eHarmony and the tolerance mau-mau-ers
My syndicated column today expands on yesterday’s eHarmony post (link). As I note, eHarmony will be forking over $5,000 to the gay plaintiff and $50,000 to New Jersey’s Civil Rights office. Here’s the entire settlement the company agreed to, via onlinedatingmagazine. There’s more on the class-action lawsuit against eHarmony proceeding in California here. And Jacob Sullum weighs in.
***
The eHarmony shakedown
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008
Congratulations, tolerance mau-mauers: Your shakedown of a Christian-targeted dating website worked. Homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable “right” to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony. What a landmark triumph for social progress, eh? New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks — heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide.”Men seeking men” has now been enshrined with “I have a dream” as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.
eHarmony founder Neil Warren is the gentle, grandfatherly businessman who launched his popular dating site to support heterosexual marriage. A Focus on the Family author with a divinity degree, Warren encourages lasting, healthy unions between men and women of all faiths, mixed faiths, or no faith at all. Don’t like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Web that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it. No matter. In the name of tolerance, McKinley refused to tolerate eHarmony’s right to operate a lawful business that didn’t give him what he wanted. He filed a discrimination complaint against eHarmony with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights in 2005.
To be clear: eHarmony never, ever refused to do business with anyone. The company broke no laws. Their great “sin” was not providing a politically correct service that a publicity-seeking gay plaintiff demanded they provide. For three years, the company battled McKinley’s legal shakedown artists — and staved off other opportunists as well. 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 ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.
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. But rather than defend the persecuted business, the New Jersey Attorney General intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model. 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, pay McKinley $5,000, and fork over $50,000 to New Jersey’s Civil Rights division “to cover investigation-related administrative costs.” Oh, and that’s not all. Yield, yield to the grievance-mongers:
Additional terms of the settlement include:
* eHarmony, Inc. will post photos of same-sex couples in the “Diversity” section of its Web site as successful relationships are created using the company’s same-sex matching service. In addition, eHarmony, Inc. will include photos of same-sex couples, as well as individual same-sex users, in advertising materials used to promote its same-sex matching services;
* eHarmony, Inc. will revise anti-discrimination statements placed on company Web sites, in company handbooks and other company publications to make plain that it does not discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation;”
* the company has committed to advertising and public relations/ marketing dedicated to its same-sex matching service, and will retain a media consultant experienced in promoting the “fair, accurate and inclusive” representation of gay and lesbian people in the media to determine the most effective way of reaching the gay and lesbian communities.
I have enormous sympathy for eHarmony, whose attorney explained that they gave in to the unfair settlement because “litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.” The recent mob response to the passage of Proposition 8, the traditional marriage measure in California, must have also weighed on the eHarmony management’s minds. But capitulation will only yield a worse, entirely predictable outcome: More shakedowns of private businesses who hold views deemed unacceptable by the Equality-At-All-Costs Brigade. Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their businesses. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways.
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
- Radio Vice Online » Tolerant left heads to court - demands private business change
- eHarmony.com Bows to al-Gayda…UPDATE: Sued Again…UPDATE: Michelle’s Column « Jane Q. Republican
- eHarmony Decision: Is The Church As We Know It Finished? » OpinionBug.com
- Dewey Napoleon - the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing » The New American Way - forcing your lifestyle on others and calling it civil rights
- Will SingleMuslim.com Be Forced To Provide Gay Option? | Blue Grass, Red State
- E-Harmony is FORCED to offer services to Gays « The Lee Brothers Blog
- David’s Blog of Common Sense » eHarmony Forced to Set Up Gay and Lesbian Couples
- Jules Crittenden » Do As We Gay
- ReligiousLiberty.TV | eHarmony succumbs to opportunistic shakedown
- THE TYRANNY OF EQUALITY « Roman Around
- Glory to God, Not to Politicians! « Riggword Weblog
- AN INDEPENDENT AUTHENTIC CONSERVATIVE VOICE » Blog Archive » Does eHarmony Gay Lawsuit Endanger Private Business?
- Zitate! « abseits vom mainstream - heplev
- Separation of Church and Hate « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Coming to a Church Near You: eTyrrany | BobMaistros.com
- eHarmony now claims “You’ve Got Male” « The Writing on the Wall
- -Unhappy Responses to eHarmony Settlement | ANSWERS For The Faith
- The New Civil Rights Movement » The Rise And Fall And Rise Of Ann Coulter And The Business Of Anti-Gay Hate Speech In America (Part One)
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Proposition 8
Legal Insurrection
» Thanks, Global Warming
Stop The ACLU
» Oops! Now New Zealand NIWA Accused Of Faking DataRiehl World View
» BBC, KGB, Oh My: More On Climate Change FraudJustOneMinute
» The Prescient Joe BidenAmSpecBlog
» A Good Time Not to be a DemocratRiehl World View
» More Climate Change Fraud: Et Tu New Zealand?Ed Driscoll
» Charges Filed In Kenneth Gladney Case
RED STATE:
First off, why would an employer need to know of a person’s sexual exploits in the privacy of their own bedroom? Heterosexuals normally don’t discuss it when seeking employment. Why do homosexuals feel they have to parade their sexual lives to the public?
Yes, it’s all about sexuality. It’s not called a homoaffection or homolove relationship. It’s call a homsexual relationship.
How much longer will they exist?
I had struggled with this one a bit myself. I finally resolved it in a way that makes perfect sense to me. If the legitimate need or desirability for specialization has the indirect consequence of limiting the ability to provide products or services to a protected class, that should not be considered discriminatory.
The best analogy I could come up with is that you couldn’t sue a pediatrician for refusing to take elderly patients, even though age is a protected classification. Its just not what they do, and there is a perfectly legitimate (even desirable) reason not to.
Not right now they can’t, right4life; they’re busy protecting the rights of Joe the Plumber in regard to the unauthorized investigating of his finances. Oh wait…no they’re not. My bad.
If you want to live your life, then by all means do so. Live your life, be happy. however, do not force people to be happy for you. Do not force them to accept and welcome, let alone condone or enforce the thing that makes you happy.
I like vanilla soft-serv from Chik-Fil-A smothered in marshmallow sauce and covered in chopped salted peanuts. It makes me happy in ways few things do. However, I am not about to force everyone in my family to enjoy it and be happy with it, let alone everyone on my street, neighborhood, city etc. I do not need anyone’s validation in order to feel fulfilled in what makes me happy.
For others who feel it necessary to force the acceptance of their actions and things that “make them happy”, there is an entire library of books out there that covers the particular mental condition that this encompasses.
If you feel the need to force people to accept, promote and welcome your particular lifestyle…be it straight, gay or whatever, then you really need to take a look in the mirror and decide how far you are willing to travel to get the psychiatric help you need. There is something seriously wrong with your wiring, and it needs to be dealt with, not forced on society as a whole.
Just stop trying to lower society to the lowest common denominator in order to make you feel validated in what you do or who you are. There is a reason they call it “Societal Norms”.
I thought many people were supporting a Christian/Conservative dating website at eHarmony until the gays ruined it.
<
Gee. I thought I was the only one. In my old business I preferred to higher older women who have had years of raising a family. The health insurance was higher but the performance and ability to focus on the job was to my greater benefit. The government can’t micromanage my business by enforcing standards that may not help me. This is not bigotry, it’s just good business.
Alec never said what? According to your reference, Kim Bassinger is quoted as claiming that Alec said something very similar.
It seems to me the 2 reasons eHarmany agreed to this was:
1) The cost of on-going litigation – I have no doubt they have been spending more on lawyers than this settlement
and
2) The free advertising by the announcement of a settlement.
As for ‘running’ a gay/lesbian/whatever site, I have no doubt it will not be of the same quality as their main site. This is for the simple reason that the creator of the site is not an expert in gay/lesbian/whatever relationships.
This lawsuit was a total loss for the gay/lesbian/whatever community as well as the state of New Jersey that paid for supporting it from their end (Dont believe that this cost the state 50k – probably more like 500k).
Chappy, are you feeling ok? You’re sounding pretty reasonable.
In the distant future, will it be sad when your child comes out of the closet as a heterosexual? God forbid he’s a white male, too.
He’ll be responsible for all the oppression EVER.
But, somehow, if he’s gay, it all washes away because he’s part of an aggrieved group?
Man, I don’t get the ‘logic’ in practice today. We are killing ourselves with tolerance.
So let me get this straight (no irony intended here), in response to a “civil rights” complaint eHarmony has agreed to create a Gay Ghetto dating web site? This is an irony rich environment.
TXGator, what was wrong now seems right, and what was right now seems wrong. It’s just as Jesus said it would be.
Just as funny: You have said exactly that to Prop 8 opponents. You should take your own advice.
Question will the new Gay Ghetto site ever get to 10,001 subscribers?
Just exactly how Tolerant do you want us to be?
Go look at the pictures at “up your ally 08″ and then tell me where your tolerance begins and ends?
Give me a break. Why don’t YOU tolerate Traditional Marriage!
Oh…you mean like eHarmony.com? Oh…wait…nevermind.
Doubtful. Outside of John Waters movies, at least.
Well said.
RE: FamilyMan #104
Not sure whether you were agreeing with me or being sarcastic… but my post was trying to make the point that not every form of discretion is automatically bigotry… in either case I agree with you if experience raising families was relevent to the work being done.
As it stands now, unborn babies of a certain color owe unborn babies of other colors restitution for the mistakes of the past. Some of those unborn babies may be gay, so they will be afforded a different set of rights than the others. A crime against one set is punished more harshly because it will be a ‘hate crime’.
Vicki, you are correct, up is down, right is left.
The right certainly left me.
In times like these, I find myself calling and thanking my mother more and more for teaching me about grace and salvation. Nothing can happen to us that we cannot handle with God’s help.
I have faith that he will lead us in the way we should go.
I think I’ll take your word for it, aj, that these are not photos I’ll be interested in seeing.
Why do you presume that the only reason people are homosexual is for shock value?
In one of my past jobs where I did the hiring/firing of the guys I worked with, I discriminated every time I had to hire someone.
See, I refused to hire lazy, incompetent, stupid, or big mouthed know-it-alls who lie on their application or felt that they had a right to a position in my place based on the fact that they were born, or any and all combinations therein.
I will continue to discriminate based on the above, and challenge anyone to make me do otherwise.
Stupidity, incompetence, and the rest knows no color, creed, sexual orientation/preference et al. If this makes me a bigot…so be it.
I was thinking the same thing. I don’t think that really has anything to do with it.
I do think there is something there, wither mentally or genetically, myself. However, that does not excuse ANYTHING in the current agenda that is playing out in courts, the workplace, or anywhere else.
Let’s see: A democratic, legal vote by the majority of citizens in CA…
VERSUS
A frivolous lawsuit by a member of the minority intent on forcing a company to accomodate his demands, in a business field where many other companies cater to his lifestyle choices.
Two totally different things.
And if Prop. 8 protesters aren’t going to let it go, neither are we.
The First Amendment is on our side; there is nothing in the Constitution giving the left the right to be tyrannical speech/thought/religion oppressing hypocrites.
I’m impressed with this as written, chapoutier.
The way you’ve phrased this, a business owner would merely need to show that her desire for specialization limits her ability to provide a product or service to a protected class. Can you confirm?
You’re right, RetFireman. When did “discrimination” become a 4-letter word? I’ll answer my own question: When teachers stopped teaching the “3 R’s” and starting teaching “tolerance” and “political correctness”.
It is perfectly OK to be discriminating in employment decisions. It is illegal discrimination that is forbidden; it is not forbidden to discriminate.
If we saw more discrimination being exercised and taught in to our kids, how much more effective they’d be as the leaders of tomorrow.
On a semi-related note, the court here in CA threw out our Jessica’s Law, approved by 70% of the voters. Good to see our courts are looking out for the rights of the oppressed pedophiles and chickenhawks.
It’s also legal. Having a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason to hire someone gets you off the hook every time.
Yes. Ever hear of “Miss White America/Universe?
Yes. You want someone from NAMBLA working for the Boy Scouts of America?
Yes. See answer to question #1. Also, when do we get WTV?
Yes. Ever hear of “Str8tv”?
This is all in jest but to ask such questions when we have Miss Black America/Universe, BTV, gay magazines and gay TV networks is pointless and shows a lack of understanding or just a pointless argument.
To me it makes all the difference. If homosexuality is immutable (and it is, except for college girls), then why shouldn’t they enjoy the same legal protections as those conferred on the basis of race, sex, age and disability?
On November 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pm, vickisoup said:
Ah, but “discrimination” sometimes involves the exercise of judgment – and God forbid we should judge.
You know, who are we to ….
The absence of the exercise of judgment by those who are ironically labeled “judges” is a huge reason for our nation’s/society’s/culture’s slide unto the cesspool over the past 40+ years.
BTW, good post!
I saw that, greenfairie. The idea that it makes life too difficult for the registered sex offenders is preposterous. Life for the victims will never be the same and these perverts are crying over not being able to live whereever they’d like?
Here’s an idea: Let’s tattoo their faces with indelible ink, something like a big red “X” across their face from the hairline all the way across and down to their chin. Then they can live whereever they want.
How would they live thier “lifestyle” then?
Wouldn’t it be cool for a child to be able to spot them and recognize the danger they’re in?? I think this is a really good idea, IMHO, of course.
That’s a good call on the pics vicki, I wish I never had, talk about needing a brain clense after…. good grief.
Tolerate This! you sick ___ers!
I am sick and damned tired of one person forcing their views to prevail over the majority! When are we going to stop this nonsense? They’ve been doing it since Madeline O’Hare took prayer out of schools! It’s insane! How many of y’all are tired of being the “silent majority? I know I AM!
I was agreeing with you by pointing out by personal experiences.
Race is a protected class, and private businesses are forbidden from discriminating on a racial basis.
Thankfully, many state statutes do forbid this. However, for federal purposes, homosexuals aren’t a protected class under the U.S. constituion, yet.
Again, race is a protected class. Civil Rights legislation from the 1960s makes this type of discrimination unconstitutional.
Close call, I don’t think this type of discrimiation would stand even though homosexuals aren’t a protected class.
If you’re looking for simple opinions from most of the people who post here, I’m sure that you would get, “private businesses should be able to serve/hire who ever the hell they want to”. Thank goodness the law isn’t on their side.
I agree with this part completely. I think we need some more caselaw on issues like this. Moreover, there are hundreds of GLBT dating sites. I personally don’t see the need to fight it out with eHarmony. I do understand the struggle and see certain parallels with the Civil Rights movement. I just don’t see how eharmony’s exclusionary policies limit my ability as a lesbian to find love, or a “hookup” on any plethora of other sites.
The overwhelming majority of homosexuals, at least the ones I have known, are decent, honorable people. The ones who are leading the parade for “acceptance at any cost” are the same ones who flaunt themselves at the Folsom Street Fair – these are the ones who do it for the shock value – the exhibitionists.
Exhibitionists exist in the straight community, too. They don’t speak for me, but I don’t feel any need to defend them or their actions. I get the impression that there are those in the gay community are defending these exhibitionists, but very reluctantly.
I will say, not to the defenders, but to those who publicly flaunt their lifestyle, no matter what their sexual orientation, “Go right ahead. Do whatever you want. But DON”T EXPECT ME TO APPROVE OF YOUR ACTIONS!”
ajmontana said:
“Just exactly how Tolerant do you want us to be?
Go look at the pictures at “up your ally 08″ and then tell me where your tolerance begins and ends?
Give me a break. Why don’t YOU tolerate Traditional Marriage!”
Who says I don’t? Gays should and in the end will come to accept Civil Unions as acceptable.
I guess we’re all individuals until we’re gay, then we all act and think the same, eh aj?
On November 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am, cpodug said:
Fixed that for you.
The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy thinks that the following is “intolerant”:
…and the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (VLWC) illogically thinks that:
Jesus Christ said He is the truth.
I acknowledge that truth, while the VLWC denies that truth.
The VLWC thinks I am “intolerant” because I acknowledge that truth.
Christians are tolerant of the VLWC.
The VLWC is intolerant of Christians.
The VLWC pretends to promote “tolerance”, but they are really promoting intolerance.
They suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
They dishonor their bodies among themselves.
They exchange the truth of God for the lie.
Professing to be wise, they became fools.
(semi-)off topic:
Good friggin’ grief. If you think retention rates are bad now.
The desire for specialization has to have some root in reality and practicality. Obviously, there is no NEED for eHarmony not to try to apply their model to homosexuals. But there is a certain legitimate desirability considering the model was developed based on this guy’s research of heterosexual couples.
As opposed to a mattress store who didn’t want to sell to gays, or blacks or whomever. There is NO legitimacy to “specialization” there. Conversely, if I was a hair stylist in a place like…oh I don’t know…Lowville, NY, where the population is almost 100% white, and didn’t carry certain hair care products that are developed specially for African American hair, I have in a sense “specialized” but it is for a legitimate reason (generally no market for such products) and any discrimination is an indirect consequence. Were I a hair stylist in the Central Bronx, the analysis might come out a bit differently.
I think my test would be a relatively narrow one, and obviously one that would have to be examined on a case by case basis.
I am sure many here can find kinks in my still-developing argument.
The whole concept of a protected class is profoudly distrubing to me. It implies that the non-protected classes are somehow less or different from the protected ones. It smacks of bigotry.
You mean a prefered class when it comes to business – right? See my examples (Miss Black America/Universe, BTV…)
If we did a white version, blacks would be hiring attorneys and the complaints would be stacked a mile high.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Not under Affirmative Action laws they’re not. In fact, they are required to discriminate on the basis of race. As one who lost a promotion because I was too white, I know that discrimination against whites is alive and well. And, as others have pointed out more eloquently than I could, Christians routinely suffer discrimination on the basis of our religion.
So, MJ, keep hitting those CLE courses.
“kinks”
LOL, good one, Chap!
Discrimination always involves the exercise of judgement
The nature of being human demands discrimination on all levels, every moment of the day in-order to survive. It is absolutely necessary for our very existence. When the government demands that we suspend our judgement, they are telling us to stop being completely human.
Not sure if this is what you mean, but its not like “blacks” or “latinos” are protected classes. Race in general is a protected class. A white person can make a claim as a protected class just as easily.
Same with a Christian with respect to religion.
I know that, practically, this rarely happens.
I think there should be no reason for a store to be forced to sell to anyone. It should be legal for a store to allow only one race into its doors. I think its a dumb business model and that store will be quickly made bankrupt, but to FORCE things on people creates dischord.
Discrimination is NATURAL LAW.
No, FM, that was someone quoting me and adding to the thought. Discrimination, by its very definition, involves the exercise of judgment. I agree.
It creates divisions in the law.
It would be more accurate to say one cannot discriminate based on a certain criteria, not class. A white male has as much right to protection as a black woman. (The one exception is that people under 40 cannot sue for age discrimination.)
Exactly
Like for instance, in the case of law-enforcement profiling. If 100% of recent terrorist activity was carried out by Arabic-looking guys with Arabic-sounding names, why shouldn’t Arabic-looking guys with Arabic-sounding names be subject to increased scrutiny?
But, no. The ‘fairness’ crowd have to have 80-year old nuns subject to strip searches along with everyone else in the name of non-discrimination.
Ludicrous!
That’s the Posner law-and-economics view, but as a southerner I know it couldn’t be more wrong. Many businesses rely predominantly on white (or black) business to begin with, and refusing to serve the other isn’t going to break the bank in any way. Say you have a BBQ restaurant in Texas that has always served whites and has never had a problem, and the restaurant decides not to sell to Mexicans. It won’t do as well, but it will stay in business, and before 1964, obviously a hell of a lot of people made that decision and didn’t go broke for it.
Now thats the joke of the day.
And that should be thier right.
I’m not sure if any white people have given enough of a fig to sue. Would they be successful, maybe, unless there are exceptions for things like pageants. For, e.g. could an adult successfully sue for not being allowed to compete in Miss Teen USA? Could a man successfully sue for not being considered for Miss America? I’d say no for the last two, because there are certain reasonable, bonafide occupational qualifications involved.
Pageants are a different animal in regards to your examples. However could there be a Miss White America pageant? I guess there “could” be as a counterpart to Miss Black America, but the free market would kill it. No advertisers would touch it, and again, most whites just don’t give a crap about stuff like this. It really comes down to phony outrage and false moral equivalencies.
BET is a red herring. They employ whites, particularly in positions of power. You are just caught up with the word “black”. Could there be a White entertainment equivalent all things being “equal”? Sure, but for the fact that no advertisers would touch it. Whites and Blacks have a different history in this country. The laws are to be applied equally, but certain customs or allowances remain, and most people get through life without giving a freak about it.
Wah, why are there historically black colleges(that admit and hire non-blacks), but no historically so-called “white” colleges? Why is there an “Ebony” magazine? It goes on and on, but it’s phony outrage. I say start your own network, magazine, pageant, school, and call it whatever “white” name you want. The free-market would kill it. It is what it is.
My medical school interview started like this, and I quote:
“Why should we let you into our medical school? We already have plenty of white boys like you.”
Perhaps she was testing me to see how I would react. I giggled a little, then told her I was Native American (1/4). All of a sudden I could go to their medical school for free. I walked away.
I knew better than to not check the race box. It’s the most important box of all, except for the listing of related alumni.
Equal protection? That’s funny.
How many think she would’ve asked a black or latino guy the same sort of question?
On November 21st, 2008 at 2:47 pm, Red State Skeptic said:
On November 21st, 2008 at 2:49 pm, sonofdy said:
I guess what it comes down to, is there a right in America to be bigoted?
The Libertarian in me says government entities cannot discriminate, but private individuals and organizations should be able to. Do I like the idea? No. I don’t like people burning the Flag, either, but I believe it’s their right to express themselves that way.
I believe the Constitution doesn’t give us the right to not be offended. It guarantees that we’ll be offended.
Yes, there is. But there is no right saying you have to associate with someone whose opinion you don’t like.
And I hope things stay that way around here.
Why would a free market kill a “white” network, but not a black one?
Because we have different standards for different races in this country.
It’s absolutely tragic that my students of Asian descent are held to a much higher standard than all others.
Why not reward achievement by accepting students in a gender and race blind manner?
Why do we care about their ancestry? We should reward our brightest, no matter the skin pigmentation.
Brianod1, never mind AJ–there’s a reason why he said what he said, and you can tell by how much of your comment he posted. Sometimes he’s right, and other times he goes off over one statement that he’s taken out of context by people who commonly are on his side.
AJ–if you’d actually read the rest of Brian’s comment, you might see that he wasn’t calling YOU intolerant, he was calling some of the OTHERS (like the ones who accuse you of hatred and bigotry) intolerant. Read the rest of it and chill out:
We’re trying to tell you that we’re against this whole thing too, AJ. Don’t smack us down just because we’re gay, you might give the real haters here ammunition to work with!
I am the last person who is “caught up with the word black”.
As for advertisers not being attracted to a “White TV” channel, you are correct. Who needs the constant harassment? The selective outrage would NOT come from me; we know where it would come from. It may be a “red herring” as you say. My point is, try it and see what happens.
Interesting you would use a male in a beauty pageant. There are just some instances where sex is preferred and discrimination is moot. Men model underwear same as women. Would it be wrong to deny a man a job modeling female underwear? Seems so but they both do the same job. Discrimination? Hardly. Based on sex? Definitely.
My wife works in a daycare. There is not a single guy working there. If a guy came in to apply for a job and a mother came in and applied for the same job, it is likely the woman would get the job for obvious reasons. Should he be hiring an attorney because he did not get the job? Sadly, that is the society we live in. Seen the “who.can.I.sue.com billboards yet?
My point was to make a “red herring” of the whole matter. I am not crying (WAH) but pointing out how stupid this all is.
e-harmony should shut down and open under a new name:
fu-harmony
but of course we cannot allow the market to work in this case…oh no, the government has to step in to ‘protect’ the gay sensibilities that might be offended by being excluded from eharmony
and it would be laughed out of court…but of course a muslim or a black, or gay person would find that same court on their side…
some pigs are more equal than others…
Here’s something interesting. Apparently this never even reached the lawsuit stage.
Yeah, I think you need to refine this quite a bit. Your “desire” term quickly loses almost all meaning if the courts are able to force a business owner to try (or scrutinize their NEED to try).
A gay Je$$ie Jerk$on?
I think there does need to be some sort of objective rationality for specialization, otherwise the term “desire” would be so open ended as to allow any sort of discrimination.
Got it. The daycare situation is an interesting example. Who is going to hire this guy? He should be able to work in his desired field, right? I don’t think being a female is a BFOQ for being a daycare worker. I think he’d be successful with his lawsuit, although a majority of people may share your views. I don’t practice this area of law, so I’m sure somebody will correct me if I’m wrong.
And I definitely didn’t say anyone would need to try to be nonspecializing (and thus non-discriminatory). Just that they have to have an articulable, legitimate reason not to be.
Really? I thought the underwear example hit a bull’s-eye. Equally qualified but the man would not get a job modeling women’s underwear (or the other way around) purely based on sex. So, yes, a corporation can discriminate based on sex.
There are hair products targeted for blacks because of their specific needs. Should these corporations be forced to use white models?
The list can go on. Our country is so fearful of offending anybody (and lets face it, the frivolous lawsuits are part of the problem), common sense has been sacrificed on the alter of fear.
e-harmony should have told them all to go pack sand (and I am not talking about gays).
I also refuse to check the box, for to do so would make me a hypocrite.
I personally feel that anyone should be allowed to descriminate against anyone for any reason. to prevent people from doing so is to rob them of their freedom to think and feel about anything they want any way they want. It is actually a form of thought and mind control.
At it’s very base form, you are telling someone what they can say, how they can say it, what they can think, how they can think, how they can feel etc.
If someone does not like me based on the color of my skin, fine. that is their opinion. If they want to not hire me because fo the shape of my nose, fine. that is their opinon and everyone is, just by the grace of being alive, allowed to have that opinion.
Anyone who claims to not have any prejudices, or anything like that is just a straight up liar. Everyone is bogotted in some way towards some one for some reason, warranted or learned.
The difference between me and the majority of people is that I admit to it. I admit that there are people I cannot stand based on certain things.
Anyone who tells me what I can think or say is infringing on my basic freedoms and rights.
I have always checked the “OTHER” box, and if there is space provided, write in “CELT.”
Personally, I think “because I want to” ought to be enough. Shouldn’t our ‘freedom of association’ encompass business associations?
No, I do not believe so. And I think it is important to distinguish a business from its owners. Businesses in the form of corporations or LLCs exist as separate entities form their owners only because the state charters them. There is a price you have to pay for that nice limited liability.
Okay, when do I get to sue leftists who get upset when they find out I might be exercising my right to keep and bear arms by carrying concealed weapons. I’ve had people turn colors and raise their voices whilst telling me what a Neanderthal they think I am and blaming inanimate objects for the sins of their operators. They ignore the fact that concealed carry licensees aren’t the problem and that if they were being attacked that I am more likely than a non-CWL holder to come to their aid. I’m offended by their ignorance and hypocrisy (since they would call the police, armed police, to come help them), so when do I get to sue and get a cash settlement?
ECS
Keep in mind the government never did step in, and given the unlikelihood that this suit would have succeeded, it probably never would.
This is incorrect, the A.G. issued a statement indicating his office’s support of the suit, which likely was a key factor in eharmony’s decision to suddenly capitulate after 3 years of litigation.
For “race”, just write in NASCAR. That does discriminate againse IRL though.
Isn’t that functionally equivalent to checking “white”?
LOL chap. I guess a white guy would know that!
mistress:
Which ones?
How unlikely? Care to probability weight it? 40%? 20%? 10%?
A group feels oppressed, for a personal status they can’t control. The majority of society believes their desires for rights are really a desire for “special” rights. The courts currently aren’t on their side. General acceptance is broader now than in decades past. The oppressed party feels absolutely justified in their beliefs, but some feel that they are unnessarily eroding the status quo, and traditional social norms. There are a large quanity of true, outside supporters who don’t share the same characteristics as the oppressed party in the media, entertainment, and in politics. Folks can find a basis for discrimination in their religious beliefs. There is cautious optimism that things will eventually change for the better as society evolves.
E-Harmony absolutely did NOT have to give in. Just because they were risking a lot doesn’t mean they had no choice. They could have kept fighting but instead chose to be cowards. Stand up for God’s sake!
jlibertarian, they were standing up. For three years. But their lawyers don’t work pro bono and they would have had to face the real risk of going bankrupt over this frivolous lawsuit. It’s not like they caved within a few days of getting served papers from NJ.
@Cameron:
That’s nonsense Cameron. When you see the queerness start creeping into the TV ads, will you be proud that eHarmony “stood up”? I think not. Catholic leaders promised to shut down their hospitals if they are “forced” to provide abortions. You have to stand up no matter what the cost! Otherwise how can you call yourself a Christian?
The only thing evolving is society’s downward slide into immoral sliminess. The path Athens and Rome took and fell on , we’re following. Overly dramatic, you say? BS!
Just curious, what makes this a frivolous lawsuit?
It doesn’t seem to be a slam dunk, but I think the Plaintiff had a decent shot at winning (otherwise I don’t think eHarmony would have settled so late in the game).
I think eHarmony just decided they didn’t want to go through the expense of litigation, and potential bad press in the media. $ is always the bottom line, and perception follows a close second while tying in.
Does anyone have a link to the actual complaint that was filed? I haven’t been able to locate it. Also, does anyone know what stage the suit was in? had they already gone through discovery?