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

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

The line is drawn at discrimination. Every site should allow anyone to join if they want, I have never had twins, but I would still be able to make a profile if I wanted to on a "mom with twins" website.

It is called Christian Singles yet does not have an option for gays. Gays want the option. Technically, they are discriminating against gays by not having this option. They have it for their Black website (which I can also make a profile for as well (I am white and not gay) there are options for me. There are NOT options for Gays on the Christian website...understand?

Its the option they want.

a reply to: dawnstar

Yeah I just joined and it will not let you search for men If you are a man....pity loads of Christian girls are going to click on my picture to find out I'm gay .

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DeadFoot
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.

That's just so you wouldn't have to log into the database and create more fields.

I remember doing this stuff in college in a single lesson.

Trust me, it's not a lot of work.

SQL is fairly straight-forward, and it doesn't even have to be if you're using a SQL editor like these guys are definitely using. Even something as simple as MySQL.

If it takes them more than a month it's because they are either lazy or self-destructing to play the martyr

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think it would be easier than trying to redesign the original site, and they could make it appear as though it's the same site with basically the same look. just separate data bases a few separate input and output pages, and a separate page to determine just what you are and what sex you are searching for.

a reply to: DeadFoot

but the database is already filled with records, without those fields you wish to place in. I think that is where the problem comes in.
but, it's also possible that the language itself was changed and now it's easier to accommodate. I was reading from an older book on it.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think it would be easier than trying to redesign the original site, and they could make it appear as though it's the same site with basically the same look. just separate data bases a few separate input and output pages, and a separate page to determine just what you are and what sex you are searching for.

Just because it seems frustrating to you doesn't mean it's hard work for a senior developer.

These guys blow through this stuff.

Databasing is really not all that hard.

Their databases already include more than 50 options for each account to filter through.

All they are doing is adding 3 more, and one is a mechanic that already exists (matching m4F with f4m).

If it was going to take them 2 years to do this, then the original database design would've taken them more time than the internet itself has existed.

a reply to: DeadFoot

hmm..... that's funny, since the book I was reading was being used to teach college kids. but it's not worth arguing about. the court gave them two years to make the alterations, I assume that something gave them the idea that it would take that long. maybe they were thinking about the obamacare website disaster, I don't know.

I like this little statement in the washington times article...

Spark agreed to pay both men $9,000 each and $450,000 in attorneys’ fees. The company didn’t admit any wrongdoing as part of the agreement, the Journal reported.

www.washingtontimes.com...

anyone know who the attorneys were?

a reply to: dawnstar

I bet the 2 years has something to do with the out of court settlement.'

If it went to court, they would have to pay more in legal fees and probably have to fix it quicker.

I would have taken the $9,000 and run also, go to a different gay meeting website. 2 years goes by quickly, especially if you have already proven your point and don't really care to be on the website anyway.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom
they are hoping that all those pictures of pretty girls will convince you to be straight?
I imagine the moms of twins would have some information on it that would be useful for moms in general. but what good is a dating site that is just presenting you with options that aren't suitable for you?
kind of moronic really.

a reply to: veracity

I would have taken the $9,000 and run also, go to a different gay meeting website. 2 years goes by quickly, especially if you have proven your point and don't really care to be on the website anyway.

Exactly my point. It was never about wanting to be on the site. It was about punishing the site, making a statement and making money.

Just because I prefer string instruments, doesn't mean I discriminate against woodwinds, or percussion instruments. I don't sue my local guitar store, because it doesn't carry some of the items I need for my cello. Even though the sign clearly says "Music" store.

Spark should be able to get off without accountability, as it was never their intent to exclude gays; if we are going to continue following the new societal and governmental trending.

a reply to: veracity

it's the attorney's fees compared to the settlement that is blowing me away. that could put a small website owner into bankruptcy court easily!

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: veracity
Just because I prefer string instruments, doesn't mean I discriminate against woodwinds, or percussion instruments. I don't sue my local guitar store, because it doesn't carry some of the items I need for my cello. Even though the sign clearly says "Music" store.

I keep seeing this argument and I just want you guys to be aware that it doesn't work.

It's a different story when both your customers and your products are the same thing.

Your cello is not a human, nor is it a customer, and therefore isn't protected by California statutes.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: veracity

it's the attorney's fees compared to the settlement that is blowing me away. that could put a small website owner into bankruptcy court easily!

Sends a right forceful message don't you think?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: veracity

it's the attorney's fees compared to the settlement that is blowing me away. that could put a small website owner into bankruptcy court easily!

I'm wondering whose legal fees the $450,000 really is, though?

Remember this article is from Washington Times.

I highly doubt this couple put $450,000 forward out-of-pocket.

A typical tactic of a defendant is to counter-sue with legal fees.

Have to look into it for sure though because that seems very odd.

a reply to: DeadFoot

Your cello is not a human, nor is it a customer, and therefore isn't protected by California statutes.

Then by your statement, neither is a website. I am a customer therefore my complaint should be just as valid.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

The issue here is discrimination and protecting equal rights...not cellos or guitars or mandolins or wtf ever you are talking about.

Each gay or trans that has to undergo discrimination and sues is a hero, a warrior on the front lines in my opinion.

a reply to: dawnstar

yeah, who were the lawyers???

That's a lot of legal fees.

a reply to: veracity

Found one of their names:

Vineet Dubey

CBC's wordding seems to suggest that it was the total of all the legal fees in the case

but it did agree to pay each plaintiff $9,000 US and cover the $450,000 they had accumulated together in legal fees.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: DeadFoot

Your cello is not a human, nor is it a customer, and therefore isn't protected by California statutes.

Then by your statement, neither is a website. I am a customer therefore my complaint should be just as valid.

....Yes, the fact that the website is not a person is more against your own standpoint, thank you....

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

and what's that?? don't bother trying to be inventive and use the internet to earn a few bucks unless you have globs of money for lawyers to inform you of every possible interpretation of every law and represent you in court, just in case? Because, if you mess up, the lawyers will have a feast on you?