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.
In an SNL skit about a year ago, in which an eHarmony commercial was parodied, at the end a plug was made for “HeHarmony” – obviously, a gay take on eHarmony.
I knew about this guy’s “christian principals” so I always wondered about eHarmony. I guess now we know. But what exactly does he think will be so difficult about matching same sex couples? If he’s covered every other part of this magnificently diverse human race, how much farther would you have to go for people who simply love other people with the same genitalia as them? We’re all looking for the same thing – a compatible personality. Gender shouldn’t complicate one’s simple humanity. Do people really think gays are that different and deviated from the “rest” of humanity? Maybe Warren’s never known a gay person in his life.
But then, maybe Dr. Warren feels he needs to do more research about bath-house trolling before he feels he fully understands the homosexual “principals of coupling.” What a crock.
At least he helped the folks from Chemistry. That was good of him.
Someone pointed out the fact that they don’t match same sex couples to me about 5 years ago. They have always had a semi-religious, cult like air about them in my view. The word creepy comes to mind. Maybe it’s their spokesman Dr. Warren.
On that note, if you want a good laugh, check out this parody.
I had some people come to me who were actually gays
really. I’m not kidding. They were actually gays. And, you know, none of them were wearing pink. I mean they walked right up to me and, well I may be a bit naive, but I didn’t even know until they started talking to me.
At first I jumped back just a little but then I told myself, “Dr. Neil Clark Warren, you be polite”. I explained that I didn’t know anything at all about The Gays and what they were looking for. I mean none of my research was about that, what’s it that my good friend Peter LaBarbera keeps telling me, oh yeah, I told them that none of my research was about “wristing” or “yellow showers” or anything to do with hampsters.
That’s when the lesbian woman, they call the women lesbians you know, that’s when she started talking louder and not in a real nice tone.
So I just said, “I gotta go take a call from the White House about my grant for faith based programs and promoting marriage” and got out of there.
I have know about eHarmony not having a problem with “helping” match folks who are not “Christians.”
But, one of the paying sponsors of the conservative Crosswalk.com is eHarmony. Crosswalk is owned by Salem Communications which promotes the Southern Baptist denominaton more than any other denominaton on its websites. See Crosswalk Singles and look at what is on that page where it says, “Find the love of your life.” You can register right on that page and click the link in that box.
I give kudos to anyone who takes a principled stand againt Dobson and his political religion.
From the way it reads, I suspect it had more to do with what Dobson’s stand was doing to limit eHarmony’s client base than principle, i.e. $$. They parted in 2005, long after Dobson started his headlong dive into politics.
I have been in a relationship for 15 years, but I decided to be silly one day because my partner and I kept receiving eharmony questionaires. We would get at least one a week. So I filled it out in the most ridiculous way possible–they said that I could not join because I was gay. They did not care about the other ridiculous things I put down that made no sense. This was awhile back, so they might have made some changes to the questionaire.
I feel mixed about the lawsuit–one side of me says yeah–go for it, but the other side says any private organization should be allowed to make membership choices even if I am excluded.
Aaron,
I honestly don’t recall being asked if I was gay in the questioning process, but it could be that I’ve forgotten. My eHarmony friend doesn’t remember that part either, but I think one of the 29 ways we matched probably had something to do with being a bit absent-minded at times.
David,
The research I did today for this article indicated to me that you are exactly right in your estimation of the real reasons for Warren’s break with Dobson and FOTF.
Timothy,
Your parody is so hilarious to me. I was joking about that exact phrase in that same vein of thought with my friend this afternoon.
eHarmony is a private business. Match.com and DOZENS of other dating sites allow gays and lesbians to create profiles for same sex partners. Why exactly is it our business that eHarmony doesn’t allow it? Its a frivolous lawsuit in my opinion.
Pam, this was a long time ago (like 7 years or so). The questionaire did not say gay–it asked my sex and, if I remember correctly, who I was looking for (I marked male or wrote male or something. I am sure it looks different now, but they sent back a note saying that they do not accept gay customers “at this time.” We still continued to receive questionaires until we moved.
I’m not savy on the law in these areas. I know it is one thing for a private club, but I think another for businesses open to the public. At any rate, I believe this particular suit is based on laws in California, though I haven’t seen the specific cite. Since eHarmony is also located in CA, who knows.
I don’t buy their reasons for not matching gays, but I don’t know that it’s illegal either. I tend to doubt it. However if they start to see a loss of income over the issue, I suspect we will see a new a new found interest in matching same-sex partners.
Well, that’s true. My understanding is that the claim is eHarmony is violating California laws against equal treatment and protection based on sexual orientation. However, and I could be very wrong, but typically my understanding is such protections apply to governmental discrimination (such as marriage laws which place a discriminatory burden on same sex couples compared to heterosexual couples based on access to certain benefits).
What eHarmony is arguing (whether or not I agree with it) is that the dynamic involved in heterosexual and homosexual relationships is different enough that they don’t want to attempt to create a profile for gay or lesbian couples. I don’t see the problem with that. They’re filling a niche, people have other dating services for same sex couples. Its a little like suing a lemonade stand for not selling orange juice when they don’t claim to.
After all, as has been pointed out, eHarmony is missing out on a portion of the market anyway, there is a demand for gay dating sites and eHarmony is choosing not to compete. Should Gay.com’s personals be required to include heterosexuals? I’d say no.
Just to expand on that a little bit, what’s the problem here? There are alternative services, there is no government prohibition on gay dating services, so why target one business and not simply go to another?
You would has to ask the plaintiff
. I will see if we can find the law being used, but I think it’s more broad than just government entities. I suspect when all is said and done, this will cause more negative than positive. However, if the law exists and they are breaking it, well…
Timothy — much appreciated!
That was the first thing that popped out for us too… you mean, The Actual Gays???
I’m having visions of a catfight over whether or not someone is entitled to call themselves The Supremes in concert or something.
And Pam… you did remember NOT to use the photo of you in a kermit-green facemask right? Because that’d be sure to frighten off even the most fearless suitor, or attract some very weird ones. Depends on what you were seeking I guess…
Ok, my curiosity is piqued.
My memory is playing tricks.
But only about the colour, not about the ability to frighten small children.
And now Pam will never speak to us again. /sniff
(hey, don’t blame us — you posted it dear!)
Good Grief!!
Maybe that’s why there have a been 2 matches who seemed to drop mysteriously from the face of the internet as soon as they learned my real name??!!
hee hee! Well, that and maybe a few other things. ha!
As a legal note, the lawsuit “has legs.”
AB1400 was signed into law by California’s Governor in 2005, and became law in January of 2006.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act / California Civil Code for Section 51′s paragraph (b) reads:
Dr. Neil Clark Warren is going to have to spend the money/do the research to create equal services for gays and lesbians as he does to heterosexuals, or he’s subject to some harsh remedies for discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and won’t be able to advertise or do business in California.
Section 52 of the same Civil Code states:
It’s going to be legally uncomfortable to be Dr. Warren if he can’t bring his business in line with California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act requirements.
This is a stupid and shortsighted law suit. It is publicity seeking as I can’t believe she wants to be advertising on a site for a female partner when she knows already that if she got on she’d be the only lesbian there. In addition the exclusively gay dating services can be destroyed by this move. If she wins they go down the tubes as well. So, a web dating service that attracts religious nutters might have to include us (oh, what a great dating pool) while the services that do us good would have to admit straights and could no longer cater to the community as well a s they do. A few more “victories” like that and she might be able to close down all the businesses that cater to gay people.
Autumn – So, under your reading Gay.com’s personals would also fall under violating this law? As far as I can tell, (and admittedly I didn’t look too closely, no need to make the BF wonder…) there are no “straight” personals allowed there.
This is a lawsuit I don’t agree with, as far as I know eharmony is not actively promoting any kind of antigay agenda and truth be told, if they use an extensive matchmaking method, I can see why they would feel there’s a difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Without the details I can’t really form an opinion on why eharmony.com doesn’t persue researching gay couples to the extent they claim to have researched straight couples, there are several reasons why that might be either a silly statement or very valid.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act of 1959 was the one that said that in the State of California resturants can’t be “white only” or even segregated by section. It said that a neighborhoods sales restrictions couldn’t keep out Jews. It said that if a business wanted to provide public services to the citizens of this state, they could not exclude certain citizens based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin.
You will find very few people who think that this piece of legislation was a bad idea.
Naturally, the anti-gay who want to deny services to gay folk weren’t real happy that this was amended to include gay folk, but it barely made a blip on the public conciousness when it passed. By then most folks thought it was illegal to deny services based or orientation already – and they were mostly right.
In 1984, the City of West Hollywood incorporated and one of their first items of business was to make discrimination against gays illegal. The Council left the meeting and marched down to Barnie’s Beenery, a local bar, and demanded that they hand over the sign “No Fagots Allowed” they had hanging over the front door. Since that time most cities had passed such ordinances.
The issue of the lawsuit is not whether the services provided by eHarmony are well suited to gay folk but rather that the second question asked is designed specifically to exclude gay folk from participating. If Warren posted a comment that said “reseach is not currently available for same-sex couples” and then let them on at their own risk he would probably be fine. But his second question is:
I’m a (please select) man seeking a woman / woman seeking a man.
Whether or not a gay person finds eHarmony useful or helpful or totally bogus is irrelevant. Just as it is irrelevant whether a gay person ever darkens the door of Barnie’s Beenery (we don’t). The law is that in the State of California you can’t provide services that limit your options to: I’m a white man looking for a white woman, or I’m a Christian man looking for a Christian woman or I’m a straight person looking for another straight person, which is what the two options are limited to.
It is for this same reason that a gay bar cannot forbid services to straight people (just go to one in WeHo, sometimes the straight folks outnumber the gay patrons).
Right now there is a lawsuit that may give us an idea of whether Dr. Warren will have to change his site. The Fair Housing Councils of San Fernando Valley and San Diego are suing a company called Roommates.com because they ALLOW THE CUSTOMER to select “gay only” or “straight only” when electing their roommate wishes. Simply filtering out the roommate potentials by orientation for the customer may be in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act (though, of course, the member can select whomever they want based on whatever criterion suits their fancy).
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=20408
Although it’s a different law (state v. federal), if Roommates.com loses this one – considering that they welcome gay customers – eHarmony has no chance whatsoever.
Timothy – The question isn’t whether Unruh is a good or a bad idea. The question is whether it is applicable in this specific situation. After all, no one is being denied service because they’re gay or straight. eHarmony is allowing members to create profiles for heterosexual relationships, they’re not saying we cannot create profiles at all.
That seems like such a flip argument because its the same one the religious right tries to use to argue against our inclusion in marriage laws. And yet the Government and private businesses are entirely different. I think my lemonade stand analogy is somewhat apt here. A Lemonade stand would presumably be required to sell their product to anyone who wanted one, but what if for some reason they were allergic to Lemons but not to Oranges so they asked for Orange Juice? Or Milk? Its not discriminatory to say a business doesn’t offer a particular service for a client, so long as a client has equal access to all services provided by the company (which, under my reading is all that Unruh provides).
By the way Timothy, would YOU agree with me that if eHarmony loses Gay.com should also change their site accordingly?
Kendall,
I like your analogy. And, honestly, I’m pretty sure I have been matched with at least one or two gay men on there all ready.
(not kidding) Hopefully, I’ve learned how to discern such things by now.
Moderator Note: Duplicate post deleted.
In response to Kendall’s comments about gay.com, I would add that I actually have seen ads before self-designated as straight… feel free to set one up! It’s free!
Further, eHarmony and gay.com occupy different roles, in that eHarmony offers a matching service on a discriminatory basis, while gay.com allows anyone to set up a site, participate in chatrooms that are generally clustered by state/city, not orientation, and gay.com makes no claims to indicate that they are providing a service to help people find mates.
What you’re pointing to is a free chat site (gay.com) that explicitly provides safe web space for gays and lesbians, without exclusionary policies, and one that offers a service but excludes based on innate characteristics.
I have to admit, though, I’m offended by your lemonade stand analogy – it isn’t fitting or related in any way.
First, it’s offensive and ignorant to refer to sexuality as a matter of a taste for lemons or oranges. A person who prefers orange juice can make do in this world with lemonade and still not be thirsty at the end of the day.
This is more like a school cafeteria going whites-only. Yes, they are selling food. They may even go out of their way to incorporate regional dishes and foreign cuisine. Black students will still go home hungry after the school day, though. The fact that, in this case, it’s a private cafeteria doesn’t (and legally, shouldn’t) make a difference – we as a society at large decided that whites-only businesses have no place, and have prohibited them. In California, reason has won the day and the law stipulates that the innate quality of sexual orientation is also no reason to discriminate. Offering services for heterosexual pairing only DOES discriminate against the one unique feature that makes gays and lesbians different, so to act like this is about a desire or act and not about the nature of the person being discriminated against is ridiculous.
For an additional two cents, I’d just like to say that the primary purpose of anti-discrimination laws are to require private businesses providing services to the general public to not discriminate. I think it’s unfortunate that, under this Administration, businesses are being treated as if they have any right equal to that of a living, breathing citizen.
Thanks Pam, I really appreciate it. Its sad that some gay men are apparently so insecure they’re looking for women on eHarmony, but its unsurprising.
Matthew – Why would I set up an account? I’m in a very happy relationship with a guy. I’m not arguing anything meaning to attack gay.com or any site that allows personal ads whatsoever. I think its interesting though, if gay.com is an all inclusive site (just for the record I am a gay man, not a straight woman btw, if you couldn’t tell) that their search function for looking for relationships has such questions as: How “out” is your match?
Totally
To some people
To all but family
Not at work
Not out at all yet
I mean, maybe I’m reading too much into that. I can’t say I’m offended by the question because I’m not. But it does seem to indicate the kind of match you’d get from the site (if the name of the site itself wasn’t a clue…) not dissimilar to eHarmony’s question.
and I wasn’t meaning to offend you with my analogy, I still think its a valid comparison. Heck, its practically traditional. Many cultures and societies see fruit as aphrodisiacs of various kinds. The biblical analogy of the apple is seen by many as relating to sex. But in all honesty? I was probably reading too much about Miracle Fruit recently when I came up with the analogy. (Which for the record is a very interesting fruit, the juices coat your tongue and make lemons taste sweet, like lemonade.)
I think it’d actually be healthier for straight people in our society to consider questions like how “out” they are! Nothing annoys me more than overhearing co-workers (or even supervisors) state that they aren’t concerned with or don’t want to know your sexual orientation, all while they have a wedding ring, wedding photos, and baby pictures crowding their desks.
Most heterosexuals are flamingly out, but ignorant of it. Asking them to think about it should be mandatory!
Actually I somewhat agree with you, I’ve used the same point about wedding rings, pictures, etc to make the point we don’t spread an “agenda” merely by BEING gay, and there is no “agenda” kissing my boyfriend in public or having his picture on my desk, etc. Yet from a cultural/societal stand point the question is relatively nonsensical for heterosexuals as you know very well.
Alright, so I hit the ground running with an angry bent today and realize that the whole reason I even read these boards regularly is b/c of the typically civil tone, which I enjoy.
With that in mind, I apologize, Kendall, I’ve probably come across like a jerk today!
Just as a final note, and I’ll cut myself off for the day, I think that ultimately the legal conflict is over whether gays and lesbians are treated as persons, in which case discriminatory practices for “matching” couples, etc., violates the core trait that makes us a class, or the alternative is to treat us as individuals with particular behaviors. That’s a prime focus of the radical religious fundamentalists in this country – after all, if there are no gay people, only homosexual acts, then there’d be no such thing as a gay person experiencing discrimination! I think for Unruh to have any positive effect, it must be enforced as a law about legal protections for a type of person. In the case of same-sex relationships and gay-identity, they are inseparable, and any prohibition of the one will have to be interpreted as a prohibition of the other for us to achieve any equality.
Very good point Mathew about how out straights are. Heterosexuality is “paraded” everyday. Gays should be allowed the same freedom of expression.
Matthew – Apology accepted, we all have off moments! I don’t think our personhood is at stake in this lawsuit. To me its a question of access and equal treatment under the law. Something I was thinking about is the controversy in some states about the morning after pill. Some (most) conservative groups see that particular pill especially as causing an abortion with each use. Some pharmacists won’t sell that pill. In Massachusetts recently WalMart was sued and forced to offer the pill (now I THINK they offer it at all stores whether they were compelled to or not by states).
Not providing the morning after pill would probably be a violation of some state laws, but not Unruh specifically unless it was sold at your pharmacy, just not to certain customers. Some women might be insulted by this but could they bring a suit under Unruh because of a lack of access? I’d think not. However, if white women had access to it but not black women? Then clearly they could.
I think the eHarmony is not discriminating, but rather offering a specific product.
Since the Federal Law about Fair Housing was brought in to this discussion and sort of a tangent, I personally know about what HUD’s rules are for those who are on the Voucher Programs for Rental Assistance.
I get HUD help because I am on poverty level fixed income and I get help through the local housing authority under a Section 8 Voucher program. If an individual is approved for the program, he is told how much he will have to pay for rent and the voucher will take care of the rest. If an individual has property for rent and he participates in the Section 8 or similar HUD programs, he cannot discriminate against gays and/or lesbians who want to rent from him. The same applies to any apartment housing complex. If a gay couple have been approved by HUD for assistance, they can rent as a couple.
Even before same-gender consensual sexual activity in private became legal in Oklahoma, those property owners could not discriminate against gay couples. In fact, the rule now is if a couple who want to just be apartment mates and are approved by the granting HUD agency as individuals, their relationship is none of the lessor’s business. I won’t go into further detail here but the lessee’s share is based on a certain percentage of his adjusted gross income or the combined adjusted gross income of two individuals.
As a California resident, I do not see any reason for eHarmony to be exempted from our state’s non-discrimination statutes. I have no desire to use their services, but if they are operating a business in California, they are required to obey our laws. Since Safeway can’t discrimnate in California on the basis of race, religion, sex, orientation, etc, I am not sure why eHarmony or any other business should be allowed to do so.
Adoption.com discriminates against gay couples and will not post profiles from gay couples seeking to adopt. That is a violation of California state law. Adoption.com is located in Arizona. After Adoption.com realized that they had no prayer in defending against a lawsuit filed by a California gay couple, they settled the case and are no longer operating in California. That option is open to eHarmony.
California contains somewhere between 15 and 20% of the population. That also means that it contains that percentage of America’s consumers. If businesses want access to California’s large market, they should be willing to play by California’s rules.
As I see the situation, dating services should be allowed to cater to their strengths. I question the quality of service that could be provided to romance-minded, marriage-seeking gay people by a dating service whose inspiration supposedly came in part from Focus on the Family.
The quality of service would be comparable to that of a hypothetical exgay ministry operated by gay porn stars: In both cases there would be an obvious conflict of interest.
More realistically speaking, there are in fact gay dating services that, in practice if not in policy, do not serve heterosexuals. Shouldn’t they be allowed to exist?
We can argue hypothetically about legitimate forms of discrimination forever, but the debate unnecessarily complicates the case of eHarmony, which is: Did eHarmony violate California law, or didn’t it? If it did, then either eHarmony must cease operation in California, or the California law must change to allow dating services to serve niche markets.
Mike – “More realistically speaking, there are in fact gay dating services that, in practice if not in policy, do not serve heterosexuals. Shouldn’t they be allowed to exist?”
Absolutely, just as eHarmony should be allowed to continue to be exclusionary. The free market and individual subscribers will determine the success or failure of these companies (well, the free market, and advertisers).
I’m not angry so much about the dating service being exclusive as I am about the fact that gays are seen as so “different” from heteros that it’s like they’re from a different species. eHarmony is a private business, so it may very well have the right to be exclusionary, much like the Boy Scouts.
Emily – Should heteros be upset at gay sites which, as Mike points out sometimes treat them like a different species? I understand the perspective that we have been hurt and discriminated against for so long its hard not to be upset with businesses like this… but are we considering the other side?
I have a hard time commenting on this with knowledge because I’ve never tried any dating site of any kind, gay or straight. However, I live by the belief that we’re all humans. I think it works both ways. If we start assuming that people are going to want to be categorized and treated a certain way just because of one part of their being, I think such a generalization opens up a gateway to prejudice. This isn’t to place the weight of the world upon eHarmony’s shoulders – it’s only one site – I think this concept could apply to any dating site.
Fair enough. My preference is to let the free market decide, but I think it is equally consistent to say that both sides, whether gay or straight are allowed to discriminate, or neither are allowed to do so.
I’m not versed enough on California law to answer anything definitively, but I think that eHarmony is no more exclusionary than many other similar sites and by focusing only on them it seems somehow to detract from “real world” issues GLBTs face (after all, its not particularly difficult to go to a different site for a profile, but it IS much more burdensome to go to a state that allows gay marriage or civil unions).
Does anybody else see the incredible irony here? Apparently, E-Harmony is bad because they don’t treat people equally under the law. Who are they “mistreating?” Gays. What is the defining characteristic of being gay? Discrimination against individuals of the opposite sex.
Instead, we have gays complaining that E-harmony is discriminating against their discrimination. Somebody truly committed to demolishing discrimination such as E-Harmony’s would have to adopt the position that they don’t care who they’re matched with. Hmmmm…. In fact, if E-Harmony does anything beyond randomly matching folks, they’re engaging in discrimination…
Last, I have to wonder: whatever happened to freedom of association? It seems like a constitutional value that’s disregarded by too many activists today. Remember, being free to associate with who you want (a lynchpin it gay rights) also means being free to not associate with those you’d rather avoid. Not surprisingly, there’s nothing actually written in the Constitution that places commercial activity outside of this right.
Timothy – The question isn’t whether Unruh is a good or a bad idea. The question is whether it is applicable in this specific situation. After all, no one is being denied service because they’re gay or straight. eHarmony is allowing members to create profiles for heterosexual relationships, they’re not saying we cannot create profiles at all.
And that will be the most important aspect of the case.
eHarmony is a private business, so it may very well have the right to be exclusionary, much like the Boy Scouts.
Well, no actually. The Boy Scouts claimed to be a private religious organization. That’s how they were allowed the right to be exclusionary.
My preference is to let the free market decide, but I think it is equally consistent to say that both sides, whether gay or straight are allowed to discriminate, or neither are allowed to do so.
In California it’s “neither”. You cannot refuse service to a straight person in a gay establishment (in fact go to West Hollywood on a Saturday – sometimes there are more straight folks in a bar than gay folks.)
LOL – has anyone seen Stephen Bennett’s press release titled “Homesexuals Out to Destroy E-Harmony.com? Here’ s a link:
OK, I can’t figure out how to make a link here. Anyway, you can find it at sbministries.org. – upper left of site, ‘Straight Talk – End of the Day’ column (the latest exciting new feature of SB’s ministry.)
To post a link all by itself, the URL must be copied and pasted (or completely typed out) in the comment’s section where you reply.
If you put the complete URL without naming the webpage title here by pasting it or typing it, highlight the complete URL and click the “link” box above the box where you are typing http://www.sbministries.org The result will then look like what is underlined.
I use a free HTML Code instruction website to find out to add the name of the webpage to have it replace the URL itself. Here is the link to that website which has rather easy instructions: Free HTML Tutorial – Learning to Code HTML
I could not find the link to the Homosexuals Out to Destroy E-Harmony.com? webpage.
You have to sign up for that “Straight Talk – End of the Day” with the blog thing. I am not that stupid.
I am not interested in internet dating services. I don’t actually personally care about eHarmony.com; but, since they are supporters of Christian organizations and recommended by them, I think that they should stop being a hypocrite organization and allow anyone who wants to purchase their services to do so.
Timothy said:
Self-respecting gay folks still hang out in West Hollywood? That is so 1990.