It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pro-Gay Atheist: Here’s why you should stand with Christian Mingle

page: 15
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: kaylaluv

so, if christian mingle changed their name to straight christian mingle and Spark Networks started another site called gay christian mingle?



So again, separate but equal?

You really don't see the issue inherent here, Dawnstar?


It would be legal, though. It has sufficed for other companies before.

It would just need to offer the same features, just as with E-harmony had to have the same questionnaire-type matching system with their gay site.




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Quibbles about whether the company is subject to California law are moot.

It's fairly clear from a legal standpoint. That's why Spark settled.

Let's approach this from another standpoint ... how, exactly, would any of the straight Christians on CM be bothered by the addition of same-sex functionality?

How would they be harmed? Because they have to indicate the sex they're interested in meeting?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: kaylaluv

so, if christian mingle changed their name to straight christian mingle and Spark Networks started another site called gay christian mingle?



So again, separate but equal?

You really don't see the issue inherent here, Dawnstar?


It would be legal, though. It has sufficed for other companies before.

It would just need to offer the same features, just as with E-harmony had to have the same questionnaire-type matching system with their gay site.


I don't think it would be legal in California, under their statutes.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: DeadFoot

And exactly what was I "wrong" about?



1. Saying you need a membership to join; you don't, you need a membership to send messages. You can still send smiles, browse, and receive messages.

2. Saying that this would mean that they have to change every one of their sites



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

well you have to admit that it's much easier for the gay person to just go to another website than it is for a women in a pregnancy crisis to travel 100 miles to the nearest non-catholic affiliated hospital for proper care!
and it seems that the courts and gov't have no problem with that one.
how much of an undue burden does a lgbt person endure because of christian mingle's website compared to the burden the company would have changing the site, and what if it really defies the moral integrity of the designers of that site?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: kaylaluv

so, if christian mingle changed their name to straight christian mingle and Spark Networks started another site called gay christian mingle?



So again, separate but equal?

You really don't see the issue inherent here, Dawnstar?


It would be legal, though. It has sufficed for other companies before.

It would just need to offer the same features, just as with E-harmony had to have the same questionnaire-type matching system with their gay site.


I don't think it would be legal in California, under their statutes.



Perhaps in a court ruling, but the statues don't look much different to me



Prohibited discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation must be based on certain protected classes and include these adverse actions: denial of service, terms and conditions, unequal treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation.

Protected classes for places of public accommodation are: Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

YES, you are correct, however...(as I have already stated)...for most intelligent people equal rights are important so to just ignore it and move on to the next site will not fix anything.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: veracity

how much of an undue burden does a lgbt person endure because of christian mingle's website


Depends on the person, really. Most wouldn't care.


compared to the burden the company would have changing the site


If we're talking changing the mechanics in the existing site that's maybe $50 worth of coding, it's really absolutely nothing.


and what if it really defies the moral integrity of the designers of that site?


The designers already have other sites that offer services to gay people. They are just not accommodating them here based on the faulty assumption that "Christian" means "No gay people".

So really they don't even have a leg of "religious freedom" to stand on.
edit on 6-7-2016 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Are companies in California that make prosthetics forced to make them for whole people? Does this mean that men will be able to get IUD's after California forces the manufacturer to make them.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do, but I don't want to???

depending on how old christian mingle is, and how crappy the original designers were in writing the documentation to the site, it might be quite costly to redesign it to accommodate the lgbt community.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: tmeister182

stretching it



stay on subject



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

Hmmm ... here's the applicable California statute:

Unruh Civil Rights Act

Relevant portion:



(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: SlapMonkey

To me, a public company is one that is open to the public, not necessarily on the stock market.


Well, to me, I go by the definition given by places like this: Investopedia. To me, that's a big difference, because there really is a true definition of "public company" and "private company," and it has nothing to do with whether or not they are open to the general public.


The pet owner discrimination is very different from minority group discrimination. That is really stretching it and comparing apples to oranges.

If a gay man identifies as Christian, then goes onto a Christian website and there is no "male in search of male" option...then that is considered a public company discriminating against a minority and is not allowed.


While I concede that the two discriminations are different, but since you were vague in your comment about the ability to discriminate in America, my point wasn't to compare apples to apples as much as make the point that discrimination is okay in some forms.

Also, Christian Mingle is not a public company--it is a wholly owned subsidiary, meaning it is not publicly traded. Whether or not that gives them more leeway concerning ability to hyper-focus its customer base (or, as some of you call it, "discriminate"), that's beyond my expertise. Apparently a California court sided with those calling it discrimination (surprise, surprise...it is a California court, after all). I beg to differ, because it's not exactly a monopoly in online dating, so there were plenty of other places to go. I mean, I don't get pissy and "Big & Tall" stores, even though I'm only 5'5" tall and they don't cater to me over something that I can't control. Maybe I should sue?


They could go to other "gay only" websites, yes...but still, many intelligent people care about their rights and rights of others and will go the extra mile...(sue)...to correct the discriminator.


But on the same note, I also recognize that people who start businesses have a right to structure their business in the way that they deem fit. If a bakery only bakes cakes or bread, but not donuts, do people who want donuts have the right to demand that they start making them, just because they call themselves a bakery? I know plenty of classic-car parts sites that cater to one specific type of care instead of all of them--should they be forced to have a business model that caters to all vehicle owners similar to AutoZone?

This is the point that I'm getting at. I do see your point and actually concede that detail--if they say that they are a Christian dating site, and there are plenty of LBGT Christians out there, then they probably should have included that from the start. But in my opinion, they should not be forced to change their business model just because their name is rather vague.

I just get really tired of Big Government coming in a telling private businesses (and even "public" businesses) what to do in such minute detail.


I understand that many people who discriminate to not even realize they are discriminating...that is a huge problem today. That is why it must be enforced.


And I also understand that many see discrimination where there really is none...at least none that is worthy of legislation and judiciary action. But I guess that's all subjective opinion, isn't it?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do, but I don't want to???

depending on how old christian mingle is, and how crappy the original designers were in writing the documentation to the site, it might be quite costly to redesign it to accommodate the lgbt community.



One thing's for certain, if they had simply updated the site, they wouldn't have had to pay over $400K in legal fees.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It seems as if this has gone completely over your head, you cannot be discriminatory to pet owners, or "whole people" or bakers who just bake donuts.

I hope you guys are kidding, bc you sound absolutely ridiculous.

Sorry you do not understand it. Maybe with time you will.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

they paid $400 thousand to settle out of court??
this is why I sit at home and do nothing instead of being brave and starting my own site in an attempt to earn a living wage. of course, if I did I wouldn't want to leave anyone out and would be quite accommodating. but, did the people filing suit really give the dating site the chance to accommodate before they started legal challenges?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

depending on how old christian mingle is, and how crappy the original designers were in writing the documentation to the site, it might be quite costly to redesign it to accommodate the lgbt community.



Or they could just copy and paste the dropdown menu HTML from their other site in about 10 seconds and modify the CSS to accomodate the extra space in about 3 minutes.




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

I wonder how many "christians" are upset to find out that their singles site is not fully backed up by other "christians" but by just everyday business people who also fund and work on other websites that allow gays.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

I kind of think there would be more than that to it...

ya know, changing the forms, changing the outputs, changing the programming that is used to match compatible people??

would be easier to just change their name to straight christian mingle.
after all, they are already discriminating by not offering their service to those of other religious faiths.
and another one of their sites is discriminating according to race
and another one is discriminating according to age.

they would lose alot of their appeal if they didn't discriminate like this.
which is what my original point was... the internet works best by aiming your content to a targeted group of people, it helps us to not have to go through a million sites unrelated to what we are looking for, but by doing this you are discriminating.





edit on 6-7-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: tmeister182

No, but if they are in the business to sell prosthetic legs to people without legs, they must sell prosthetic legs to black people without legs and to gay people without legs, etc.

See the difference? They can't refuse to sell prosthetic limbs to limbless people because of their race or their religion or their nationality or (in California at least) their sexual orientation.




top topics



 
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join