E-Harmony has not been providing matchmaking services to gays and lesbians on account of its "christian values" and claim that their love research was only done on heterosexual relationships giving them no basis for how to match queers.
Now, thanks to a lawsuit E-Harmony will open its service to gays and lesbians.
"Internet matchmaker eHarmony.com will provide same-sex matching services in 2009 under the terms of a settlement reached today in New Jersey. The online dating service, founded in 2000 in California, has 20 million clients, according to its website. Eric McKinley, a gay man from New Jersey, filed a discrimination suit against eHarmony Inc. in 2005 after the service refused to take his personal advertisement. McKinley's suit triggered a N.J. state investigation of the service. Under the terms of the settlement, eHarmony agreed to provide a new service for gay men and lesbians by March 31 under the headings "male seeking male" and "female seeking female." In return, the complaint against eHarmony was dismissed by the N.J. Division on Civil Rights. The company and its founder, Neil Clark Warren, were absolved of any liability." (JMG)Too bad it took a court order to force them to expand their dating service to include gays and lesbians.
I know I for one will sign up for a "free" account, to demonstrate that there are gays and lesbians out there, but no way in hell will they get a dime from me for the regular basic membership.
Posts
18 comments:
so sad that it took a law suit to get them to consider us
As you said, one should join for a free account but considering that almost all the other dating sites are gay-friendly, I wouldn't give a single penny to these people.
If they won't support us because they believe it is right to do so, why should we support them?
eHarmony can rim me. Their commercials are annoying and I met my partner of 12 years through IRC.
I still wouldn't go to them to find my
'perfect match'....
HUGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It pisses me off that so called Christians think their "sin" of being judgemental or worse is less of an offense to God than my "sin" of having gay sex. Aren't we all sinners and forgiven for this fact. Isn't this the ultimate message of Christianity. On judgement day, I'm not going to worry too much. Gay or not, I've done pretty good.
E-harmony not offering its serivces to gay people is not a judgmental issue it is an issue of standing for what you believe in and they should have the right to refuse service. But because this country has been hijacked by the far left, it is now impossible to live your life if you are a traditionalist without being sued for something or having your fundamental rights taken away. You will not be judged for being gay you will be judged for your actions and choosing to act upon your feelings is what is a sin. By people saying they do not condone a same sex couple marriage or their business not offering services to same sex couples is not being judgmental it is expressing your God given right to freedom of speech.
No, Anonymous, it is not just expressing your right to freedom of speech. It is discrimination which is not legal in America. Freedom of speech allows eHarmony to say what they like, but they must not use their prejudices (pre-judgments) to deny Americans the services they offer freely.
UPS delivery people can't refuse to deliver packages to Catholics b/c they think Catholics are idol-worshippers or to Baptists because they think the Baptists have left the One True church. They can say it all they want, but they cannot their services to people because they don't agree with them.
And that's all the anti-gay stuff is about: people not agreeing with the gay people, the the families and friends who support them, the churches who welcome them and gladly marry them. And because they don't agree, they want to deny the gay people services and civil rights, to impose their religious beliefs on society and to insist the American government enshrine discrimination into legislation on the basis of ancient books that reflected a worldview that supported slavery as well as stoning women and children, etc.
The churches gave up on those...and why, if the Bible is literally true from start to finish? Makes no sense, of course, but let's call it faith and sanctify stupidity, shall we? That's the mark of a *good* **true** Christian, I gather.
I say they're only after your $$. Set up the free account, check in every now & then, but dpn't give those bastards a dime.
Apparently the first 10,000 accounts on "compatible partners" will be free. So if I get in quick, I'll take a free account, but yeah not a penny.
I am still pissed we can't just be on eharmony, we need a separate but equal website.
Can't this guy find a different service to use? I voted against prop 8 (i.e. I voted in favor of gay marriage in California) , but if gay marriage is legalized we're going to get a lot more garbage like this which makes me much more cautious.
The government shouldn't allow discrimination. But private individuals should have the same right to free association that gays want, to associate or not associate with who they please.
Or maybe we should say that gay people are being sexist for refusing to date members of the opposite sex? Standards like that are clearly insane when the situation is reversed.
Ryan - if you were to use eHarmony and it was inclusive you would be searching for women, so gays and lesbians being listed would not affect you. your criteria would be women seeking men. Most dating services already do this, you are probably on sites that include gays and just haven't realized.
@Ryan W
But private individuals should have the same right to free association that gays want, to associate or not associate with who they please.
Shall we take your argument one step further. Let's just say that a private company suddenly decides that it does not want to serve blacks. That was called segregation and that was outlawed decades ago. This is the same circumstance. Deciding not to offer a service because someone is gay is no different than not offering them a service because they are black. Discrimination is never acceptable.
I for one do not see this ruling as a victory. Setting up a different company to exclusively cater to gays and lesbians is separate but equal jim crow like treatment. They should have been ordered to integrate it into one business format.
I disagree with Anonymous (11/19 8:15) that e-harmony should have been granted the right to refuse service. Because they are a for-profit corporation, regardless of their public or private status they are subject to federal anti-discrimination laws. As a for-profit corporation they pay taxes to the government, and therefore enjoy certain privileges and rights-- and are also subject to government strictures. If they wanted to uphold a discriminatory mission statement, fine-- but they should have done it as a 501c3. However, If this sort of litigation were to extend to non-profits (i.e. interest groups, churches, etc.), then I would contend that the constitutional right to free speech had been clearly violated. Private organizations of this kind have (and should have!) the right to discriminate in any way they please.
I agree with Ryan's idea about association-- in principle. But in this case the law is the law. However, What few seem to realize is that there's a point at which extending the 'rights' of some begins to limit the higher-order rights of everyone. A pro-gay group should have the right to exist and to restrict membership. Likewise, an anti-gay group should have the right to exist and to restrict membership. I'm not a homophobe. I'm simply speaking in principle, and sexual orientation is merely an application. Once we begin to compromise the right to assemble and to speak, we're headed on an inevitable trajectory toward not having the liberty to say anything at all-- and that steps all over people on the left as well as on the right.
p.s. In response to Anonymous (11/19 7:11): for the record, Christians do not claim that God forgives everyone-- you're thinking of Universalists. Christians believe that forgiveness comes not on the basis of the magnitude of sins, nor on the basis of the fact that all people sin. Forgiveness comes by spiritual union with Christ who made atonement for sin, a union which can only be apprehended by a trusting faith in that same Christ. So if the fact that you've "done pretty good" is your basis for heading into judgment day with a clear conscience, I suggest you reconsider-- gay or not.
If someone refused to serve someone because they were Chrisitan. I can imagine there would be quite an uproar in the Christian Community.
Some Christians believe that in the end, everyone will be saved. Everyone will come to a saving knowledge of Christ.
I am really bothered. This should not be a gay rights issue at all.
Should we now tell Black dating sites, Christian dating sites and even GAY dating sites that they must accept Whites, Jews, and straight people to their site otherwise they're discriminating. I think the only right impinged upon here was eHarmony's right to be a website for straight people.
I'm for gay rights but acts like this makes me hesitate about where this is all going...
I completely agree this WILL spiral so far out of control. Very soon mens clubs are not going to exist, because feminist think it is sexists. Vassar and Smith will be shut down as well or forced to become a co-ed school, something that I believe would make Jackie Kennedy and Nancy Reagan roll over in their graves. Country clubs will not be able to run background checks and investigate a little before accepting members. Some things are specifically design for a certain group of people and their is nothing wrong with that.
This is just the beginning of troubles. When a so called "Christian" organization bends to compromise its "truth", it is no longer truth. It gets murky and is no longer a light to a dark world. No wonder Jesus said, "Will I still find faith on the earth when I come." Too many people cave in when it hits the pocketbook. Shame on you, E harmony.
You have sold out to the world.
@Anonymous said "Jackie Kennedy and Nancy Reagan roll over in their graves."
BTW Nancy Regan is not yet in her grave.
Post a Comment