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.
Trackbacks
- GayPatriot » eHarmony Forced to Provide Same-sex Dating Services
- Leaning Straight Up
- California prop 8 - Page 2 - ChristiansOnline.CC - A Christian Forum
- Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog » Blog Archive » eHarmony Forced to Offer Same-Sex Dating Services
- Prop 8 Goes to Court; Voting, why bother? « Riggword Weblog
- eHarmony Goes Gay
- Radio Vice Online » Tolerant left heads to court - demands private business change
- Gay-rights activists ask court to declare the California constitution unconstitutional « Right Minded Online
- eHarmony Forced To Couple Gays « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier
- Right Wing News
- So Wrong I Don’t Know Where to Start » Freedom Folks
- This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » eHarmony forced to sell toasters
- Tolerant left heads to court - demands private business change | Conservative247
- eHarmony Settles Lawsuit and Now Forced to Cater to Same Sex Couples « Trust, But Verify
- fiery dog » Hypocrisy of Homosexuals
- Webloggin » California: Redefining Democracy?
- Businesses and Civil Rights « lookingforlissa
- “The Insane Rage of the Same-Sex Marriage Mob” « Fairfax Family Forum
- Jules Crittenden » Do As We Gay
- same-sex dating services Forced At eHarmony | Citizen-Right
- BizzyBlog » Couldn’t Help But Comment ….. (112008, Morning)
- EHarmony.com bows to al-Gayda « Jane Q. Republican
- But what if he still doesn’t like me? : Brigitte Pellerin Online
- ProWomanProLife » But what if he still doesn’t like me?
- Bent Notes » Blog Archive » A perfect case study in wrong
- The Obligatory E-Harmony Blog Posting…. | Political Byline
- eHarmony, etc. | BitsBlog
- eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services | Sex+Metropolis
- Should eHarmony be forced to offer same-sex dating services? » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.
- The canary isn’t dead, but he’s singing show tunes « Vox Clamantis in Deserto
- The Colossus of Rhodey
- dustbury.com » The return of “separate but equal”
- Arts & Ammo » eDisHarmony
- Eharmony « Muse Free
- eHarmony forced to offer homosexual dating options | conservativeintelligencer.com
- eHarmony BOGU’ed (Bends over, greases up) « Bear off his nut
- About Contact Archives RSS Columns Photos * About * Contact * Archives * RSS * Columns * Photos Michelle Malkin eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services; Update: And now, a class-action lawsuit « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity
- Militant Heterosexuals Sue Gay.com to Force it to Offer Content For Straights (NOT) « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Enough Already | America Needs Me
- Enough Already | America Needs Me
- links for 2008-11-21 | FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
- Rights, Shmights « The Pugnacious Irishman
- The Mud Pit » Targeting eHarmony
- Spiritual Warfare is Real, but Don’t Worry…Be Happy « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
- Finding a Roommate Online: It’s illegal to ask sexual orientation, race, or religion to choose a roommate. (Updated 11/21/08) | Ft. Hard Knox
- The Angry Gay Mobs Are Domestic Terrorists | THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS
- Justice and Freedom? « Doc Cochran’s Weblog
- Michelle Malkin » eHarmony and the tolerance mau-mau-ers
- al-GAYda - eHarmony Settles
- That’s Odd?… Gays Sue eHarmony- Ignore Muslim Singles « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity
- Dating service gets hammered by homosexual activist « Seeing Red AZ
- Schaschlik « abseits vom mainstream - heplev
- It’s Official. We’ve Lost Our Minds | Sick Up And Fed
- eHarmony Forced to List Gays | All American Blogger
- David’s Blog of Common Sense » eHarmony Forced to Set Up Gay and Lesbian Couples
- Obama’s Gun Grabbing Attorney General
- F3 Coalition - [Faith. Family. Freedom.] » Blog Archive » Podcast: Obama’s Gun Grabbing Attorney General
- Zitate! « abseits vom mainstream - heplev
- The eHarmony lawsuits : barethoughts.com
- The Rainbow Mafia « The Underground Conservative
- Plumb Bob Blog » eHarmony Wimps and Caves
- Gay rights protesters disrupt church services - Page 5
- Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Post-Vacation Catch-up Links
- eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services « Top Daily Digest Reading
- Gays of Intolerance | Times & Seasons
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Proposition 8
Sister Toldjah
» The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – and how the far left still hasn’t given upAmSpecBlog
» Carly Fiorina's Twitter OpponentPundit & Pundette
» Intelligence agencies knew Hasan was a traitorLegal Insurrection
» Will The Truth Be Hasan's Last Victim?The Powers That Be
» US Intel Knew Hasan Was Trying to Contact Al QaedaNewsBusters.org
» NYT's Krugman Quotes Song Proving ObamaCare Opponents' Point
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.
I’ll quote chapoutier, because he states it perfectly:
What about property taxes – those wouldn’t be minor.
And you admit it would hurt donations, which would hurt the church. Some churches have enough members and the ability to stay afloat in such a situation.
Many would not.
Again dufus, the whole point is that equal application does not mean equal protection.
I am not saying gay marriage should or should not be legal, or that equal protection clause applies here, but if you want o argue with mpChops, try to get a clue as to what he is saying.
Stan, there really is no arguing with you simply because you do not have the foundation on which to base a informed argument.
Yes, the Rights of the minority are to be protected in this country.
HOWEVER: That DOES NOT MEAN that their wants and desires are to become the Law of the Land.
You people seem to be confusing protecting something with making it the law and rules that everyone has to live by.
But then, what else do you expect from people who confuse tolerance with acceptance.
I am really not sure what the law is with respect to churches and property taxes, it would vary greatly with the state, but I guess I am thinking more of charities, which most of the time do not own any property.
Yeah…but I am not advocating pulling ANY church’s tax exempt status. Well, except the scientologists.
You have equated being gay with being left-handed, tall, black, and several other things. Yet for all your moronic analogies, plus the one you tried to steal from Chap, you have yet to answer my question.
The fact that this one single question strikes so much fear and hatred in your heart speaks volumes about you.
So spare me the lectures about foundation when you have the debating skills of a toddler. Until you can show me a law that applied differently to gays, you have no argument.
To me, homosexual attraction is disgusting. I say “ick” to that. Many people have the same attitude as I do. Maybe I was born with that reaction. That is likely. Should I stay in the closet with how I feel, or come out and risk the hatred of others? It’s a close call.
Surely those who don’t feel as I do don’t understand or appreciate me. They don’t take how I feel into account. They mock me, make fun of me, put me down; they want to destroy me. It makes my life difficult.
No, not really. Scientific research proves the brain is wired for left- or right-handedness.
Forcibly altering that inherited trait can cause problems.
Stan,
What don’t you understand? Please, help me. What don’t you understand?
It. Does. Not. Matter. How. Equally. The. Law. Is. Applied.
Again.
It doens’t matter how equally the law is applied.
I try to use anologies to get you to understand that, but you fail to. I aplogize, but i can’t dumb this down any farther than Chap already has.
And I never said equal application meant equal protection, moron. I stated that the law and the rights were the same for all. You may want equal outsome for everyone, but that is not what the law is about.
And to further your idiotic analogy from before, if the people that are 6-foot tall are smalrt enought to duck or move, then they won;t get hit, now will they.
I already stated what Chops is doing. He is introducing as many varied topics into the mix as he can so as to avoid a simple and direct question. He looks mind-numbingly stupid while doing it, too. You might want to consider that before you take sides.
Answer my question, Chop!
That isn’t true. The scientific community has yet to reach a consensus on why some are left-handed and most are right-handed.
That is simply not true, but feel free to prove me otherwise.
Regardless, even if the cause was agreed upon, it wouldn’t make it a trait. Left-handedness is very much a behavior.
Stan,
Please ask your question once again, including its relevance to gay marriage.
Did everyone get this?
Poo-butt here thinks that anyone who is against gay marriage or, to the larger extent, anything that he believes in, is an abomination and should not be alive…
the hypocrisy of his beliefs, the several times he has expressed death towards any and everyone who does not believe the way he does, escapes him.
This little chode is the very definition of every single thing that is wrong with Liberalism and the reason why he is 99% irrelevant.
The only reason he is not 100% is that he and the thousands out there that are just like him, driving the Liberal Agenda are DANGEROUS. These are the very people who will be applying for Obama’s Gestapo once it is approved. Mark my words.
Answer my question, Chops!
Which is not determinative when applying an equal protection analysis.
I never said equal outcome (I think that is what you meant). That is not what equal protection means either.
Please explain to me what the equivalent to ducking or moving is in the context of gay marriage bans.
My local Honda dealer discriminates against Toyotas – I’m suing…
Not gonna take it on as I am with you on it, but you left one thing out. “Siblings marrying is against God’s Law. Nope…can’t invoke any religion into it as religion has been removed from the gavernment, let alone from the entire marriage argument all together.”
When doing your Christmas cards this year, take one card and send it to this address. If we pass this on and everyone sends one card, think of how many cards these wonderful special people who have sacrificed so much would get. When you are making out your Christmas card list this year, please include the following:
A Recovering American Soldier
c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20307-5001
If you approve, please pass it on.
Using whatever logical conclusions one can draw from this:
1. The Fairness Doctrine should be a Slam-Dunk for passage. If congress doesn’t some idiotic judge(s) will.
2. The radio and tv industries should be required to set up completely seperate broadcast facilities and programs for the gay community.
Only seems “fair”. or “Divide and Conquer”
PC is Thought Control
LEE
No, no, no. That isn’t how heredity or genetics works at all. If sexual orientation is determined genetically, it would be able to ’skip a generation’ the same way that any trait would be able to. Your parents and your children don’t necessarily have the exact same eye color as you, do they?
Good job, eHarmony. This is what you get for trying to negotiate with people who want to hasten your demise.
Incidentally, how can this class-action POS have any merit if eHarmony has already agreed to alter their business practices? Sounds like someone’s trying to catch a windfall in a bum economy.
What a freakin joke.
First, my apologies to you for the typos. PIMF!
Second, I was simply responding to your analogy about the bat. Just because a bat is swung at six feet in height does nto mean those people over six-feet tall will get hit.
A better analogy would be the people that are sexually attracted to children. They are currently prevented from marrying the object of their desire. And spare me the CONSENT argument, as we have already shown the age of consent varies from state-to-state.
Gays have the same rights and restrictions on marriage that we all have. Shall I list for you all the people I am prevented by law from marrying? People like Chops want to frame this argument as if rights are being denied gay people, when in fact it is about gay people both claiming a special right, and forcing the majority to accept the wants and desires of an insignificant minority.
Equal Protection does not apply.
Clearly they are anti-Prius. We should ensure that their children are taught what is CORRECT and that anyone that believes in Hondas dies out. Everyone should tolerate Toyota.
Toyota is winning. Embrace Change. Don’t be a bigot.
Six Flags won’t let people shorter than that sign on their rides – sue, sue,sue,sue!!!! Smallot!
Haven’t read all 600 comments, but has anyone asked where the line will be drawn.
Will pedophiles sue because eHarmony won’t hook them up with kids?
Will beastiality practioners wan’t in on the game?
Will gay oriented websites be forced to cater to straight folks?
All the questions you mentioned were discussed or asked at some point.
Fine.. then Obama should step down and acquiesce to the will of the minority.
I think the point of the argument is that there’s a certain segment of the population that don’t want lines.
Lines suggest standards and morals.
Standards and morals suggest a clear difference between right and wrong, good and evil, acceptance and revulsion, etc.
When what you’re doing is wrong, evil and revolting, you want those lines erased.
Disgusting. NJ-Aviator, exactly.
Now make gay places Christian friendly in the name of “diversity” and of course, recognize hererophobia.
What does that prove? What we’re saying is we should change the restrictions. Gay marriage wouldn’t be a special right for gays, because you’d be allowed to gay marry, too. The exact same rights and restrictions that are in place for straight marriage would apply to gay marriage in regards to the litany of taboos whose societal acceptance you guys like to pretend is
just around the corner.
You’re telling people they should be happy about having a right they don’t want or need at the cost of having a right they both need and want. And for no other reason than Christian squeamishness and paranoia. That isn’t fair, and it isn’t American.
Will everybody be forced to learn to read backwards so lefties can write right, I mean left, I mean… Nevermind.
We’re oppressed, I tell ya.
A church can do whatever it feels it’s religious beliefs dictate, with regard to marriage. Whether the state recognizes it is another question.
But.. the question really is… “Should a church be FORCED to marry a gay couple?”
The answer is a resounding… NO.
Simply retyping ‘equal protection’ over and over is not a coherent argument.
Few on this board would argue against equal protection obligations. However, they would argue a lack of equal protection violations.
Now, mpChops, if you disagree, then please explain clearly. chapoutier’s baseball analogy is not germane.
Do you mean that you believe (of course, as far as I am aware, nobody knows) the predisposition might be an autosomal recessive trait?
Would that indicate that, in some situations, it would have a survival advantage, the way sickle trait provides a survival advantage over normal hemoglobin in malaria-endemic areas?
Has any such advantage been established, or even suggested or hinted at?
Wow! I guess Ted Olson did not see a Class Action Suit coming. Maybe eHarmony should have hired an experienced lawyer.
The Courts Now Own Your Business!
Dexter, you are correct in your base assumptions, erase the lines, we don’t want morals or values, we want the judgement which is knocking at the door. How is our economic porfolios looking today. Don’t want to ask God for His mercy and direction, then He honors your request and leaves it up to us and this is what we get.
I hope the jestors of the clownifornia subpreme court have a ounce of brain matter.
I believe what gay people say being gay is like. That’s good enough for me. It’s not like the existence or non-existence of a gay gene would undermine the point about homosexuality being an immutable characteristic. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it was there, just given the prevalence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, particularly in primates.
As for the second part of your post, some monkey societies involve bachelor groups that practice having sex on each other, which confers a survival advantage for your genes if it means you’re better prepared for the real deal, I guess.
These people dont stop do they?
Whats next… what more do these gay people want.
If I had a business I can tell you Ill drive it into the ground before I settle with the gay community.
#640 – ITs called the MAFIA.
Dear Gays, do you mind if i post up here…
For the record, I’m not sure that this (the lawsuit against eHarmony) is the position of the entire gay community. It may not even be a majority opinion.
Some heterosexual liberals here believe they represent and understand that community and speak for it as a whole. They ignore everything that a couple of gay conservatives have posted here. They’ve also glossed over some logical arguments that other liberal posters have said regarding this lawsuit.
Let’s not assume that everyone that is homosexual thinks like this, otherwise we fall into the same trap as those that are ranting about “Your kind”.
It’s been a long day, and I’m late to this party!
(Or early, depending on your point of view).
Hi Red Pill.
Check out post #164 when you get a chance. One of the libs accidentally told the truth about their intentions for our children. Frightening stuff.
This whole thread is all the same stuff, though… we’re all bigots because we insist that words mean things and that marriage to one’s own gender isn’t a civil right.
All they’re interested in is getting revenge. They don’t really care if eHarmony offers a service to gays…they just hate Christians and all those that don’t approve of their lifestyle.
Nothing would satisfy them more than to put this company out of business. Really too bad they have this petty attitude.
Tons of sites out there for gay dating. No excuse.
Rape is much more prevalent in the animal kingdom than homosexuality. However, I wouldn’t say that the desire for an animal to rape is an immutable characteristic. In fact, the monkey example you provided doesn’t seem to describe immutable characteristics at all.
That being said, I agree that most human homosexual desires are probably immutable characteristics.
Also, it’s quite probable that pedophilia is a desire which is an immutable characteristic.
In fact, most types of sexual desires are possibly immutable characteristics (for whatever reason).
Now, where does that leave us?
Digshot Get over it sport.
There is no biological proof gayness is hereditary or inborn. You have no constitutional case. Go back to your mommy if you want comfort, but don’t look for validation from the NORMAL folks here.
granite
Do work in the medical field? You’ve got digshot buried with you knowledge. Keep it up.
Well then I guess it’s a good thing I wasn’t using the monkey example to describe immutable characteristics in the first place.
I’m a photographer. I will no longer meet with gay couples who want a wedding/civil union photographer. Sorry, I’m “already booked that day.”
You want a war? You got one.
How has he buried me, I wonder?
Do you even know what he’s talking about, to begin with?
That’s hilarious. A war? Come on that’s a bit melodramatic. Why would they want you to take their pictures anyway? Gay marriage isn’t about you, unless you’re gay and you want to get married.
So, what the heck was your point?
Yes and apparently you don’t.
Digshot
Autosomal recessive disorder means two copies of an abnormal gene must be present in order for the disease or trait to develop.
On November 20th, 2008 at 6:59 pm, CantCureStupid said:
I’m not surprised by what eaglehaslanded said,
but I am surprised that he told the truth.
We are at war, and not just with Jihadists.
We are a Christian nation, and every demonic force that rebels against Jesus Christ is at war against us, and has been for a very long time.
Spiritual warfare is real.
The “Culture war” is real, and is just a manifestation of Spiritual warfare.
You can’t have peace when one or more enemies is actively at war against you. You must fight, submit, or die.
Lan astaslem
(Arabic for “I will not submit/surrender”)
The Vast LEFT-Wing Conspiracy, which includes Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Transgender, Socialists, Communists, Jihadists, etc., have a very determined goal to remove the Biblical foundation upon which this Constitutional Republic was built. They began by taking not just prayer, but the Bible, out of public schools. We have now raised several generations of people who have absolutely zero understanding that this nation was founded as a Christian nation, upon the Bible.
That is called “De-moral-ization”, and it is step 1 of the four step process from freedom to bondage in a Communist system. We have already passed through stage 2 (Destabilization), and we are deep in stage 3 (Crisis) and going deeper.
We truly are on the doorstep of stage 4: Communist Normalization.
But there is hope. I myself am someone who was raised in a liberal,
de-moralized public school system, and I was part of the problem.
Everything began to change when I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I have become “re-moralized” and now I am part of the solution instead of part of the problem. It is time to “remoralize” our country. (a process also known as “revival”, and it has happened several times in the history of this nation).
Christians have been taught to “not offend anyone”. That has to stop. The radical left has no problem offending us. We must speak the truth unapologetically. If some people are offended by that, it is their problem, not ours. We are trying to help them, whether they want the help or not.
Good question, perhaps you should ask the lesbian “couple” who sued a photographer in NM for not taking their money and offer to take pictures of their “ceremony”. What’s next, y’all going to sue Muslim restaurant owners for not serving pork?
Lunatics and Hypocrites.
Surprised they didn’t throw another 60 dollars on there, would have been more appropriate representation of their aims.
I was making a point about how behaviors like homosexuality might actually better an individuals odds to reproduce, even though intuition tells you that it probably shouldn’t.
I know you just googled that. Do you think I’m an idiot?
Rhetorical question.
I can’t stay long tonight, but if this thread is still active tomorrow I may respond to some comments.
It looks like people are waking up to what’s really going on.
That’s a good thing. Awakening precedes revival.
YES
Dig – What alaskangrizz said….
That’s why.
I leave you with this…
Christian Nation