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: 16
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadFoot1. 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.


So, basically, not really use the site at all, other than hope that people talk to you. Okay...I guess that means that you are a member. I guess.


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


And how's that? Every one of their sites listed cater to a specific group of people, so unless every site that they own except for Christian Mingle has the ability to seek out all of the LGBT possibilities, they'll either proactively update them, or wait for a few people looking to sue and then have to deal with this all over again. I doubt that Spark wants to pay legal fees for every site that they have.




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

Look, veracity, I don't think that you quite get it. You seem to think that every business in every sector in all of America must cater to all people and their wants and desires--this simply is not the case.

And I don't need you to tell me how the legal system works--I'm going on a decade of working in the legal system, most of which is at the federal level and most of which has dealt directly with legal research or interpreting evidence for trial. I get how the legal system works, and I also understand that many of the laws in this country (to include the Unruh Civil Rights Act) are written so vaguely that it leaves way too much up to interpretation by the judge and creates an unnecessary burden on our legal system due to appeals (with many rulings getting overturned).

So, just because one state's vague law is interpreted one way by one judge does not mean that it is the only legal way to interpret that specific law in this case. Furthermore, rulings like this open up a damn-large kettle of worms for how the courts are allowed to dictate to whom private businesses must cater based on vague laws. Really, it is the legislators that need to get more specific when writing laws, but I still don't think that it would stop the amount of legislation over hurt feelings based on perceived discrimination.

Your personal feelings about how you think I (and others, apparently) sound to you is irrelevant. But just understand that someone who doesn't even know the difference between a public or private company should not be telling others how ridiculous we sound.

Take care.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
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?





That's an excellent question that I have not been able to discover the answer to.

I would think that a request for reasonable accommodation would have to be rejected before they could have filed a case.

That is mere conjecture on my part though.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
but, did the people filing suit really give the dating site the chance to accommodate before they started legal challenges?



And therein lies the meat of the problem. If we knew that answer, some of the back-and-forth bickering on here would be null and void.

I know what my gut tells me, but I don't want to assume. I'm going to see if I can figure that out.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It seems as if you do not understand what a public company is...right there I should have stopped talking to you.

YOu have your cherry picked definition, but a public company is any company open to the public, serves the public, sells to the public...understand?

And if you are studying legal issues, then that is good bc then maybe you will understand better



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

So, have you researched the case or ruling at all?

Washington Times

The terms approved by a state judge Monday also applied to other Spark-owned sites that had operated in the same fashion, including CatholicMingle.com, AdventistSinglesConnection.com and BlackSingles.com, the Journal reported.


So...yeah.
edit on 6-7-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

*sigh*

Okay, veracity.

Look, I fully get that, for the purposes of some laws, "public company" means something different. But when I first mentioned that they were a private company and that you deemed it fit to jump down my throat about that, I was using it in the definition in which I provided to you--that it was not a publicly traded company on the stock exchange, and furthermore, that it was a membership-only company. Can you comprehend that possibility? (that's a serious question)

If you want to nitpick that--still--then that's up to you, but I didn't use it incorrectly. But, whatever makes you feel intellectually superior, go for it. I won't discriminate against your right to do so.

And I'm not "studying legal issues," I do that research for a living. Granted, I don't deal with this type of crap on a daily basis, so I'm certainly no expert (as I've already stated), but if I were to pit my ability to understand law over yours, I'm fully happy with mine.

Best regards...you should probably stop talking to me now.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

lol, ok, bye, it was nice chatting with you. I hope you become more enlightened on the subject.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DeadFoot

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

ya know, changing the forms
11th grade stuff,

changing the outputs
For what? The databasing? Again, this is minutes of work,

changing the programming that is used to match compatible people??
actually once the prior 2 were done the only thing that would have to change here would be to match M4M with M4M and F4F with F4F for those who have it selected.


would be easier to just change their name to straight christian mingle.


I bet you that would make things great for their PR.



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.


What? How would you have to go to a different site if it had m4m and f4f? You would never see these people. You're making no sense.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




For now, ChristianMingle will only ask a user whether he or she is a man or woman. Spark Networks agreed that within two years, it would adjust other features to give gay singles a more tailored experience, the Journal reported.

www.washingtontimes.com...


so, they will just go in blind, with the site not knowing just what sex the man or women may be searching for? I don't know anything about dating sites, but it seems that this might be one of the more important bits of information that would be needed to make the matches?
and as far as it being a rather low cost adjustment, it seems that it probably isn't that low cost after all... since the company is being given two years to make the adjustments to the site. till then, the site will either being giving people results that include matches to their profile that contain both sexes, or those that contain the matches as they are doing now...
neither of which is effective.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: DeadFoot

So, have you researched the case or ruling at all?

Washington Times

The terms approved by a state judge Monday also applied to other Spark-owned sites that had operated in the same fashion, including CatholicMingle.com, AdventistSinglesConnection.com and BlackSingles.com, the Journal reported.


So...yeah.


Guess I was the wrong one on that one


I was going by the prior Colorado rulings and assumed it would be met with more of the same.

Although BlackSingles.com definitely already has this function.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Is it wrong to have just joined up as a Gay Christian man?.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The statement seems to be saying that nothing will change until it is complete for release.

"For now, ChristianMingle will only ask a user whether he or she is a man or woman. ", meaning they will remain the same for the time being as opposed to also being asked "Seeking Male/Female" like every other site does.

And this is NOT going to take 2 years, lol. The data input interface we are talking about is a clone on 3 of their sites, as seen:

Here
Here
and Here
edit on 6-7-2016 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot
heck they might as well also ask if they are males transitioning to female, and vice versa, just to avoid another $400 thousand lawsuit in the future.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Basically, it seems like this ruling will cause the site to lose popularity and functionality for a long-enough period to make it an irrelevant site for dating.

Of course, CM could quickly just make the changes and move on, even if they have to adjust the design and functionality later. But that said, if they take two years, while the site is only semi-functional in the meantime, I think we're seeing the slow death of a dating site.

I won't opine as to whether or not that was a silent goal of the lawsuit.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Well, that is not needed bc they would choose the gender they identify with.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I think that they are going to...it seems as though they will be revamping the whole site in order to also cater specifically to the LGBT community. I bet that they just add separate tabs or categories at that point, and they will, in essence, be sites contained within a site.

Separate, but equal, but under one domain, so it'll appease the ruling.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
If they title the site, a Unique Place for Heterosexual Christian Couples to Meet and Mingle, would it have been able to pass muster?

If they labelled it a private membership for heterosexual christians only, would it be legal?

If I wanted to start a Twin web site for women that have given birth to twins, can I legally not allow members that don't meet that criteria?

I am just trying to find where the line is drawn.

Just for the record, I don't have a problem with anyone's particular sexuality. I don't ask and I don't volunteer. I don't believe it is my business, and I really don't want anyone trying to make it such.

Honestly I believe it was more about attacking site that claimed to be Christian, and a chance to make some money, than anything else. If they were really looking for a mate that was Christian and gay, they could have done that on any website, by putting that information in their profile.

This was never about searching for a mate. This was all about making a statement and making money.

All of this pick me for your team, or I will pull down the stadium, is not fostering goodwill and acceptance. My father's insistence when I was a child, that I couldn't leave the table until I had eaten what was served me on my plate, may have somethhing to do with me being 5'9" and weighing 98 lbs when I graduated and left home. Some people just can't be force fed.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

They will do it because it will attract more people to the site...it's a business.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

actually, what can be seen on those links is not much! I can chose to be a male, or a female... that's all I can see, have no desire to find a mate so won't go any further.
great, the site knows you are a male or female. the next step would be to determine just what is being sought. does the site automatically assume that if you are a female, you will be searching for a male? is so, then they will have to write new code that enables the user to specify. a field will have to be created into the record of that person on the data base. and, depending on what programming language is being used, that might not be that easy. Maybe I am wrong, but it might be downright near impossible in SQL. It's been awhile since I tried to learn the language. but I remember reading how it was important to know what fields you wanted before you created the database, since after it was created it wasn't easy to change.




top topics



 
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join