eHarmony caves to lawsuit, agrees to pair gays, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 06:27 PM by asmeone2

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by asmeone2

"Our personality algorith indicates that you are actually straight."

Thats is freekin' hillarious. I could not have said that better!!
Zindo

Hehe.

Or:

"Our personality algorithms indicate that you are a gay man in a woman's body."

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 06:53 PM by raven bombshell

Originally posted by scientist
I can't seem to find the details of the original lawsuit... just lots of articles of people complaining about how eHarmony was forced. I'd prefer to know the whole story before condemning either side. I guess I'm the minority here in that regard...

I know what you're are saying- I thought the same. I would expect other online sites to be named in the lawsuit too. Is eHarmony the only one that strictly caters to straights?

edit: I meant to also say it still doesn't make sense because it is privately owned. If you go into a privately owned restaurant they can make you leave for whatever reason, right? I mean they have those signs that say something like, "the owner reserves the right to deny service for ...whatever ..." Am I correct in this? I mean there was a restaurant owner who was able to kick OJ out of his place because he didn't like him. So is this different than the case here?

[edit on 20-11-2008 by raven bombshell]

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 07:39 PM by scientist

reply to post by raven bombshell

Ive been looking into it since I posted that, and still coming up with nothing but vague details.

For example, the lawsuit took place for the following reasons it seems (aka all speculation on my part):

- via california anti-discrimination laws (not sure if they are exclusive to employment or public service...)

- about the "private business debate," the argument is that just as a restaurant can't say "No black people allowed," since they serve something that is suited for all people, a dating site can't say "no gay people allowed," because they too offer something that should be available for everyone.

- eharmony was apparently created with help from James Dobson, among other prominent Christians, so another argument is that eHarmony is a business setup to further instill the fundamentalist view of marriage, and that the business is also motivated by that political/religious objective.

- many of the aforementioned points probably hinge on the idea that homosexuality is not a choice, since that would mean true discrimination against a trait someone had no control over (hence the black/gay comparison) - then again, I doubt eHarmony would be allowed to implement a policy that restricted Jews either.

All that being said, I'm really not sure if I'm for or against it. On one hand, I can see the issues with forcing a private business to cater to everyone, and change their business model because of it. I can also see the angle that a similar issue could have been raised between different races only half a generation ago.

For example, what if Grey Hound bus line implemented a policy that all gay people had to sit on the back of the bus?

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 08:02 PM by greeneyedleo

reply to post by scientist

For example, what if Grey Hound bus line implemented a policy that all gay people had to sit on the back of the bus?

eHarmony is not saying a gay person can not use their site. What eHarmony has been doing is offering a service where a man can find a woman and vice versa. A gay person can STILL use their site....its just the product they are looking for, is not there. The product being someone else who is gay. So, they might as well shop elsewhere.

Its just like Target or Walmart not offering certain brands like Armani or Gucci to high end shoppers. HIgh end shoppers can still enter the store and look for that brand, they just arent going to find it.

[edit on 11/20/2008 by greeneyedleo]

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 08:12 PM by scientist

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
eHarmony is not saying a gay person can not use their site.

Right, and black people were still allowed to ride on the bus, they just understood that their options were limited on that bus, because of how they were born.

Its just like Target or Walmart not offering certain brands like Armani or Gucci to high end shoppers. HIgh end shoppers can still enter the store and look for that brand, they just arent going to find it.

Well, aside from the fact that you are comparing homosexuals looking for love to people shopping for clothes a bit offensive, it would be more accurate to compare it to Target or Wal-Mart not selling you clothes because you are gay, not because they don't stock your brand.

Beyond all this, and closer to the original topic, I wonder how many homosexuals will actually end up sending money to this site after the lawsuit is over... it would be insane to give money to a company after they have just oppressed you anyways.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 08:16 PM by greeneyedleo

reply to post by scientist

How is it offensive? It certainly isnt meant to be.

eHarmony is offering a product, so to speak...they are selling something you have to buy (as it is not free)...and they dont offer something that some people want.

Someone who is gay can still use their site. They can create an account and look around. But they are not offering something that a gay person would want. They should be allowed to not offer that.

Well, aside from the fact that you are comparing homosexuals looking for love to people shopping for clothes a bit offensive

But why would you go look for love at a place that is for straight people? If im looking for a date, im not going to walk into a gay bar!! I'm going to go to a bar where I can find prodomently straight men. However, I can still go hang out at a gay bar if I want.

There are gay dating sites too. I can join them if I want (and im straight), but im not going to find what im looking for: a straight man. So, I can go elsewhere to find what im looking for.

I just dont see what the deal is.

[edit on 11/20/2008 by greeneyedleo]

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 08:54 PM by mybigunit

reply to post by scientist

Please quit comparing being gay to being black. You cant choose to be black. You can choose whether to live a gay lifestyle or not. Call me a homophobe or whatever you want the fact is eharmony should not be forced to sell a product they dont want to. That product being the matching of a gay or lesbian couple. There are many other sites for this. No one is against this in any way shape or form.

As someone pointed out above are we to go into curves and tell them they have to let men in? Are we to go to the NFL and tell them they must let women play? Hey how about I go to the local adult film store and tell them they have to sell popcorn. THEY ARE A PRIVATE BUSINESS!!!!! If you want to start a gay site then please go do it no one is stopping you that is the great thing about America. If you need some recommendations for some good gay sites Ill get some for you.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by mybigunit]

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 09:09 PM by Griff

Originally posted by Blueracer
Straight people ought to start suing gay sites because they do not offer straight dating. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

Actually, gay establishments do cater to straight people. Many straight people frequent my local bar. No one shuns them away.

That being said. I kind of agree that eharmony can do what it wants. If it wants that image, then so be it.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 09:25 PM by asmeone2

Originally posted by scientist
reply to post by raven bombshell

- eharmony was apparently created with help from James Dobson, among other prominent Christians, so another argument is that eHarmony is a business setup to further instill the fundamentalist view of marriage, and that the business is also motivated by that political/religious objective.

Interesting. Do you have any sources for that?

I ask because on another website I was discussing this, and another person who had used Eharmony said they also refused to pair women with men who were more than a few years younger than them, and she thought this was also part of "towing the Christian line."

That's the second time today I've heard that, so now I'm curious.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 09:35 PM by scientist

Originally posted by asmeone2
Interesting. Do you have any sources for that?

/69gsb5

source: theconservativevoice.com... (use tinyurl above, as it looks like they removed this from the current site.... ?)

"With reluctance and regret." That’s how Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family is characterizing his acceptance of a decision by Christian author Dr. Neil Clark Warren, founder of the online dating service eHarmony. That decision by Warren was detailed in a recent USA Today article that reports the eHarmony founder is "trying to distance himself" from Dobson and the Focus on the Family ministry

for even more sources, check out the following google search:

/5bufnn

just search for "eharmony dobson -gay -homosexual" and you will get articles from before all these court cases and etc.

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by scientist

Please quit comparing being gay to being black. You cant choose to be black. You can choose whether to live a gay lifestyle or not.

Please quit replying before you have read the entire post.

Originally posted by scientist
many of the aforementioned points probably hinge on the idea that homosexuality is not a choice, since that would mean true discrimination against a trait someone had no control over (hence the black/gay comparison)

[edit on 20-11-2008 by scientist]

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 09:44 PM by asmeone2

reply to post by scientist

Thanks Scientist.

I thought this was stupid at first glance, but if we get the court documents or find that Eharmony was actively discriminating, in their mission statement or something similar, I can see how this gained some ground.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 09:54 PM by raven bombshell

I disagree that homosexuals choose to be gay. I think they cannot help who they are attracted to. The discrimination is the same. The only reason gay people used to get married and have children despite their orientation was due to social pressure and the dangers they faced by coming out. Its hardly a choice.

But anyway, I would not use a dating service (or any service) that did not value me as much as any other customer, so I feel that suing them to change their ways is pointless because the gay customers will not be valued and will not receive the same level of service.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:02 PM by Rory27

LMAO...You people are funnie around here man...

If eHarmony is so smoooth at hooking people up,you'd think they would be SMART enough to be able to charge $$$ to the largest/widest demographic possible...THEY did there own capitalist agenda un-proud by having to be sued over it anyhow...Picking your sex,and picking which other sex you want to look for has been the norm everywhere else,and most of those are free,so like i said...eHarmony should just hurry up and start makin' MORE $$$,and also...WHO GIVES A SHYTE About Online Dating ;-)

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:06 PM by dr_strangecraft

Thomas Jefferson was opposed to the Bill of Rights being ammended to the constitution. He was asked why, and he said that the people would automatically lose any rights not specifically enumerated in it. When asked what the authors of the bill of rights could have left out, he said....

"The Freedom of Association."

I'm mad too, Thom.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:12 PM by niteboy82

Originally posted by Blueracer
Straight people ought to start suing gay sites because they do not offer straight dating. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

I'm sure that many gay men would be more than happy to have the opportunity to date some straight men.

I kid, I kid... well... (

)

In all actuality, I find this to be absolutely ludicrous. I know, and all of my friends know that this is simply the way eHarmony.com works. In fact, I am sure that this has been brought up before and that doctor fellow explained that he treated heterosexual couples so he was incapable of understanding enough about homosexual relationships to include them in his match-making site.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:39 PM by raven bombshell

reply to post by niteboy82

I dunno -in those commercials they talk about "compatibility" ad nauseum , so matching gays by compatibility doesn't seem any different than matching straights by compatibility.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:48 PM by niteboy82

reply to post by raven bombshell

I have a feeling that if they had the ability to as easily have a success rate as they apparently do (according to the commercials) with heterosexual couples, they would have cashed in.

There are plenty of dating sites for homosexuals.

Somewhat unrelated, but nonetheless, I feel it should be said. When all of us smokers were telling you nonsmokers that creating laws banning smoking from restaurants/bars would erode a company's rights to run their business they way they wanted, you were opening doors for all sorts of legal controls put on how businesses should be run.

Not that I equate homosexuality to smoking, but it could have been making it illegal for people to wear Burkenstocks in sporting good stores for all it matters (i see humor in that.) Allowing businesses to be dictated in such ways by courts is no good.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:08 PM by ZindoDoone

Originally posted by asmeone2

Originally posted by scientist
reply to post by raven bombshell

I ask because on another website I was discussing this, and another person who had used Eharmony said they also refused to pair women with men who were more than a few years younger than them, and she thought this was also part of "towing the Christian line."

That's the second time today I've heard that, so now I'm curious.

I don't know about the Christian part but last year I was given a membership by a friend and after all the BS with the profile and whatnot. I got every silver and blue haired lady that kept saying they where in their early fifties and where definatly in the late 60's early 70's. I wrote them a long nasty letter and got absolutly no response nor any satisfaction from their customer service so I canceleled and got my friends money back. They SUCK big time a complete waste of time!
I don't think they should be made to adhere to this judgement because they offer a service thats from a private entity and get absolutly no federal funds so I don't understand how they lost this suit!
Zindo

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:50 PM by TheRedneck