eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services; Update: And now, a class-action lawsuit
Scroll down for updates…
So, this is “progress?” eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled . I wish they hadn’t, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users. Behold the submission:
Coming soon to EHarmony — Adam and Steve.
The Pasadena-based dating website, heavily promoted by Christian evangelical leaders when it was founded, has agreed in a civil rights settlement to give up its heterosexuals-only policy and offer same-sex matches.
EHarmony was started by psychologist Neil Clark Warren, who is known for his mild-mannered television and radio advertisements. It must not only implement the new policy by March 31 but also give the first 10,000 same-sex registrants a free six-month subscription.
“That was one of the things I asked for,” said Eric McKinley, 46, who complained to New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights after being turned down for a subscription in 2005.
The company said that Warren was not giving interviews on the settlement. But attorney Theodore Olson, who issued a statement on the company’s behalf, made clear that it did not agree to offer gay matches willingly. “Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business,” Olson said, “we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the attorney general since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.”
The settlement, which did not find that EHarmony broke any laws, calls for the company to either offer the gay matches on its current venue or create a new site for them. EHarmony has opted to create a site called Compatiblepartners.net.
Warren had said in past interviews that he didn’t want to feature same-sex services on EHarmony — which matches people based on long questionnaires concerning personality traits, relationship history and interests — because he felt he didn’t know enough about gay relationships.
eHarmony had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman and by a married man who sought to force the company to hook him up in an adulterous relationship.
Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their business. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways.
***
GayPatriot West gives eHarmony’s capitulation thumbs down.
Update 4pm Eastern 11/20. Geez. Now, a California judge has approved a class-action lawsuit by gays against eHarmony. When it rains, it pours:
(onlinedatingmagazine.com – November 20, 2008) A California Superior Court judge has certified a class action lawsuit against eHarmony.com for discrimination against gays and lesbians in California. The news comes one day after eHarmony settled a case in the State of New Jersey where a gay man accused the company of discrimination. In that settlement, eHarmony agreed to open up a service that matches gays and lesbians.
That announcement had no affect in the California case, which is moving forward.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Document drop: Lib 9th circuit panel rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 01:09 PM by Michelle Malkin
152 CommentsStop the hate campaign against law-abiding American businesses
February 2, 2011 04:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 CommentsCalif. judge overturns voter-approved Prop. 8 gay marriage ban
August 4, 2010 04:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
955 Comments
Dear Cindy & Meghan: Let’s talk about who’s really being silenced over Prop. 8
January 25, 2010 11:36 AM by Michelle Malkin
126 Comments
Supreme Court blocks Prop. 8 show trial plan
January 11, 2010 11:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
34 Comments
Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob
November 10, 2009 05:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 Comments
Left-wing thug of the day
November 5, 2009 01:18 PM by Michelle Malkin
78 CommentsMaine votes down gay marriage
November 4, 2009 01:25 AM by Michelle Malkin
759 Comments
Categories: Proposition 8
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dBabalu Blog
» Greece is BurningBetsys Page
» Cruising the WebPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On Stupid
so you agree then…this is another step to anything goes…polygamy, pedophilia, anything.
Don’t hold your breath, fm.
No one, inclduding Bueler, responded to my question which followed a discussion of somatic mutation.
All I heard then – and still hear – are crickets…lots of very loud crickets.
The country was based on the principal of minority rights. Essentially, the majority cannot refuse the rights of the minority.
The law is consistent.
Gay people and straight people have the same right and the same restrictions on who they can and cannot marry.
The law applies to all equally, so your argument fails.
Apologize.
Fair enough.
Now, the fact that eHarmony markets itself as a “Christian” match making website seems all too convenient.
There are several Islamic match making websites that dont provide for same-sex dating arrangements.
Perhaps then, we will then see suits against them too?
I understand you cannot make an assumption of intent here. But logically, this whole thing stinks.
There is a disproportionate amount of Christian and Mormon business’ being harassed, vandalized or financially intimidated as oppose to any other religions. Wouldn’t you agree?
If gays have their own match making services, why would they file such a suit?
We don’t have group rights in this country. We have individual rights.
Gay and straight individuals are treated equally under the law. A gay individual is subject to the same conditions as a straight individual when it comes to marriage — primarily, that (1) the spouse be a member of the opposite sex, (2) the spouse not be a close relative, (3) the spouse be over the age of consent and possessing the mental capacity for such consent, and (4) not be currently married to someone else. (My cousin was engaged to a guy some years back, and then they had to stop the wedding because her prospective husband ran into problems with restriction #4…)
It depends on the state you’re referring to.
But no one here has ever answered that question.
If we decide to allow gay marriage, on the basis that limiting the definition of marriage to one man and one woman is “bigoted” and “discriminatory” and a “violation of rights”, how can we – logically – then turn around and say marriage is defined as any two consenting adults?
If gay marriage proponents are going to argue it’s discriminatory to deny marriage based on sexual preference and orientation, how can you logically argue it’s suddenly not discriminatory to restrict marriage to two consenting adults?
if my sexual preference and orientation tends toward multiple partners, aren’t you then discriminating against me?
If my sexual preference and orientation tends toward non-humans, aren’t you then discriminating against me?
If my sexual preference and orientation tends toward 9-year-olds, aren’t you then discriminating against me?
If my sexual preference and orientation tends toward deceased beings, aren’t you then discriminating against me?
Actions have consequences. Attempting to redefine marriage as an institution between two consenting adults of either or both genders, and claiming that anything less is sexual discrimination, will open the door for any other group – no matter how much of a minority they are – to demand their rights and sexuality be given equal status.
I suppose, ultimately, most of you all will be okay with that. But what about the rest of us?
How about California, for example?
Not to sound evasive on the question, but it depends on the state.
However, in cases where a civil union provides all the same privileges as marriage, it would really only be a matter of nomenclature. I would argue that in those cases, marriage is the spiritual word whereas civil union would be the legal one.
In all, the focus does seem to be more on the word “marriage” than the privileges given by the state. Many here have asked the more vociferous of the anti-8 commenters if they would accept civil unions entitling the same, but I don’t recall seeing a response to that from anyone.
Of course, I’m skipping through batches of flame wars, so I might have missed it.
UGH!!!!!
Of course.
Except, naturally, when the minority isn’t politically correct. In which case, the will of the majority *must* be respected and upheld.
Liberals always love to gloat that religious conservatives will soon be the minority – does that mean we get special protections, too???
Ah, i see. You’re under the misconception that law is legal as long as it is applied consistently. That is incorrect. A law can be considered illegal and unconstitutional if it negatively effects as segment of the population drastically more than the population at large, which is why the landownership law was deemed illegal.
I currently ASSUME that civil unions provide the same privileges as marriages, but I don’t KNOW this. Can ayone speak with authority on this?
Wow. Do you have any idea why this country was founded? It was fundementally founded because the rights of the minority were being abused by the majority. That’s why the oorginal settlers first came to America, and is why the colonist decided to risk their lives in succession.
and it was NOT formed so the rights of the majority could be taken by the minority. which is what the gay rights movement is all about…ending freedom of religion.
CJ,
At one point, there was a 5: the spouse must be a member of the same race. How does the illegality of that requirment differ to the legality of your first requirement, in terms of invidual rights?
RSR: You laugh (at least at your own rapier-like wit), but these are legitimate questions. If we are going to re-define what marriage is – in the name of not “trampling” on people’s rights – then why shouldn’t we also legalize and sanction marriage among 2 men and 1 woman? Or any other combination of multiples out there? Also, why not relatives? Genetically speaking, the odds of producing “defectives” from incestuous relationships are quite small, and in fact in-breeding has been proven in animals to reinforce good traits and eliminate bad traits. And with modern scientific advances, surely the “defectives” can be culled by selective abortion in order not to “burden” anyone.
I can’t however condone allowing children to enter into any type of marriage. They lack the ability to make informed choices that will impact their lives in such a substantial way. That’s why they need parents.
Oops. That’s what marriage is intended to do, isn’t it really? To provide for the procreation of the human species and to care for those children.
I can see a plural marriage meeting these criteria. I can see an incestuous marriage meeting these criteria (at least theoretically).
Homosexual marriage? Not so much.
editorial note: I make the preceeding arguments in an editorial capacity only. I personally do not endorse or condone marriage other than between a single man and a single woman.
eaglehaslanded:
You are the perfect, shining example of “tolerance for thee, but not for me”. Your statements in this thread are contemptable and beyond ludicrous. Your arguments about “our kind” being a dying breed are made from ignorance and most likely have been fostered by your (most likely) long periods of time spent on DU, Kos and the like. Simple research will show that this is still a conservative country and a religious, Christian country – despite what your indoctrination may tell you.
Your behavior on this thread deserves nothing more than the attention parents give a child who sticks their fingers in their ears and says “nya, nya, nya I can’t hear you” and holds their breath until their face turns blue. So now I shall give you that, and I would hope that others here would follow suit.
eaglehaslanded deserves nothing more than to be /ignored.
Marriage liscenses are granted by the State. Religion has nothing to do with this.
Don’t forget bestiality.
Yeah, they decided to do all that and create a Constitution so 232 years later people could define that Constitution as “living” and “breathing” and interpret it any way they damn well please.
The rights of the minority might be protected, but checks and balances and morality were also implicitly written into the Constitution. Now the legislative branch and the judicial branch are practically one in the same, state’s rights to determine things like abortion laws and marriage are usurped by activist judges and federal politicians, and the vote of the people is challenged if it’s unfavorable to a certain class.
My point is this: if people held a vote today in CA and voted to outlaw religion, the same people here complaining about the right to marry being denied would turn around and say that the people have spoken, and religion is banned.
I’ve seen enough – in this thread and elsewhere – to know how the left works.
Religion has everything to do with this. I bet you within the next 5 years, we’ll see a church fined and shut down for refusing to perform a “marriage” ceremony of a same-sex couple.
Oh, wait, a church in NJ was already fined. And the Catholic Church shut down an adoption agency.
So it’s already begun.
That will (indicative used purposely) never happen.
The socialists/existentialists/statists/etc. are cowards;
they fear the Muslims, and know full well that, if they ever gratuitously poked the Muslims in the eye, they would be hunted down and “educated in the error of their ways.”
Besides – see the wonderful book “A Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell for a discussion of “villains” and “mascots” – Christian, and some Jewish, Americans of mainly European heritage, and of some other heritages, are seen by the statists/socialists/existentialists as villains; whereas Muslims, and gays, are among the socialists’/etc. current mascots.
oh please, you know as well as I do that gay marriage will be the end of freedom of religion in this country. and that the gay movement wants this.
already churches are being sued for not allowing gays to marry (NJ)
same with a doctor in CA who didn’t want to inseminate a lesbian…after gay marriage they will be criminals.
Should it be legal for a Church to marry a gay couple?
once you go down the road to perversion…it just gets worse and worse….as we can see from the gays..
To the people who say that government has no place meddling into marriage, then WHY ARE YOU FIGHTING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO RECOGNIZE YOUR MARRIAGE?
Why bother with something if you don’t believe in it’s merit?
Information is out there.
Wikipedia (if you trust it enough to follow the references cited) says the following:
Other states mentioned are:
* Civil Unions in Vermont (2000),
* Domestic Partnerships in California (2000),
* Civil Unions in Connecticut (2005),
* Civil Unions in New Jersey (2007),
* Civil Unions in New Hampshire (2008),
* Domestic Partnerships in Oregon (2008),[21] and
All offering the same rights as marriage.
Yes, Massachusetts is excluded as the list is focused on civil unions and not also the word marriage.
States in the U.S. with domestic partnerships or similar status granting some of the rights of marriage include:
* Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationships in Hawaii (1997),
* Domestic Partnerships in Maine (2004),
* Domestic Partnerships in Maryland (2008),
* Domestic Partnerships in New Jersey (2004) (now available only for couples 62 and older), and
* Domestic Partnerships in Washington (2007).
Of course it’s discriminatory to outlaw adult-child sex, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discriminate against them! Your “slippery slope” argument could just as easily be applied when states could outlaw interracial marriage, but that didn’t make it any less compelling a cause. I’m not advocating anything goes, I just want two people who love each other and who aren’t hurting the other partner (as in a man-boy relationship) to be able to enjoy the same benefits conferred by the state to anyone else.
Are you talking about Ocean Grove? Because if so, that is a gross mischaracterization of what happened.
Of course! The freedom to discriminate against others!
Back it up.
Shouldnt it be LAWFUL for a religion to practice their beliefs without fear of reprisals if the act of same sex marriage goes against their beliefs?
Its so funny. Most gays HATE Christians (See the sexual toys on sale at Folsom Street fair…all in shape of holy figures). So how disengenious is all this…..
Im sure there is NOTHING at this point stopping any church from performing same sex marriage. THEY CHOOSE NOT TO. Something that WONT be here very much longer.
I think wackjobs like you drawing breath is a perversion. To each their own.
I would rather have seen eHarmony just shut down and refund any left over fees. Though the AG my sue for that also.
I agree, it should be lawful for a religion to practice their beliefs as the practicing of that belief does not infringe on the rights of others.
So should a church be able to marry a gay couple?
No, it isn’t.
From the New York Times:
That last paragraph is key. This was property owned by a church, used for services.
They denied – as according to their beliefs – a same-sex marriage ceremony take place there. According to the article, the space was:
The state decided it was discriminatory for them to express their beliefs on gay marriage and fined them accordingly.
There isn’t too big a leap from this to, “Gee, we want to get married in the Catholic parish down the street” and some politician saying that since the public subsidizes churches with tax breaks, they can’t discriminate.
I’ve made this comment before here at MM.com when In re Marriage Cases (the CA Supreme Court outrage) was still in effect, but the opportunity keeps presenting itself over and over, and nobody’s proven me wrong yet. So here we go again!
Back it up.
link
If – and ONLY if – that’s their doctrine.
As others have answered, it depends on the state. The bigger problem is the tax code on the federal level, which doesn’t recognize civil unions.
Thousands of couples are married every year outside of the church in civil ceremonies. The church never enters into the picture but they’re still recognized as having been married by the IRS. Re-write the tax code to recognize gay civil unions on a nationwide level and a lot of the controversy over the word “marriage” disappears.
make my day punk.
Dude, you’re a bigot. Just admit it.
I can’t speak “with authority,” but I do not believe that we have yet given in to civil unions in terms of Social Security benefits. I certainly hope not.
A big part of the deal with the government’s relation to the mostly private matter of matrimony is that government has implicitly recognized the social value of marriage and stable homes (child rearing) and given economic support to marriage, essentially transferring wealth from unmarried people to married people. That was certainly the impact of SSN allowing a non-working spouse to receive benefits based on the contributions of a working spouse, even after the working spouse had died. This is less significant in this day of fewer stay-at-home moms but still billions.
Until recent years, corporations also extended this support for marriage in terms of benefits, although I think all of that is now gone. Anyway, corporations should be able to do whatever they want, as much as I deplore their easy cave-ins to the fags.
As a non-married person (divorced), I have always been okay with some subsidy for marriage which ultimately came out of my pocket and everyone else’s. I regarded it as a reasonable sharing in the expense of a new generation, something that we all have an interest in.
But I sure as hell bitterly resent even one cent of my money going to subsidize Adam and Steve’s marriage. (Sure, they can adopt nowadays; but so can single people.)
The other important difference in civil union and marriages is that the government, by sanctioning marriages, is acting in its “expressive role” (a phrase of George Will from another context). It gives an imprimatur of respect to marriages with its legal sanction. The gay marriage lobby demands that the government express through law the equivalence of marriage and fudge-packing. I don’t respect Adam and Steve’s fudge-packing arrangement and bitterly resent my government giving them a seal of approval. (Similar, I bitterly resent government participation in “gay pride” events.)
Adam and Steve can do whatever disgusting deeds they want, and I am more than happy to leave them unmolested. Just do not ask for a subsidy from me or for my government to express the sense of our people that this is a good and worthy arrangement.
That’s not what the articles says. The articles says that the state decided it was discriminatory for them to not allow one group to use the pavilion and another group to use the pavilion.
The fact that they didn’t allow a group to use the pavilion due to their religious belief is a non-factor. The the act that was deemed illegal, not the reason for the act.
Do you feel that a church should have the freedom to marry gay couples?
I KNEW YOU DIDN’T SLEEP LAST NIGHT!
I agree with you. The merits are stupid, but the controversy certainly exists.
And we both know of jurists that value their view of societal merit more than existing legal merit.
Ocean Grove Camp Ministries voluntarily sought a state tax exemption for their campground business that was available on the basis that it made its property available to the general public. The second they decided to do that, they voluntarily subjected themselves to state anti-discrimination laws. Which they violated when they refused to host the commitment ceremony.
No one was asking the church to marry the couple, as you tried to imply. The couple merely wanted to use a space that, by law was supposed to be available to the public.
I’ve said it before, if there was language in such a measure protecting the First Amendment rights of churches, groups, organizations and individuals againsted being coerced, forced, or compelled to participate in or condone such civil unions, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Unfortunately, Mookie, many feel the way eaglehaslanded do: that we who disagree have to be forced into thinking like they do and approving of things we believe morally reprehensible.
Until folks like him are the exception and not the rule, I’m not going to sit on the sidelines and watch my free expression of religion and speech steamrolled.
I agree. Churchs should not be REQUIRED to marry gay couples. However, it’s illegal for a church to marry a gay couple in most States. If you feel this way, how can you support making such a marriage illegal?
And how far a cry is it from saying that my church is a “public venue” and, therefore, must allow gay marriages to take place.
Nice try, but no. The property was owned by a religious organization, not the state.
Bleh. Interesting, but just because someone sues doesn’t mean they’ll win. Thanks for posting.
You’re conflating the Church and the State here. A Church has no obligation ot participate in or condone any marriage(unless it gets public funding, which we’ll leave for another day). However, a private church has no such obligation currently.
Paperwork filed on behalf of a same-sex couple by a church that married them would be rejected, but neither the clergyman nor the couple would go to jail, and they wouldn’t be prohibited from performing a marriage ceremony.
A far far cry. Not even close to what happened with Ocean Grove.
Ocean Grove wanted to have their cake (get the state tax exemption on the basis that they would allow the general public) and eat it too (exclude whatever part of the general public they wished).
didn’t imply that at all….although the next step is easy to see.
whose law? what are the rights of the church? out the window in the face of the gay mafia.
The organization gets public funds. Any organization getting public funds has to follow state or federal laws, especially regarding discrimination. That’s just the way it works. They knew that, but the money was more important than the principals.
thought they were tax exempt because they were a religion??
No, I’m not. The First Amendment says nothing about church and state. What it says – and that’s all that matters, Jefferson’s letters are NOT the foundation of law – is that the state cannot establish a religion a la the Church of England. Period. End of argument.
You’ve totally proved my point: the tax-exempt status all churches and all religious organizations enjoy is, in essence, public funding. Therefore, my assertion that churches will be forced to peform and condone same-sex weddings is perfectly reasonable and wholly accurate.
“Currently”? As in, until we get around to it?
What part of the First Amendment is unclear to you people?
oh yes, and because people get tax breaks, or Social security…and give it to the church, then the church has to follow whatever the government wants…
nice trick!
And – yet again – you prove me right. A church is an organization, therefore, churches that have tax-exempt status will be compelled to do what liberals want them to, or be forced to shut down.
Anyone of you who says otherwise is a liar, or full of sh*t – take your pick – but either way, no one with a brain is going to be convinced you aren’t out to stifle religious freedom.
You said…
Hmmm….if this is not what you meant, so be it.
The New Jesrey law they voluntarily agreed to be subject to.
oh gee I should have added ‘on their property’
are you happy now gay fascist bigot??
That’s a bunch of crap. Almost all churches receive tax exempt status from their state of domicile. While qualification for this status usually includes some sort of ‘public good’ (I’m using very loose terminology here), churches usually are not required to open their facilities or property indiscriminately to the “public.”
So you do not support a Church marrying(which implies the legality of the marriage, and not just the ceremony) a gay couple?
Ultimately, you support freedom of religion as far as the religion follows your beliefs. You do not support a church marrying a gay couple, so you do not support freedom of religion even as it currently exists for most religions in the United States.
Why do you oppose freedom of religion?
so you’re saying churches in general are not tax exempt in NJ? unless they come to some sort of ‘arrangement’ with the mafioso governemnt there??
Yep. I’m bigoted against Bigots.
I agree with Father Corapi , who once suggested the total refutation of tax exempt status he stated that go ahead do it… nothing better than complete freedom …. then let the scum sucking anti Catholics go after us, all shackles would be off and we could fight back.
It is a special real estate tax exemption program that they voluntarily entered into, not your run of the mill income tax exemption that religious organizations have.
I have no idea why the government should be taxing religious groups to begin with, Chappy. The idea of the First Amendment was/is to keep the government’s nose out of the religion bizness.
Corkie, see above.
You’re always going to have extremists on each side of a battle. It’s the whole “If it bleeds, it leads” philosophy. It’s like the Folsom St. Fair pictures. It’s completely disgusting but it gets the attention because there’s shock value. Pictures of gays and lesbians out with their families at a park like everyone else would be boring, right? It’s the same with Fred Phelps. He’s the first thing that comes to the minds of a lot of people when you talk about banning gay marriage. You don’t see the people who don’t hate gays and just want to make sure their church is going to be ok.
I think the vast majority of gays aren’t looking to be married in churches, nor are they looking to destroy religion. Will there always be some idiot who wants to be an attention whore and sue a church or sue eHarmony? Of course. There are people who thrive off being perpetually pissed off about something.
There needs to be a middle ground here. Put together legislation that would allow gays to have civil unions just like straight couples who choose not to get married in the church. Provide them with the exact same tax benefits, survivorship benefits and property rights that straight couples who are married civilly get. Provide a conscience clause that protects churches from performing marriages that go against their doctrines. What would be wrong with that?
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You obviously don’t know much about tax exempt organizations.
Are you actually implying that I should be allowed to rent any facility owned by a tax exempt organization in my state for a purpose that they denounce???? That’s laughable!
BTW, learn the difference between a tax exemption and “gets public funds.”
So you think we should allow gay marriage based upon equal protection, but when I point out to you that the law is equal and consistent, regardless of sexual preference, then I have a misconception?
How will you ever get out of that pretzel you’ve twisted yourself into?
It might, it might not… but even if it was guaranteed to quell the controversy doesn’t necessarily make it a good idea. The tax codes regarding marriage were written as an incentivization towards voluntary engagement in the legally and financially binding commitments of a Federally recognized marriage. The government’s vested interest in this is to encourage, but not coerce, the production of healthy and well adjusted future generations of citizens. Because this production is impossible between homosexual couples, the government lacks motivation of a vested interest to force the taxpayer to subsidize the maintenance of the relationship. Just clarifying…
They were getting both, and both were a basis for the decision.
And again, we are talking bout a special REAL ESTATE tax exemption called the “Green Acres Program” that was made available to entities if and only in they agreed to certain parameters.
eeesh…
“if and only if“
I guess it’s time for eHarmony to just shut down the business, refund any fees to its subscribers, and let others take the bulk of their services.
WOW! Did you pull a muscle with that unbelievably stupid attempt to twist my words? Put some ice on it when it gets sore…
The law does not require people be married in churches. Some states – like Wisconsin – require you have some sort of ceremony with officiant and witnesses, but not necessarily in a church.
If I were a lesbian, in a church that had no problem with my orientation, and I wanted to have a wedding ceremony with my partner, the police would not show up and stop it. My minister would not be thrown in jail. In the eyes of the church we would still be “married”, even if – civilly – it wasn’t recognized.
NOTHING would stop my church from marrying me.
And I don’t care if a church marries gays and lesbians “marry” in their churches. I’ve known same-sex couples that have commitment ceremonies all the time. So far, none of them have been thrown in prison.
First – find where I explicitly say I don’t think a church should legally be able to marry a couple. 1) I didn’t and 2) churches aren’t prohibited from doing so. I don’t give a crap what another church’s doctrine is – I may not agree with it, but guess what? If I don’t agree with it, I don’t go to church there!!!
You, on the other hand, with chapoutier and eaglehaslanded, have made it obviously clear that if a church DOES NOT want to perform such a ceremony, they should be punished.
THAT violates freedom of religion.
Please I never said anything of the sort nor do i believe that.
Do not presume to know what I think on this subject.
new lawsuits on the horizon:
against the NAACP by non-colored people
against bra manufacturers by men
against swimming pools by non-swimmers
against churches by atheists
against radio stations by deaf people
against AARP by twenty-somethings
against sunscreen makers by the melanin-gifted
As I’ve stated here before at MM.COM, if gays achieve their goal, it will mean the end of marriage in the United States, period. Furthermore, if they succeed in destroying organized religion in the United States, as some people in this thread have suggested, they do so at their own peril.
My collie says:
And if collie is correct, it could be the best thing that has ever happened to Christianity, and possibly the worst thing that has ever happened to gay people (at least here in the USA). Gays will find that once the moral precepts given to us by Jesus Christ are driven out of the public sphere entirely, secular society will ultimately conclude that gays are a Darwinian dead end, and that they are only worthy of one thing, viz. extinction.
You’re equating equal protection with consitent application. They aren’t the same.
If i created a law that said no left handed people could get jobs, and applied it consistently among all people, would that be legal?
I’m not a Catholic, but Father Corapi is an interesting fellow to listen to – not nearly quite as good as Bishop Sheen was, but still good.
But, yeah indeed, get the government outta religion. There have been a few Protestant pastors who have preached about candidates from the pulpit and are waiting for the IRS to step in so it can go to court. Oddly enough, the whole IRS-Fed Big Brotherism over religion has never been challenged as a violation of the First Amendment. And it is clearly a violation of both free speech and of freedom of religion.
Roger, chapoutier. Belay my last.
Yeah, I supposed if we paid taxes, we’d be able to really get involved in politics then. Maybe there’d be a benefit to it…
Left-handedness, like race, is an inherited trait and not a behavior.
Next argument, please…
You know the issue is rarely about paying taxes. Most churches aren’t flush with extra income after all their expenses. Whatever taxes they paid would be minor.
Its more about the charitable contribution deduction available to donors. THAT is what would really hurt if it was gone.
I have had it with this circular reasoning.
You told us all that gays were denied a right. I asked you to show me a right or a law that applied to gay that applied to no one else, or to straights and no one else.
You have failed to do that!
I await your apology!
Heh – good list, Corona.
Bingo, Khyris! What you said!
SSN ~subsidizes~ the retirement of married people out of the pockets of the general population. It is an unspeakable outrage to coerce unmarried people to subsidize the retirement security of fudge-packers.
Obviously, subsidy of gay marriage through the tax code is just as bad. I tend to give that a bit less emphasis, though, since the government has made a mess of subsidizing even legitimate marriages through the tax code, sometimes even inadvertently penalizing them (the infamous “marriage penalty”).
That makes it sound like the government should test the fertility of the couple before granting them a marriage license.
That’s simply not true. Left-handedness is not a trait at all, but a behavior. Hell, you can LEARN to be left-handed.
Left-handedness is as much as a trait as homosexuality.
Stan, I’m applying your logic to different situations, and in each situation, it fails to hold. You don’t even understand the basic, fundemental difference between equal protection and consistent application.
This is categorically false, the problem though, lies in how slick lawyers argue this to be true.
“Tax exempt” is misconstrued to mean “liable, but done a favor of declining tax collection”. In reality, it would be unconstitutional to create “any law with respect to religion” including in the tax codes.
As I have explained before, the tax codes only mention churches as “exempt” as a restatement of the first amendment principle, not as a new law with respect to them.
Without that distinction, the entire taxcode could be put to constitutional challenge because it could be argued to apply to religious organizations by default. So the distinction was mentioned just as a preventative affirmation.
No, what you are doing is avoiding a direct question because you are aware that the answer you will have to give will utterly destroy your argument. So you throw out poll taxes and left-handedness to cover the fact that you have no argument.
Gays have lost no rights. The law is applied equally. And you have no way to further argue your point.
How sad.
Again, you prove the depth of you confusion with this statement. Because the law is applied equally, gays have lost no rights.
That is NOT the right of equal protection garunteed in the Constitution.
Theoretically true, except that would be discriminatory by medical disability. It would never fly in court. Also, the costs of administering such a testing system to weed out the few afflicted applicants would not be recouped by tax revenue savings. Rather the assumption is “one man + one woman = possibility of children” Again, doesn’t matter if they intend to remain celebate, as the system was designed to be encouraging but not coercive. That is why child tax credits are supplemental.
Again, not taking a stance, just clarifying.
Stan,
If you swing a baseball bat at a height of 6 feet at a line of people, you may be applying your bat swinging criteria equally, but only the folks over six feet tall are gonna have a headache.
I have to state my agreement with Chapoutier on this. He appears to be right about the facts of this case, and, unless someone is able to present facts which I’ve yet to see, I’d say that the church in question has a weak argument.
Like he and others have stated, it appears that they should have understood the risk exposure they were accepting by applying for this program.
And through your confused rhetoric, you have yet to prove that this clause even applies to this situation.
Again, too bad.
“Your right to swing your arm stops at my nose.”
Another idiotic argument, chap. And not what is being discussed here. Perhaps you can tell me what law or right applies to gays or starights that does not apply to the other.