It seems that a NJ Judge dismissed a discrimination lawsuit against E-Harmony when the company agreed to allow gay and lesbians to use their service.
My question is this... Why would anyone want to give this company and gay dollars? They're not doing this because they want to, they're doing it to get out of this lawsuit. Wouldn't you want to give your gay dollars to those companies that were there for us all along?
B6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2767 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 1535 times:
I have mixed feelings about this for so many different reasons.
1) Obviously, this is a private company and they can discriminate the same way a country club can discriminate who can be a member of their club. But at the same time, why would they do this when they are limiting their client base? Gay people are lookin' for love too...and I don't mean the type you find on craig's list or gay.com, I mean legitimate love.
2) Is doing this just a way to oil the squeeky wheel? Yes, it has to be. That to me also would be a red flag to not use their service. They didn't want my business before, I am not going to give it to them now because they are now providing it to avoid bad press due to court issues. Will they offer the same level of service? Who knows, they may not because of how they were backed into a corner to provide the service.
3) Obviously, gays wanted to make it a point that they wanted the service provided by this company. So ARE people going to use it? If you fought that hard and scared a company enough to make them provide the service to you...somebody should use their services otherwise what was the point of the entire taking them to court thing??
This is one of those cases where I honestly don't think there was a "winner". A company was, in essence, forced to do something they didn't want to do and maybe didn't have built into their business plan/model, and it is a bitter-sweet victory for gay people. In this case, I am so thankful that I am a gay person in a long-term relationship and don't need services like this.
~H81
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 1518 times:
Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 1): Obviously, this is a private company and they can discriminate the same way a country club can discriminate who can be a member of their club.
Actually, private companies can't discriminate either. Those country clubs that didn't take blacks? Yeah -- illegal.
The real reason why gays couldn't join the service is because it is a Christian (fundamental?) service. As an "expressive organization" where Christianity (or at least Christian-like behavior) is the expression, they can disallow membership to persons who exhibit that they do not share their expression. That means, they can deny gay membership. (Unless they want to get married heterosexually.)
I'm surprised at this ruling.
These aren't my views, this is the state of our law.
B6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2767 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 1514 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 2): Actually, private companies can't discriminate either. Those country clubs that didn't take blacks? Yeah -- illegal.
The real reason why gays couldn't join the service is because it is a Christian (fundamental?) service. As an "expressive organization" where Christianity (or at least Christian-like behavior) is the expression, they can disallow membership to persons who exhibit that they do not share their expression. That means, they can deny gay membership. (Unless they want to get married heterosexually.)
I'm surprised at this ruling.
These aren't my views, this is the state of our law.
Thanks for the clarification. I never knew that this was a Christian-based thing. That does explain quite a bit!
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16803 posts, RR: 57 Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 1486 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 4):
Before you jump all over the Christian thing there are just as many all Jewish clubs that exlude Christians too.
My parents were members of such a country club. I have no use for such a club. I won't even go there with my mother for dinner. And I think that private companies should be permitted to discriminate. However, any such policy needs to be clearly stated.
J-Date also used to exclude gays. Now it doesn't. However, it censored pictures on gay personals to an absurd amount. I posted a picture of me in which I wasn't wearing a shirt, but only showed up to the top of my shoulders (didn't even show a nipple) and they told me it was "inappropriate." Meanwhile, my straight friends, both male and female, had been permitted to show that much skin.
My solution was to vote with my gay dollars. Gay dollars are plentiful because we're a group of men who are mostly college-educated and employed with no wives or kids. I canceled my J-Date account and wrote them a letter as to why.
But the idea of forcing a website to include gays turns my stomach. I hope E-Harmony appeals the suit and I would donate money to a legal fund to try to protect their right. I think forcing them to do this is just as bad as passing prop 8.
Religious folks have no right to force their views on us and we have no right to force ours on them.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15717 posts, RR: 48 Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 1471 times:
Quoting ADXMatt (Thread starter): It seems that a NJ Judge dismissed a discrimination lawsuit against E-Harmony when the company agreed to allow gay and lesbians to use their service.
Ah, the power of the purse... I've always thought gays' higher than average disposable income and education would open more doors than protests and lawsuits.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): My solution was to vote with my gay dollars. Gay dollars are plentiful because we're a group of men who are mostly college-educated and employed with no wives or kids.
A private club can exclude anyone they want. Race, gender or creed.
I'm breaking my usual "Don't reply to NIKV" rule for a moment to say, "uhh.. yes." Country clubs are not "expressive associations", so their first amendment right to assembly is limited to constitutional means.
E-Harmony agreed to allow gays in order to have the suit dismissed. They will not be appealling. They didn't want it to go to trial.
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 4): Quoting D L X (Reply 2):
Those country clubs that didn't take blacks? Yeah -- illegal.
Uhhh no.
A private club can exclude anyone they want. Race, gender or creed. They are not a company BTW.
Before you jump all over the Christian thing there are just as many all Jewish clubs that exlude Christians too.
Yes and No.... Gays are not a protected class in most jurisdictions like Blacks, jewish etc.
in most locations a company can fire you for the sole reason of being gay.
I think in NJ they might have gays as a protected class and that was most likely the basis for the suit.
There has been a long drawn out suit in Atlanta over a country club not allowing a Lesbian couple to join as a couple. they would allow them each a single membership but not as a couple. I'm not sure how or if that was ever settled.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16803 posts, RR: 57 Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 1432 times:
Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 10):
E-Harmony agreed to allow gays in order to have the suit dismissed. They will not be appealling. They didn't want it to go to trial.
Pity. If they really felt they didn't want to do this, then they should have fought it. In this particular case, they can make a claim that offering a gay section puts a burden on them because they have to develop that entire section.
Either way, I believe that companies should not be forced to offer services to a particular clientele if doing so would force the company to offer a new service.
So, for example, a car rental company shouldn't be able to discriminate against, say, Asians and not rent to them because doing so doesn't cost them anything; just a policy change. But in this case, E-Harmony now has to develop (at significant cost) an entire new section of their website designed around same-sex relationships. And I think that is a dangerous precedent.
I'm glad this was only a settlement, which carries no force of legal precedent. Because while I think I deserve equal rights, I don't deserve special rights.
What next, forcing cruise lines to have all-gay cruises?
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2869 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 1417 times:
Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 12): Quoting ADXMatt (Thread starter):
Why would anyone want to give this company and gay dollars?
Bingo
Quoting ADXMatt (Thread starter):
Wouldn't you want to give your gay dollars to those companies that were there for us all along?
Bingo, again. Money talks.
Agreed and agreed. They don't want me there, I don't want to be there. Furthermore, with only a handful of gays on the site how good could one's chances be of finding "The One"?
Then again, I'm very cynical in regards to dating/matchmaker services in general. I do, however, feel that everyone should place a personal ad at least once... not because I think anyone has a ghost of a chance of finding what they're looking for out there, but because placing a personal ad will give one a very good (and often downright frightening) idea of what's out there looking for them.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5521 posts, RR: 58 Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 1415 times:
Quoting TSS (Reply 13): Then again, I'm very cynical in regards to dating/matchmaker services in general. I do, however, feel that everyone should place a personal ad at least once... not because I think anyone has a ghost of a chance of finding what they're looking for out there, but because placing a personal ad will give one a very good (and often downright frightening) idea of what's out there looking for them.
That and someone's personal ad is only as good as how far they tell the truth.
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2869 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 1406 times:
Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 14): That and someone's personal ad is only as good as how far they tell the truth.
I thought those were mutually exclusive terms.
Cases in point:
When someone says they're "6 feet tall" are they actually 6 feet tall or are they personal ad 6 feet tall, which is anywhere between 5'8 and 5'10?
When someone states their weight, is it their actual weight or their personal ad weight, which is generally 10-20 % lower than what their doctor's scale says?
But I digress. I don't understand why anyone was offended that E-Harmony didn't cater to gays in the first place as that was never their area of expertise, I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would bring suit against E-Harmony to force them to accept ads from/for gays, and I'm absolutely flabbergasted that the judge in this case didn't throw the case out upon first reading.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5521 posts, RR: 58 Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 1402 times:
Quoting TSS (Reply 15): When someone says they're "6 feet tall" are they actually 6 feet tall or are they personal ad 6 feet tall, which is anywhere between 5'8 and 5'10?
Like internet inches. 8 internet is usually 5 or 6 real.
Quoting TSS (Reply 15): I don't understand why anyone was offended that E-Harmony didn't cater to gays in the first place as that was never their area of expertise,
I certainly wasn't offended. Why would I use a service that didn't cater to my needs? What I really hated was the fact they used that Natalie Cole song. I liked that song before E-harmony used it.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16803 posts, RR: 57 Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 4 hours ago) and read 1331 times:
Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 16):
I certainly wasn't offended. Why would I use a service that didn't cater to my needs? What I really hated was the fact they used that Natalie Cole song. I liked that song before E-harmony used it.
And why force a service to cater to your needs? If it doesn't, then find another service.
Thanks, but I'd prefer to use a gay owned-and-operated service. Or at least a service that decided to approach my market straight up front without require a lawsuit to make it happen.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months ago) and read 1249 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 9): I'm breaking my usual "Don't reply to NIKV" rule for a moment to say, "uhh.. yes." Country clubs are not "expressive associations", so their first amendment right to assembly is limited to constitutional means.
Uhhh No, strike two, if you want to discuss the Boy Scouts of America maybe your argument holds water but a private club on private property operating non for profit can do whatever they want and are not bound by the constitution.
Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 10): There has been a long drawn out suit in Atlanta over a country club not allowing a Lesbian couple to join as a couple. they would allow them each a single membership but not as a couple. I'm not sure how or if that was ever settled.
This is a whole different issue, the club is not discrimating them entry to the club.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): But the idea of forcing a website to include gays turns my stomach. I hope E-Harmony appeals the suit and I would donate money to a legal fund to try to protect their right. I think forcing them to do this is just as bad as passing prop 8.
Religious folks have no right to force their views on us and we have no right to force ours on them.
Nicely said, one of the best posts we have seen here in a long while!
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1217 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 4):
A private club can exclude anyone they want. Race, gender or creed. They are not a company BTW.
In what nation would this be? Not the USA.
Age, race, gender, creed, and several physical (and even contagious!) disabilities are protected and cannot be discriminated against barring few circumstances (e.g., obviously, a blind and deaf septuagenarian cannot be a commercial airline pilot) by any company.
Your not listening. A private country club is not a company. It is like your house, you have the right to exclude any person from entering for any reason. So does a country club. They are not in business and they are not a company.
Canuckpaxguy From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 1510 posts, RR: 56 Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1104 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 2): The real reason why gays couldn't join the service is because it is a Christian (fundamental?) service
I had no idea that was an issue at all.
On one hand, the GLBT market was simply not their target market, period. In an interview with the CEO a few years ago (which I vaguely remember) he said that their "personality matching formula" just hasn't ever been tested with same-sex relationships, and they weren't prepared to launch a same-sex version without knowing what they were doing. That was an explanation I could accept as "fair". From a purely business perspective, "It's not our target market" would also be fair and reasonable explanation. I just don't see it this example as discrimination, particularly since there are countless same-sex dating services that don't offer services to heterosexuals looking for a match.
I can understand that, legally speaking, it may be difficult to differentiate a dating service from an exclusive country club when creating a blanket statement about what discrimination looks like; and I can appreciate how some may see this as discrimination.
At the end of the day though, I think the "gay-dollars" could have been spent better lobbying for more worthwhile, meaningful endeavours.
G
25 D L X: This is why I have my policy. You don't know what you're talking about. But go ahead, open a country club and exclude blacks, and watch what happens.
26 Luv2fly: Well said, personally myself if a company does not want my gay dollars that is fine! There are a whole lot of companies that do. IMHO - We don't need
27 ConcordeBoy: I'm listening fine, I'm just disagreeing with you completely-- learn to spot the difference (and to spell "you're", while you're at it). These organi
28 Avek00: That's not necessarily true. A notional "private organization" that excludes on the basis of protected characteristics may nonetheless find itself in
29 ScrubbsYWG: in the book "freakonomics", there is a section of a chapter dealing with stats for online personal sites. here are some of the results: -men and wome
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 933 posts, 
I've always thought gays' higher than average disposable income and education would open more doors than protests and lawsuits.
8 internet is usually 5 or 6 real.
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11354 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 1510 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
