pudge's Journal: eHarmony SUED?!

A woman is suing eHarmony for discrimination because the company won't allow her to seek gay relationships on their site.

Seriously.

Said her lawyer, "You can't have a web site with a sign on the door No Gay People." Actually, yes, you can. You may not LIKE it, but they absolutely can do that. If you don't like it, don't use their service. Start your own.

I can't be certain precisely why eHarmony doesn't do gay relationships. Maybe it's just as they say, that their methodology for selecting potential mates is based on research regarding heterosexual relationships. Or maybe -- the founder if an evangelical Christian -- they simply don't want to encourage homosexual relationships. Whatever their reason, it is absolutely their right to exclude gay relationships.

I've heard...

[FroMan]

I've heard that you can setup stuff at truck stops on craig's list or something like that...

</IAmSoGoingToHell>

what they say

[Bill Dog]

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/01/america/ NA-GEN-US-Online-Dating-Lawsuit.php: [iht.com]

"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," a company statement said.

"Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future, it's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted," the statement said.

They may have to do like Microsoft, when they tried t

Re:

[pudge]

They may have to do like Microsoft, when they tried to explain how IE couldn't be unbundled from Windows -- explain to a court that their service is totally different than your typical online dating site, in that they don't have facilities for people to just free-form search and browse the database, the system is designed to only present you with what the algorithm says you should see.

They have no obligation, of any kind, to provide this service to gay people. They don't have to explain anything. They can just say "we don't want to do it." I can't even see how any court would even HEAR this case. There's no legal basis for it, from what I can tell: California does not allow workplace and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation, but I can find nothing about this refusing service.

The only reason Microsoft had its legal problems is because it was ruled to be a limited monopo

Re:

[Bill Dog]

Also from the article, the lady suing said: "Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age." Emphasis mine. If Denny's got in trouble for refusing to serve Black people, why can't eHarmony for refusing to serve gays?

Re:

[bofkentucky]

Was being black a protected class by some city, county, state or federal ordinance in the jurisdiction where the Denny's case happened? If sexual orientation is a protected class in one jurisdiction, does that apply to online business trying to operate in the locality or only businesses with a physical presence there. Even so, eHarmony could deny service to such draconian locales by zip code. That being said, if the market is being underserved, it's not like there is a high barrier to entry to create gay

Re:

[Bill Dog]

All very good questions. I don't know about the Denny's case, but that article's dateline (probably not the right term) is "Los Angeles" (California), eHarmony is in Pasadena, CA, and apparently CA has a Unruh Civil Rights Act, in reference to which the CA Attorney General web site [ca.gov] says, at the end of the first paragraph: "For example, the arbitrary exclusion of individuals from a restaurant based on their sexual orientation is prohibited." Maybe the lady's suing based on potential violation of this state's

Re:

[pudge]

As noted previously, I was unable to find any law in CA that said this; this law appears to say just that. What a tragedy. The Unruh Act is one of the greatest affronts to liberty I've seen, and is grossly unconstitutional in my eyes. I am so glad I don't live in California anymore ...

So if this does apply to online sites -- which I'm sure the liberal CA courts will agree with -- then still, one has to prove that eHarmony's claims are false, and the burden of proof should not be eHarmony's. Though I'd l

Re:

[Bill Dog]

The Unruh Act is one of the greatest affronts to liberty I've seen,...

What's wrong with protecting people from being discriminated against on their sexual orientation? We all need jobs, a place to live, places to shop, places to eat, etc.

...and is grossly unconstitutional in my eyes.

Then again, I believe you've said in the recent past that you support Affirmative Action, which is grossly unconstitutional. So I can't interpret your complaint about a thing based on its unconstitutionality as being a

Re:

[pudge]

What's wrong with protecting people from being discriminated against on their sexual orientation?

Nothing, until it infringes on someone else's rights.

...and is grossly unconstitutional in my eyes.

Then again, I believe you've said in the recent past that you support Affirmative Action

False. I've never said anything of the sort.

Until this ruling, commercial websites were not considered a place of accommodation... Target argued that they already have one way for, in this case, blind people to shop with them. But that wasn't good enough. eHarmony doesn't currently have even one way for gay love seekers to use their services.

Right, that's the point, it's different than the Target case.

Methinks they're in heap big trouble, in this blue state.

Unfortunately, yes, there is a good chance their right to discriminate in this manner will be taken away by people who don't care about liberty. However, again, there's a good chance that they either won't have to prove their claim, or will be able to prove their claim.

Though I'd love to see Unruh just tossed out by a federal court.

How un-Federalist of you.

False. That doesn't even begin to make sense, whatsoever. A Federalist does

Re:

[Bill Dog]

My view -- which you misrepresented as favoring Affirmative Action...

I misrepresented, out of misunderstanding. I now understand your position, and acknowledge that it's nothing like Affirmative Action.

As for the rest, I simply disagree with your characterizations, but feel that it's within the realm of subjective, so I'll leave it at that.

Re:

[pudge]

Also from the article, the lady suing said: "Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age." Emphasis mine. If Denny's got in trouble for refusing to serve Black people, why can't eHarmony for refusing to serve gays?

A little thing called "the law." We have special protections in this country for race, gender, religion, etc., making it illegal to refuse service to people for those reasons. But not for being gay. You can refuse service for any reason you want, except for those few exceptions.

Re:

[sr180]

The way i see it, gay people are also free to use eHarmony. If a gay man wants to find a woman, then eHarmony will provide him with service - as that is the service eHarmony provides, fairly to everyone.