eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.


A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a "men seeking men" or "women seeking women" option.

They were seeking to make it a class action lawsuit on behalf of gays and lesbians excluded from the dating service.

eHarmony was founded in 2000 by evangelical Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren and had strong early ties with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family.

It has more than 12 million registered users, and heavy television advertising has made it one of the nation's biggest Internet dating sites.

The company said the allegations of discrimination against gays were false and reckless.

"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages," it said in a statement.
"Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted," eHarmony added. Continued...

"Your business does not cater to me?!? See you in court!!!"

Although no monetary damages may be awarded, clearly injunctive relief is appropriate if the business runs afoul of any of CA's anti-discrimination laws that make it a crime to prohibit persons from using your business based on sexual orientation.

Suing companies won't get them to listen. It usually tends to make them more opposed. The best thing people who feel discriminated could do, is show the people at eHarmony just how much business could be gained by having gay relationships as an option on their site. However, if they refuse, whether the refusal is based on monetary or moral grounds, then it's best just to use another service that does. This tells them that they're missing an opportunity. But suing them won't solve anything, and it's on shaky ground at best anyway. Since eHarmony is a private business selling a service, it has the right to choose whom to serve. If they say it's for heterosexual couples, then that is what it's for. Call them bigoted, call them wrong or immoral, either way it's their choice. Suing them solves nothing. If you don't like what someone does, it's best to take the high ground and rise above their actions. I think this will just look bad on a lot of people, regardless of orientation.

-J.

That's a stretch.

I don't think it's claimed anywhere they can't use the site, just not to search for same-sex matches. No, they're not the same.

That's like suing a pizza-place that doesn't deliver for discrimination against cripples.

But the argument could be made that rights don't mean much if you're not willing to defend them in a court of law.

No one is being prohibited from using the business. A gay person simply does not have need of that particular business.

What right is there for a consumer to force a private business to have them as a customer or to cater to their concerns? If a business doesn't cater to me, I take my money elsewhere. I don't take them to court over it.

I think private business should be able to set up their own policies, including discriminitory ones, and then deal with the reprecussions of those dicisions if they lose business over them.

The same right that anyone has against discrimination under the law.

Chemistry.com is sure scoring points against 'em...

[YT="Snicker"]NgxOhG2nDOA[/YT]

I guess E-Harmony is going for this crowd:

Sorry, YouTube thingie doesn't want to work for this one, but still a classic!

Why have that right in private business int he first place? If I'm willing to hurt my own business by not wanting to deal with women, or gays, or blacks, or jews, or green eyed people, why shouldn't I be able to?

Because Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, according to the Constitution.

It isn't discrimination to not offer a service.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SFKNsU3krVk

Excelsius, think of this example.

I open up a business for tech support, Windows because that's what I know best, I've never used an apple computer or linux. An apple customer comes in, and demands I fix his computer, or he'll take me to court.

I have two options, I can attempt to fix it, and break it, and get sued for that, or I can risk getting sued for discrimination, which is a fight I can win.

Which one would you do?

Here's the problem Nick. Mac users aren't a protected class by statute.

Here's the thing, Mac users are gay.
[action=Nick Walczak]waits for the inevitable negreps from Storm, Order2Chaos, and others.[/action]

Not offering a service tailored to gays is not discriminating against them.

That doesn't answer my question, that just says what justification Congress uses to tell me how to run my own business.

Can a vegetarian sue a pizza parlor for discrimination because said parlor does not offer veggie pizzas?

Actually, it's what the Supreme Court says justifies Congressional action in accordance with the constitution.

I'm not asking why Congress feels they have the right to intervene. I'm asking why I don't the right to hurt my business if I'm a bigot because I don't want someone's business.

Aren't there plenty of sites out there that offer gay match making? Why doesn't POTN just use one of those?

The short answer is that it's because society believes that fairness is more important than your belief in your right to run your business into the ground.

Where's the fairness in making me do business with people I don't want to do associate with?

"Society" huh? You speak for "society", do ya?

Not everyone is going to agree with the a specific definition of fairness. However, that doesn't mean that we junk the entire concept, does it?

To Bulldog -- it's not me. It's the Supreme Court.

Who cares what homos think anyway? I certainly never let whatever Elwood has to say bother me.

Without a clear definition of "fair", how can we have a concept of it much less enact it? What is fair?

Fags, Niggers, Towlies and Joos need to STFU and not play the victim card all the time.

And no, I am not a whining Towlie.