EHarmony Sued for Excluding Gays
eHarmony advertises that they want to “move beyond traditional online dating.” For some reason, that phrase strikes me as a bit ironic. It doesn’t get much more “traditional” than the process one goes through at eHarmony. However, if you’re gay you can forget about it.
Linda Carlson is suing the relationship site for discrimination. Her lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court based on the fact that she was denied access because she is gay. Carlson’s lawyers believe the suit to be the first of it’s kind against the internet’s largest dating site of 12 million members. The company issued this statement in response to the suit.
“The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages.”
The founder of eHarmony, Dr. Neil Clark Warren is a psychologist with a divinity degree. He was initially affiliated with Focus on the Family, and the site was promoted as being “based on the Christian principles of Focus on the Family author Dr. Neil Clark Warren.” However, Dr. Warren began to distance himself from FOTF and Dr. Dobson back in 2005, claiming among other things that they were becoming too narrowly political for the dating site. He stopped radio appearances with them and bought back the rights to the books he’d written for them.
“We’re trying to reach the whole world — people of all spiritual orientations, all political philosophies, all racial backgrounds,” Warren says. “And if indeed, we have Focus on the Family on the top of our books, it is a killer. Because people do recognize them as occupying a very precise political position in this society and a very precise spiritual position.”
In an interview on National Public Radio Dr. Warren said,
I have a deep desire for gays and lesbians to be matched well if they’re going to be together. I had some people come to me who were actually gays, and they wanted to know how I would advise that they try to build a site to do a good job. And I spent a lot of time with them talking about the need for research, the need to look at what really does work for gays and lesbians in terms of the couples and how you develop research instruments that will help them to do that job well. And I’ve tried to be helpful in those ways, but we’ve taken the position that right now we don’t choose to [match gays and lesbians].
If you listen to the entire interview you’ll find that Dr. Warren spends a good deal of time explaining that eHarmony serves Wiccans, apparently as a way to deflect inquiries about their policy on not matching gay couples. He indicates that he’s not done enough research about same sex coupling and that he imagines the principles of coupling might be different. Hmmm, I’ll leave that discussion for the comments.
The questionnaire at eHarmony is quite lengthy, and I know because I’ve filled it out. Yes, yours truly has been a member of eHarmony for a few months now. I know I can be a bit of a Pollyanna at times, but for me, it’s been a really great experience. The “29 dimensions” have really worked for me in finding compatible matches. Or, maybe I’m just desperately lonely. You can find horror stories about practically anything.
A competing site, Chemistry, has recently used the fact that eHarmony shuns gays as a marketing tool (example above). Chemistry does match gay couples, as does Dr. Phil’s Match.com.
I should point out for the ex-gays that none of the online matching services discriminate against you.
To clear up any confusion on adding a link here, the proper way is to use the link button above the comment box. This will prevent really long URLs from disrupting the format.
Instructions:
Write in a sentence about the link, then highlight the appropriate word such as “link” above and paste the actual URL to the linked page into the box that pops up. Hit ok and when posted the word link (or any other word you highlighted) will be hotlinked.
Homosexuals Out to Destroy eHarmony.com
Par for the course for Mr. Bennett. I wonder if anyone in the Christian Right still takes him seriously. oh, one thing, Mr. Doty, I agree with you that eHarmony “should” make a change. I just don’t feel they are legally obligated to do so (but then, that’s for the courts to decide).
From the link with David Roberts posted:
Alan Chambers admitted he still has “(unwanted) same sex attractions” toward men. Can Bennett do what Exodus International can’t?
Christ Jesus, whom NT authors wrote is “The Word of God,” aka “God’s Word,” said that remarriage after a divorce for any reason was adultery. The only reason that Jesus gave for a (male+female) couple to divorce was if a spouse committed adultery. eHarmony.com has no problem with helping divorced people find partners through its company.
I don’t judge divorced and remarried folks, Believers or not; I leave that up to the Holy Spirit. IMO, what Jesus said when properly translated/interpreted “Anyone who gets remarried after being divorced is living in the sinful state of adultery.” He did not approve of marrying a divorced person either. He the same as said, “Marrying a divorced person causes that person to live in the sinful state of adultery.”
I wonder if Bennett thinks he did Warren a favor by quoting him as saying:
I think Stephen just lost eHarmony any defense they may have had.
Timothy – You lost me, I’m not sure how that comment (assuming its true) loses eHarmony any defense (aside from the repugnant nature of the statement). Lets say we were talking about a pharmacy and they chose not to stock birth control of any sort (as some refuse to do). And they said “Are you going to believe those lies? Are you going to believe the gossip? Listen sir, I don’t know who you are, but I’ve been a Christian for a long, long time and Acme Pharmacy would never, ever offer birth control for any reason!” would the pharmacy then lose its right to determine what products they stock or do not stock? (there are a few states which compel licensed pharmacies to stock certain drugs, obviously I’m assuming state laws are at best ambiguous on this point).
Oh, I do agree with your comment above that California state law prohibits discrimination based solely on sexual orientation (although, not apparently by the state government in institutions such as marriage…)
Kendall, I believe that eHarmony.com has a spiritually moral obligation to the Christian websites which it financially supports such as crosswalk.com. IMO, Dr. Warren is compromising Jesus’ own words by allowing divorced folks to match up with other singles, divorced or not. To do so is contrary to God’s Word which is not a Bible, but Christ Jesus’ teachings himself.
Yes Joe, but there is no law against spiritual inconsistency is there? Honestly I don’t enjoy arguing religion because I recognize that ultimately its like arguing sexuality. I know I’m gay and I know my beliefs in God, and I know that other people have deeply held beliefs that run contrary to that. I do understand the position that eHarmony is going against some Christian teachings, and I understand that other people believe that eHarmony is acting in accordance to God’s word. Do I think the latter view is right?
Probably not, but I know of no way to convince those who disagree with me, and I know of no way someone with that opposing view can convince me that I’m incorrect.
That’s why I prefer to argue from a legal/philosophical/political position rather than a religious/moral perspective. And philosophically speaking I think eHarmony should be able to run their business contrary to my values.
Kendall,
the difference is that your example is about offering a product and this case is about providing services to a class of people.
If Warren has identified that he would never provide a service to homosexuals, then he cannot simply claim that “the research isn’t there”. Assuming Bennett is telling the truth or that it can be proven, then it proves that Warren deliberately and intentionally set aside a class of persons to whom he would not provide services, ie gay persons. Hence he’s in violation with the law.
In fact, it is his disclaimer to Bennett that would distinguish between product and persons. He expresses his intent to not allow homosexuals in his matchmaking service.
Caviat: I’m not an attorney so this is my opinion and analysis and only that.
Incidentally, I’ve no problem with businesses running contrary to my values. But this one appears to be running contrary to the law.
If Clark does not want to offer services to gay folk (or black folk or Jewish folk or Presbyterian folk or divorced folk or handicapped folk or any other folk) he needs to be a church. Then he can do anything he wants with his morals and values. But in CA a business can’t be “straights only”. Or that’s how I read the law.
We have the same laws in most of Canada. Here in Québec a gay leather bar is making national news for being taken to the human rights tribunal for refusing to serve a woman.
Globe and Mail : Woman bounced from Montreal gay bar
Timothy -
“If Clark does not want to offer services to gay folk (or black folk or Jewish folk or Presbyterian folk or divorced folk or handicapped folk or any other folk) he needs to be a church. Then he can do anything he wants with his morals and values. But in CA a business can’t be “straights only”. Or that’s how I read the law.”
I agree with every word you said here, and yet I maintain my position. eHarmony is NOT denying service to gays, eHarmony is instead offering a service to provide heterosexual relationships. (the distinction of course is that gays are not forbidden from doing anything that heterosexuals are allowed to do, we can in fact use the site on an equal basis with heterosexuals.) The reason that doesn’t violate equal protection under the law as I believe marriage laws do is that heterosexual relationships are provided substantial and exclusive benefits unique to marriage. There is no substantial benefit to being subscribed to eHarmony that cannot be obtained from other services.
That’s why I was mentioning earlier that Unruh seems to me based on my (admittedly not complete) knowledge a question of access. A group cannot be denied equal services. Thus, a gay couple cannot be denied a hotel room in California. Or a black person must be given equal opportunity to be employed compared with a white applicant, etc. However, that doesn’t mean a business under Unruh is required to provide services to meet the needs of a particular class of people.
Is a butcher shop in California (according to Unruh) required to sell Kosher meat? As I said, I do not believe there is ANY justification for the government to discriminate. But I see plenty of room under Unruh to allow businesses to provide services in the way they want. Its not discriminatory against us for a business to offer a heterosexual dating service because they’re not forbidding gays from creating profiles. They’re not refusing to provide services to us, they’re refusing to tailor their service to us.
Another way of looking at this (Sorry, I tend to think in analogies) lets say you get on a bus, and then complain when you realize it doesn’t stop at the street you’d like to get off on. That’s not discriminating against YOU that’s providing a service to everyone that you’re free to accept or not accept and either way you get little or no added benefit (it would be different if say eHarmony was the only dating site allowed, but there are plenty of alternatives for people).
I have basically said all I need to say about this that I can. The problem is sometimes a person’s “Orthodox Christianity” deeply religious views are contrary to what Jesus himself taught. Everything that any other author wrote outside of what is found in the Gospels and the 1st chapter of the Book of Acts must be in agreement with what Jesus himself taught and practiced.
Just this evening during prime time on CNN, Democrats who were Roman Catholic talked about their faith. One of them told the host that he believed in equal rights for all in regard to marriages. His duty as a politician was to support the Constitution even when it conflicted with what the Pope said.
In regard to California nightclubs created primarily for gays, I remember my great experiences at the Rawhide C&W club in North Hollywood. No one was discriminated against there because they were heterosexual. But, the “straights” were expected to accept they gays there just being themselves. IMO, it was a place with real class and just because it had a bar with stools and bartenders it was more than a bar, it was a place where folks could go and feel like they belonged.
Oh, the gay cowboys, farmers and wannabee country folks were expected to behave themselves in the place. If they didn’t they would be 86′d. I wasn’t a wannabee; I was experienced as a farmer.
I referred to my friends at the Rawhide as my support group during Ed’s terminal illness. Some even volunteered to help us get to places and get stuff for us, too. Even Dan the owner surprised me by giving me some money on the night that he had found Ed had passed away. Ed and I had been weekend regulars for several years.
I have a feeling I might regret this, but why are the Gospels and Acts excluded from this obligation?
David, are you referring to what the religious right who call themselves Fundamentalist or Conservative Christians are doing?
I call the doctrine of those Believers who put what is in the Jewish Scriptures, aka the Law, and other Old Testament writings, above what Jesus taught, “Christianized Old Testament Legalism.”
While it is important to know what is in the Hebrew Scriptures, one needs to know what Jesus said about them. He said that those who continued to obey the Law would be judged the Law. He never said that Jews could not be saved. But, Jesus brought a higher law of more importance that the Old Law. I won’t go into detail how laws were made by rulers during Bible times were permanent and could not be changed; but, a law of more importance could be enacted and obeyed instead without punishment for not obeying the earlier law.
The subtleties of obeying the Torah (Law) is something I can’t begin to explain to non-Jews because I strongly feel I’m not qualified. Also, because (according to Genesis) Gentiles only need to follow 7 simple laws to get close to God (such as “don’t murder”), it’s not usually necessary. For Jews, we follow God’s legal system by way of God’s unrelenting forgiveness – indeed, I might even call God a “liberal.”
I’ll say it bluntly, Paul got it wrong for us Jews when he said you need to follow it all or nothing, else be welcomed into God’s wrath. Since God is good and his commandments are good, doing them makes you good. So does a Jew who completes all 613 mitzvot (commandments) deserve a seat in heaven next to God while one who performs 612 does not? What about one who performs 327? or just 1?
The Talmud says that a man will be judged (by God) by his favorable side. I’ve found that “try your best” is a theme in Judaism – because really, when you try earnestly to do good, you can and WILL do good. This could open up debate as to whether trying to become straight will make you straight “because it’s good” – but ultimately, whether you believe homosexual acts are sins or not, that doesn’t matter, because there are so many ways to do good in God’s eyes (at least 613!) that one “sin” doesn’t automatically cancel out any other goodness inside you – and that goes for any kind of sin. Consider this tale from our Sages (i’m paraphrasing):
The son of a great ruler turned away from his father for many years, distancing himself from him physically and emotionally. One day, he regretted his actions severely and tried to return home to his father. He sent a messenger with an apology saying “I want to return, but I’m so far away – a journey of 100 days. I’m so weary I’m afraid I will not make it.” The father returned a message to him saying, “Come as far as you can and I will come the rest of the way.” The analogy being that when you try to return to God, God returns to you.
The Torah says that Moses was so great a prophet that there will never be another as great as he. However, the Torah ALSO says to be as great as Moses was. The Talmud explains that this is not a contradiction – the message is that Moses fulfilled the potential God gave him on earth. Everybody should strive to fulfill their potential as well as Moses did. This, I think, speaks to the diversity of goodness that is possessed by everyone. Can I say I’m better than my friend because I celebrate shabbat (sabbath) and she doesn’t? Maybe she cares for the sick and dying – I don’t do that right now. When I meet my maker, I will be asked “why weren’t you more like Emily K?” not “Why weren’t you more like Moses?”
I know this is a very long post and has probably gone greatly off topic and I understand if the Mod deletes it- but I think I might be the only Jewish voice on this board, and I wanted to put in my 2 shekels while we’re talking about Orthodoxy and Legalism. On a side note: I wish that there were some survivors of JONAH around to talk about their experiences. I’ve never heard of anybody from that program talking about escaping from it.
My ex-partner of 5 years is Jewish, so I know it’s hard to make a point about something from that faith without using quite a few words
This thread certainly has morphed, but just to respond to one point I will say this. From a Christian perspective, the point of the Law was to illustrate how impossible it is to follow it, and point the way to faith as the only way to please God. Specifically, faith in who and what His Son is, and what He did on the cross (ultimate sacrifice).
My ex also expressed the idea that “one tries to be as good as one can” and I can understand how, with a belief in the Law, that would be the only sane way to live. I’m not trying to counter your own belief, and any debate like that would be inappropriate here I think, but I did want to add that perspective.
If any JONAH survivors are out there, speak up!
Emily K said: I know this is a very long post and has probably gone greatly off topic and I understand if the Mod deletes it- but I think I might be the only Jewish voice on this board, and I wanted to put in my 2 shekels while we’re talking about Orthodoxy and Legalism. On a side note: I wish that there were some survivors of JONAH around to talk about their experiences. I’ve never heard of anybody from that program talking about escaping from it.
Emily your input is greatly appreciated here. I always wanted to know more about the Jewish faith and what they believed compared to Christians. All I have ever known is the Christian side of things when it came to God. Thank you for your posts!
First I heard about JONAH was from Arthur Goldberg’s appearance on Montel with Peterson Toscano when he clearly states that the word “abomination” in Leviticus 18:22 means “to be led astray”.
Strange. I always thought it meant unclean.
Kendall, sorry to take so long to get back to you, but yes — Gay.com is based out of San Francisco. If a heterosexual persons sued Gay.com using the Unruh Civil Rights Act as the basis, then the situation of Gay.com discriminating based on the sexual orientation of heterosexuals would probably be found unlawful.
The reality, of course, is no one is going to fund that lawsuit against Gay.com. The ACLU, Lambda Leagal, NCLR — these are folks that perhaps would fund a lawsuit against eHarmony, but not against Gay.com. No Christian legal organization like the Alliance Defense Fund is going to want to open up a gay website to heterosexuals — they’d probably rather try to figure out how to shut Gay.com down.
Arthur Goldberg’s JONAH – (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality)? I had never heard of him or his organization. I don’t always watch Montel William’s show, especially when he has that “spiritualist” who claims to believe in Jesus and can deliver messages from the dead about folks’ loved ones.
The Prophet Jonah whose story of being rebellious is in the book by the same name might be fitting for Goldberg’s ex-gay organization.
I did a term paper on Minor Hebrew Prophets when I was a graduate theology student at ORU in Tulsa. I named the paper, “Jonah, the Recalcitrant Prophet;” because Jonah was “obstinately disobedient” towards God. He wanted to get as far away for Nineveh as possible and tried to escape by boat on the Mediterranean Sea and go West instead of East.
See Jonah 1 and continue reading the whole book by clicking on the link to read the next chapters, ending with chapter 4.
Jonah did not even preach a message of salvation when he finally ended up in Nineveh and its surrounding areas. He only preached, “In yet 40 days, Nineveh will be overthrown.” Jonah hate the Nineveh folks and he wanted his God to destroy them. The Spirit of God spoke to them about why that would happen and they repented of their evil ways and proved it by showing penance, too.
Jonah set himself up outside of Nineveh after being a prophet of doom and hoped to watch the action from there. He was angry with God because God did not destroy those whom Jonah hated with a passion. Read the last chapter of the book to read about where Jonah was more concerned about a vine giving him shade that withered and died than about the more than 120, 000 people and their livestock in Nineveh.
Emily,
I don’t have any authority to say what does and doesn’t belong in this thread, but I for one appreciate hearing your perspective. Christianity started out as an offshoot of Judaism, but it’s been so heavily influenced by Greek philosophy since then that we hardly understand what the authors of our own scriptures (all but one or maybe two of them Jewish) were trying to communicate.
Quite frankly, most of what I read about Jewish teachings (both from you and from other sources) sounds a lot healthier and more balanced than what I was taught growing up in evangelical churches.
Going off on a tangent here about folks believing that God will actually ask them why they did not do such and such after they stand before the heavenly throne. That is not scriptural. Folks will try to defend their actions before Jesus and claim that they did great things in his name. But, they will be told by Jesus, “Depart from me. I never knew you.”
According to Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus as the “King” will talk first and say whether those in front of him did or not do things for those needy folks who believed in him.
Since Paul, a Levite, was an educated Rabbi and had gone to the best known Rabbinical School under the authority of Gamaliel, he knew the Torah and the Talmud quite well.
The problem with Fundamentalist Christians is that they try to follow The Torah and Jesus’ higher law at the very same time. That is what Paul was writing about in his Epistles. The Law (aka The Torah) is more a list of Don’t Do rules than the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’ Do rules. My New Testament Theology professor stated that the Beatitudes were more difficult to follow than the 10 commandments because they were “Do Commandments,” instead of “Don’t Commandments.”
Every to’evah (abomination) in the Hebrew Scriptures contains a “Don’t Do Commandment” because “our” culture and religion is against it. I like to say that a “to’evah” is a Jewish taboo, meaning, “We Jews don’t do that thing; it is taboo.”
There are Fundamentalist Christians who don’t even know what an abomination is or what the word actually means. They can only say “Abomination is abomination!” It was to’ebah to eat certain animals according to the Jews because they were “unclean” animals. But after Peter told the Lord Jesus that he had never eaten anything impure or unclean, the Lord Jesus told Peter in Acts 10 that he should not call anything impure because God made them clean.
The Torah mistakenly identified animals claiming that they did things which they did not actually do. A rabbit does not chew cud. When it is not eating, at times, it looks like it is chewing on something. I have raised them and I know better because there is nothing in their mouths when the do that.
It was to’evah (or to’ebah – same Hebrew letters) to eat pork and to’evah to eat a “Kosher” meat product with a milk product. Cheeseburgers were an abomination; but, bacon cheeseburgers were a double abomination. Oh the horror of it all! It is not a sin for Believers in Jesus to eat a double bacon cheeseburger.
Paul said that any Believer could eat whatever he wanted, even if it has been ritually sacrificed to an idol or pagan god first. He wrote that if you were in a non-believer’s home to eat what was set before you and dont ask questions for your own conscience sake. He also said when you went to the Agora (the marketplace), buy what you wanted to eat and don’t ask questions about “where it was before it was being sold” for the same reason. He also said not to judge folks by what they ate or by what day of the week they worshiped the Lord. If a person chooses to go to a worship service one day a week or every day of the week, that was his business and not anyone else’s.
Besides, the original church gathered together for a combined pot-luck supper and worship service on the evening of the first day of the week (Roman Calendar, not the Jewish one). The whole service was a modified version of the original Last Supper in the Upper Room before Passover began in 30 AD. Jesus’ Last Supper, aka the Lord’s Supper, was a pre-Seder meal; and that is because Jesus had to be the Passover Lamb which had to be put to death, sacrificed before the 1st evening of the Passover period. The 1st day of the Jewish Passover was a Sabbath, no matter what day of the Jewish Calendar week it was on. Because of special Holy Days, there could be more than one Sabbath in the same week.
During “Holy Week” or “Passover Week,” in 30 AD, apparently the first evening of Passover began on Thursday evening (Roman Calendar). Jesus said that he would be in the grave 3 nights and he would rise again on the 3rd day. Friday night through Sunday morning is only 2 nights and one whole day in between. Orthodox Christianity traditionalists try to explain that away and don’t take what Jesus said literally.
Jesus also said “Whenever two or three are gathered in my name, I will be there also.” That means it only takes two Believers to have a church worship service.
We don’t delete often and I don’t think we have ever deleted for length or being off topic. If either were becoming a problem, we would just say so.
Joe, I’m going to ask again that you please ease up a bit and be a little less dogmatic on every jot and tiddle. Our scope is simply not that narrow and commenting that way can be somewhat tedious and, at least to some, judgmental. This is not our goal.
Also, as an illustration of my comment above, I’ve also mentioned that your comments are, more often than not, longer than the post. It’s understandable that, at times, a long comment is necessary to fully express a response but try to be more concise on average so the threads are a bit easier to read through.
You might consider saving some of the deeply doctrinal material for your own blog or group.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Since we’ve strayed so wildy off-topic all ready and the story of Jonah has been told….I’ll go ahead and mention that the Veggie Tales version of the Jonah story is quite entertaining.
I think we will shut commenting on this thread down later today. It’s gotten so long and off-topic that it will be hard enough to follow in the archives as it is. If you have any final comments, try to make them brief
Thanks.