-like Survey points.
It is relatively easy to see that perhaps they did not develop and were not interested in developing a similar algorithm for gay men and lesbians. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for small favors, as I'm sure that they would have had "bottoms" register as the "women" and "tops" register as the "men" if current scientific inquiries into homosexuality are any clue. (Did anyone see that episode of 60 minutes? creepy.)
I think this is a lot closer to why sperm banks discriminate against women sperm donors rather than discrimination in housing. The service being offered goes to the heart of being gay or straight. The real question is how does Hooter's get away with hiring only female wait-staff? (Because the "service" is not "food delivered" but "food delivered by a female with big tits"? I dunno.)
The very heart of non-discrimination is that sexual orientation doesn't make a difference with respect to doing the work or the service provided but it clearly does with a matching service (not a profile site or a hookup site--manhunt probably fails this test but very few straight men and women are likely to care).
OTOH, it is very difficult to believe that the whole "Men/Mars;Women/Venus" thing doesn't apply to irrespective of race. So discrimination against blacks would clearly be wrong. Now someone is free to say there are better matching algorithms for blacks. Can that site now discriminate? Well, they should at least warn people that their algorithm is tailored to blacks but what if they don't even provide a race option? I think that would fail discriminatory tests as well.
It's like these morons who say that Sean Cody (and Blake Mason and Corbin Fisher) discriminates against some customers because all of his "actors" are early 20-something "straight" boys. He is selling a particular service and image. If you want to watch 40-something mixed race porn, make it or live it. Perhaps the market isn't large enough or Sean just doesn't care but he shouldn't be forced to provide porn he doesn't want to make. Or he should be forced to provide straight porn as well (well, straight porn for straight people).
Diversity doesn't mean everyone is a rainbow...it means all of the colors get along.
That the guy is a Xian wacko is a good reason to tell your straight friends to not use the service but it has nothing to do with the service per se.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 1, 2007 5:36:48 PM
I too had noticed that eHarmony didn't have a MAN SEEKING MAN or WOMAN SEEKING WOMAN option to their service, which I thought was strange but it didn't bother me too much. All I did was flag all their promotional emails as SPAM and that was that, since they obviously didn't cater to "my" type. It's like walking into a casual store shopping for tuxedos. Rather than haggle the owner it's better to just leave and go to a store that does carry what you're after. Having said that, after seeing their ads on tv claiming to have such a high success rate it would be nice if they were able to boast the same success with gay and lesbian singles.
Posted by: Levi | Jun 1, 2007 6:23:57 PM
I'm honestly stunned at the people here defending eHarmony. Hmmmm, I don't know where to begin. I suppose to the individuals who suggested that seeking services from a provider that doesn't specifically provide such services, well, those analogies do not make much sense. EHarmony is a dating service, thus they provide online dating tools for people looking to meet other singles. No where in their advertisements did they specifically state "EHarmony is a Christian based online dating service for heterosexual couples only". This is not statement upfront or in their advertisements as eHarmony certainly knows that violates California law (http://pageoneq.com/news/2006/eh060107.html), where the suit is generated. Further, such a statement would encite negative press.
Comparing other services, such as someone walking into a law office and being turned away because that particular lawyer doesn't specialize in the law the client is in need of, is preposterous. Comparing different sects of the legal field to different sects of dating is tantamount to comparing apples and oranges. To offer dating services to heterosexual couples only for whatever reasons, is more equivalent to offering services based on race. If you do not want to offer it to the gay community, then state such in your advertisements; be upfront about it. When one makes the comparison of dry cleaning and law specialities to human beings, that degrades the value of humanity by comparing them to dry goods. The fact is eHarmony neglects the homosexuality community based on their founders bias Christian beliefs in "Focus on the Family", thus discriminating against a segment of the population. This is done indirectly through false advertising, as it wasn't until recently that their profiles were tailored to "man seeking woman" and "woman seeking man", but later came after the applicant paid and THEN filled out the info. Pretty interesting debate though... =)
Posted by: Cory | Jun 1, 2007 7:16:55 PM
THEY NEED A DATING SITE FOR ALL THE FUGLY PEOPLE: I just HATE it when ugly people, fat people, etc. send me their pics online. It is so insulting.....as if I would associate with them much less date them. Don't they ever look in the mirror? Eck.
Posted by: tonytonytony | Jun 1, 2007 7:19:30 PM
I dont know about that. I tried to sign up with it while I was still in college, and it already had the "man seeking woman" and "woman seeking man" requirements as the very first question, and I graduated in 2004.
Posted by: Chris | Jun 1, 2007 7:21:28 PM
I agree with TONYTONYTONY all the way!!! There are WAY to many FUGLY guys online these days. They should just go straight home and sit in the dark instead of menacing us with their presence. Eck.
Posted by: actionjackson | Jun 1, 2007 7:23:00 PM
It is not clear from that article that they have violated CA law, or that the law applies, or that the law is constitutional. There is a first amendment right to free association, despite what many here think.
Suppose you have a clothes shop. Must you sell both women's and men's clothes? Must you also sell big and tall clothes, children's clothes, maternity clothing and custom tailored outfits for the handicapped? The crux of this issue is the inventory the purveyor must maintain to satisfy the law on one side versus the access any person has to purchase the inventory. The problem for an online dating service is that the inventory and the clients are one and the same! In order for them to exclude inventory they must also exclude clients.
Now, eHarmony will claim that they offer a dating service that calculates how compatible for marriage a particular women would be for a particular man and vice versa. They are not preventing gay or lesbian men and women from using the service, but that just as a big and tall man may have trouble fitting into a 30/33 size pair of jeans, a gay man might have trouble fitting into the resulting output of their calculations. What advocates here are demanding is that they increase their inventory to satisfy the needs of LGBT people. The advocates are arguing that such an inventory increase is trivial (just add a few buttons on the screen). This would be like a big and tall person going to a custom tailoring shop and being turned away. Why would a custom tailoring shop have any more difficulty fitting a big and tall person rather than a average sized person? The company will argue that a) any inventory is at their discretion and b) it would not be trivial to alter their site (they've already said as much). Both sides would have to find legal precedent to support their case. I believe that both movie houses and airlines have been sued by generously portioned people who have argued that the provided seats are too small, but such cases have not been successful. If so, her case doesn't stand much chance. However, if you can find case law in the other direction, please let us know.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jun 1, 2007 8:13:41 PM
Suppose you have a clothes shop. Must you sell both women's and men's clothes?
-Again, apples and oranges. People are not clothes, and comparing a dating service to selling clothing is faulty logic.
What if eHarmony stated "We don't offer our dating service to African-American couples as our research doesn't apply to those unions"? Would you still feel the same way? Would the African-American community be accepting of such services? That is a better analogy than comparing homosexuals to clothing.
Posted by: Cory | Jun 1, 2007 8:21:30 PM
In regards to "finding case law" to suggest a criminal or civil suit, one does not need case precedents to establish a new case. As this is a matter the courts have most likely not ruled on before, perhaps it is time they did and thus establish new case precedents. That is how laws are established. If every case were solely dependant upon previous cases, suits would never have any merit. Case precedents merely help prove merit, not justify it.
Again, comparing homosexuals to clothing and dating services to tailoring shops is apples and oranges. The use of a better analogy, for example denying services based to race, is more fitting in this situation...
Posted by: Cory | Jun 1, 2007 8:27:02 PM
Cory: Blah
Anon (Gmail.com): Blah Blah.
Cory: Blah Blah Blah.
Eck.
Posted by: tonytonytony | Jun 1, 2007 10:29:57 PM
TONYTONYTONY:
This is a comments section for discussion. I'm sorry this debate is a nuisance to you, but if you really don't care for it then don't read it and insult the people who are leaving comments. That's like walking into a political debate and complaining that everyone's talking too much.
(FYI It's "Tony Toni Tone" not "TONY TONY TONY", assuming you were referencing the old 80's musical group)
Posted by: Cory | Jun 1, 2007 10:51:11 PM
Yeah, Cory, comparing clothing to gay peoples is apples to oranges..because gay people vs straight people is even more specialized than clothing. Your race argument doesnt apply because just because people are of a different race, doesnt mean that they are looking for different things in their mates, and therefore, they can use the exact same template for any race of men seeking women, and women seeking men. To include gay people would mean that they would have to create an entirely new template. No matter what you say, gay personal ads and straight personal ads are not the same. Again, do straight men mark top or bottom on their profile? Or masculine, in between, or feminine? Relationships between gay men are different from relationships between striaght couples. Its just a fact. Its their right to say that they dont want to create an entirely new template.
Posted by: Chris | Jun 1, 2007 11:07:48 PM
Chris:
Relationships between everyone are objective and different, whether gay or straight. Everyone is looking for the same thing: love, a connection, a companion, not just sex. Using the excuse that gay men are a different "template" (again, using words such as "template" suggests a less humanistic quality in gay men, where as emotional/human characteristics would be more fitting).
Explain what the differences are between gay and heterosexual relationships. If in your mind it comes down to sex, as in top/bottom/etc., that doesn't add up as heterosexual couples have their own sexual preferences and most gay men can go both ways depending on the connection.
When you differentiate homosexual relationships from heterosexual relationships you are suggesting that homosexuals are not looking for love and companionship, and are somehow seeking something else. What is that "else"?
Posted by: Cory | Jun 1, 2007 11:19:38 PM
They have the right to do what they want, whether we like it or not. Go somewhere else.
Posted by: toddo-pdx | Jun 1, 2007 11:26:36 PM
Sure, they have the right to do what they want, just as we have the right to sue.
Cory got a point bud, there is more to gay relationships than just sex, me thinks you've been on manhunt a wee-bit too much. Plus straight couples have different sexual tastes as well - some women like to be on top, some like S & M, but that shit isn't part of the initial dating process on match sites but comes later. Gay men aren't just about S E X.
Posted by: NightOwl | Jun 1, 2007 11:40:01 PM
Either Towleroad has some self-loathing homo's on here or there are some straight's trolling around, either way I'm shocked at the comments. Just because it's a private company does not give them the right to discriminate, and the apathy displayed above is disgusting. When does it end? If our community condones this then we are sending the message to other businesses that this discrimination is ok. It's pathetic. Would Rosa Parks has simply said "sure, I'll sit at the back of the bus, why not"? It's weak. I applaud the individual for suing, and I'm sure she's not suing for money but to take a stand that this will not be tolerated.
What happened to us? When did we become so pathetic and weak? If we let one little thing go, then we might as well let everything else go with it.
Posted by: Wow | Jun 1, 2007 11:50:01 PM
Cory, again, the site does not block gay men and women from using their service, it just will not produce results that gay men and women want. A clothing store would find little cause to exclude blacks since blacks and whites can wear the same clothes, but a clothing store that catered to black-African dress styles could not be charged with racial discrimination simply due to its inventory. A store that sold only women's clothes does not discriminate against men because men can buy women's clothes (for themselves or for others), but it is unlikely that most men will shop for their own clothes at a women's store. What are you are confusing is being barred at the door, which no one is doing, with not finding what you want inside. If a store does not have African-dress styles does it 'degrade' or 'demean' such styles? Obviously not. Similarly, a website for str8 dating does not demean gay relationships.
Now, for Rosa Parks, could she sue if the bus did not take her past her home? No, she took the wrong bus. Got it?
Can the gay community give eHarmony bad PR over this? Yeah, sure, go ahead.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jun 2, 2007 1:17:17 AM
Okay, guys, HERE'S the kicker...
What IF eharmony offered a gay selection and was- you'll excuse the term- FABULOUS at matching you with just the right man? Would you still use them? KNOWING that your dollars were going to James "gay people are evil" Dobson and "Focus on the Family"[sic]?
If this is the case, I hope the Westboro people never throw a Sunday BBQ and invite all the "fags". I'm afraid too many would line up...
Posted by: Dean | Jun 2, 2007 2:49:31 AM
You people just really don't get it. ANON (GMAIL.COM), DEAN, CHRIS, you are all so ignorant it's sad. Keep on believing what ever it is that makes you get through your little lives. Maybe that bus will take you straight to were you need to go, further away from sanity.
Posted by: JeffC | Jun 2, 2007 8:45:25 AM
You know what eHarmony and its charitable beneficiaries have in common with the groups who want to sue eHarmony? They both have a bad case of, "You must behave the way I want you to behave!!!"
Posted by: Rob | Jun 2, 2007 11:36:57 AM
IS THERE ANY WAY WE COULD LIMIT CORY'S INDIVIDUAL POSTS TO 10,000 WORDS OR LESS?
Jeez. I am beginning to wonder if "Cory" is just a pseudonym for Bill Clinton. They both just go on...and on...and on...
Posted by: Tony the Tiger | Jun 2, 2007 4:28:32 PM
I agree with Tony the Tiger all the way!!!
Cory's posts are too long and boring. I know noone ever reads Cory's posts but they take a long time to scroll through because they are so loooooong and it hurts my fingers.
Posted by: Action Jackson | Jun 2, 2007 4:32:05 PM
Awww, thanks guys, it's nice to know I'm appreciated. My heart just melted from all the kindness, maturity and gratification. Thanks :')...
PS If a few sentences are too long for you to wrap your tiny heads around, I'd try some beginners reading courses, and some ritilin, might help with those focus issues... oh and if your hand hurts from that much scrolling, I'd lay off the porn. Just some pointers... assuming you got this far... Now GTFO...
Posted by: Cory | Jun 2, 2007 4:55:12 PM
Oh and TONY TONY TONY (tony.may@rcn.com), TONY THE TIGER (Charles.Jackson@aol.com) and ACTION JACKSON (tony.may@rcn.com) if you're going to post under different names pretending to be someone else, at least use different email addresses (TONY TONY TONY and Action Jackson both posted with the same email) and TONY THE TIGER with Charles.Jackson). Really lame, and more over why did you single me out of all the posts? Did my comments upset you enough to post in multiple names trying to shut me down? GROW UP. If you don't like it, don't comment on it, or at least do so with some maturity.
Andy, if you're reading this, I'd suggest blocking the IP of whomever this user is, it's annoying and takes away from everyone who enjoys this blog...
Again, great seeing you at your b-day party, hope you're beating the heat...
Posted by: Cory | Jun 2, 2007 5:01:43 PM
Well at least Cory kept his latest post under 10,000 words. Though he could have made the same point in two sentences or less. We are making some improvement. (Now if there was just some way we could get him off this site altogether. I'll have to ask Andy T. the next time I run into him on Fire Island.)
You can all thank me later.
Posted by: Tony May | Jun 2, 2007 5:34:12 PM
Tony, you got owned boy rofl! Stop using different names to post and ride Cory's jock as no one cares what you think and all you're doing is pissing people off. Get out of your parents basement and get a life boy.
Posted by: Jay D | Jun 2, 2007 8:20:27 PM
JeffC, I take it you don't agree with something I've said? I wish I could say I care... But I don't.
Posted by: Dean | Jun 2, 2007 9:30:39 PM
Tony tony tony/tony may/action jackson/tony the tiger - seems like you're a little bitter. Did Cory reject your sorry ass? Do us all a favor and get over it, move and and grow up. Please.
Posted by: Ani | Jun 2, 2007 10:33:10 PM
eharmony was off my list once I found out they were faith based. Considering 70% of all marriages end in divorce, I can't help but wonder if it is a desperate attempt to save a dying institution. Maybe they should include us. Our straight brethren always seem to want stuff that we breathe new life into after they gutted it beyond recognition. Oh wouldn't that be an irony?
Eharmony will win because they are not refusing gays/lesbians, they just don't offer same sex matches, may seem like quibbling words but, under the law it is the difference between winning/losing.
As for the lesbian comment above about how it would be different if it was a man suing...really nice way to rally the troops to your side. The "I'm a helpless victim" line is so 80's.
And Cory, you did come off as whiny. Maybe not the intent but you seem rather bitter that no one else agrees w/you. Maybe you should sue!
Posted by: moby | Jun 3, 2007 12:58:14 AM
Nice posts, but a lot of the amateur law regarding who has what rights is laughable. Denying any one a service in an industry that offers that same service to others is discimination, no matter how you slice and dice it.
Moby: how was Cory whiny? If anything, most people on here are just being a bunch of bitches who need to chill out and not get so damn offensive (or maybe you're just bitter your last album bombed lol). Chip, shoulder, big. Get it? Good.
Posted by: Jas | Jun 3, 2007 7:04:19 AM
Oh, and Moby, tell that "I'm a helpless victim line is so 80's" to Andrew Anthos, or Matthew Shephard, or [insert dead hate crime victim name here]. I agree with Cory, so don't speak for me, and while you're at it, grow a heart and a brain.
Posted by: Jas | Jun 3, 2007 7:06:49 AM
LOL! A good lawsuit is a good lawsuit. The question is whether or not the woman, who is starting the lawsuit, will actually win? If that is the case, can I get a few bucks out of the deal too?
Posted by: TIAGuy | Jun 3, 2007 2:16:39 PM
Nice of you to drag Matthew into this. However, there is a big difference between killing someone and not agreeing w/them.
Not everyone has to agree with us or provide us service. We need to pick and choose our battles instead of "whining" over every little injustice.
Oh, and thanks for the comment you left. Classic! Next time, at least switch IP's.
Posted by: moby | Jun 3, 2007 3:35:40 PM
If we ignore the small battles then we lose the fight.
What comment? And what IP address? I'm behind a secure server that blocks my IP from being singled out, so trying to pin something on me that I didn't write won't float, but nice try. If you aren't a popular guy, might need to rethink how you talk to and treat others. PEACE
Posted by: JAS | Jun 3, 2007 6:31:23 PM
you can't add race cause it works by the basis that your attracted to certain qualities not person's race. You could be a black woman primarily attreacted to whites, or hispanics, or asians, or vice versa.
Its obvious why hes not doing it hallmark does not sell gay oriented cards what gay people don't have messages or feelings. People always threathen to boycott something don't go their. I like sherbert and whitechocolate ice cream i can't go to a mom and pop store i deal with it
Posted by: sasha | Jun 4, 2007 3:05:29 PM
Recent Comments