So I'm all for equality...Prop 8 and all...because I believe that everyone deserves the right to have a miserable life via marriage. And also because hetero's these days have no respect for what marriage is supposed to stand for so I don't know who they are to talk...

So there was this guy in New Jersey who sued eHarmony because they didn't have a gay matching service. And now thanks to legal action, eHarmony HAS to set up a website/service for gay/lesbians. I can not believe that this went as far as it did. How can it be legal to make a private company set up a completely new part of their business because someone cries unfair? I heard someone on the news say something like, 'It's like a vegetarian going to a restaurant and suing them because they only have meat dishes?????'

Anyone else find this outrageous?

11/20/2008 6:23:07 PM

How would you feel if it excluded blacks?

(not saying I agree with this)

11/20/2008 6:29:41 PM

gays are not ethnic

(im not saying I agree with this.....because I really dont give a fuck one way or the other)

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM. Reason : ()]

11/20/2008 6:31:06 PM

Well obviously that's racist and I would say that's wrong...but at the same time, there are plenty of gay/lesbian matching sites...why would you even want to use a company that has such a limited amount of potential matches?

11/20/2008 6:33:31 PM

spookyjon has shat on mytwocents

11/20/2008 6:40:43 PM

Your restaurant example isn't the same thing.

eHarmony, for a long time, had a specific policy to disqualify gays and lesbians from their matching process. That is VERY different from not specifically accommodating them into the site.

To better equate it to your restaurant analogy: It would be like having a restaurant that specifically added meat to every dish, just to keep vegetarians away. Many dishes may have meat unnecessarily added, and the staff refuses requests to remove the meat from any dishes.

That would be a more apt analogy. And frankly I agree with the Gay dude on this one. eHarmony is a pretty discriminatory site. Unless you are a white christian, it's pretty slim pickings getting "matched" to anyone.

11/20/2008 6:44:59 PM

No, a more apt analogy is walking into a Brazilian steakhouse and demanding a vegetarian dish, and then being horribly, horribly offended when they don't accommodate you.

Really - are people going to start going after J-Date for not pairing Gentiles?

e-Harmony's logic was that their matching algorithm was based upon their research with heterosexual couples. Which means they - unsurprisingly - offered their service to heterosexuals. No one was stopping anybody else from setting up a competitor site to match gay couples - and plenty have.

So why exactly was it necessary to force e-Harmony to match gay folks - something they didn't specialize in and didn't show interest in doing - when plenty of other sites out there offered that service?

11/20/2008 6:55:16 PM

^

The steakhouses that I went to in Brazil had lots of vegetarian options actually. The salad and pasta bars were amazing.

Just saying. . .

11/20/2008 7:02:50 PM

^^^well I didn't know about eHarmony's discriminatory past... and I'm all about the principle of things, but then should white entertainers go after BET for specifically excluding them from it's awards shows?

^^And yeah, if their formula is based upon research and heterosexual relationships, then eHarmony could say, 'well we can't offer you the same guarantee as we do with our straight clients because we claim no expert research on the subject of same sex relationships. I don't see why this would be such a to do?

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 7:05 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 7:05:34 PM

eHarmony is a private business, and they specialize in getting heterosexual couples together. it is NOT the government's business to decide they need to expand their business.

11/20/2008 7:11:27 PM

I don't like this, but...

1. It took place within the NJ court system. Does NJ cover gays under anti-discrimination stuff?

2. It was a settlement, not a ruling.

11/20/2008 7:21:32 PM

I think the dude who brought the lawsuit was stupid. Speaking with your wallet would've been far more effective

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20081119_eHarmony_settles_with_N_J__over_same-sex_matches.html

Quote :

"Eric McKinley, 46, of Ocean County, filed a discrimination suit against eHarmony Inc. in March 2005 after trying to place a personal advertisement through the site. "I heard their advertisement that Winter and thought 'Hey, this could work for me," McKinley said in an interview today. "So I went to their website but couldn't pass the initial screen. "There was no option for man seeking man," he said. "It made me feel angry, mad, and sad. . . a whole range of emotions." "

FFS, if you're gay in this country, the fact one website excludes you should be the least of your worries. Now some Christian conservative dickbag is going to hold this up as an instance of gays 'forcing' their values on people.

11/20/2008 7:24:26 PM

If New Jersey has laws that have homosexuals as a protected class, eHarmony has to conform to those laws, or stop doing business in that state.

It's the same way that a state can have smoking regulations for private businesses.

My only concern would be that i'd guess eHarmony's matching algorithm requires input from past relationships, and they may not have a large enough sampling of homosexual relationships to perform matches with the same confidence value as heterosexual relationships.

11/20/2008 7:24:29 PM

Quote :

"If New Jersey has laws that have homosexuals as a protected class, eHarmony has to conform to those laws, or stop doing business in that state. It's the same way that a state can have smoking regulations for private businesses."

This is going to be one of those interesting cases, however. For one - will J-Date have to comply as well? (I mean, discriminating upon ethnic/religious background, after all).

Two, this seems to be the tip of the iceberg toward a growing issue of problems involving regulating the internet. Namely, what happens when an internet site runs afoul of one of 50 sets of state laws? (Not to mention different countries). Some state are already trying to pull this BS with regards to adult websites.

It's not clear how exactly this will be hashed out - sure, sites could simply restrict their business per their terms in "offending" states, but it seems like this is going to be one of those issues that gets more complicated as time goes on.

11/20/2008 7:30:58 PM

This is interesting. My instinct is that eHarmony shouldn't have to include homosexuals. However, once I think about it, I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't. That would be a huge step for everybody. Since homosexuality is a normal, healthy, natural orientation, just like heterosexuality, it doesn't make sense for homosexuals to be excluded. Ultimately, we're all the same.

But will gay dating services have to include straight folks?

11/20/2008 7:58:30 PM

It's a good thing we have a president that seems to understand technology, isn't it?

11/20/2008 7:58:43 PM

Quote :

"But will gay dating services have to include straight folks?"

why wouldn't they have to?

11/20/2008 9:30:38 PM

^Because it seems like minority groups get small concessions like that.

I ain't saying it's right or wrong. Just what I've observed.

11/20/2008 9:32:51 PM

Quote :

"This is interesting. My instinct is that eHarmony shouldn't have to include homosexuals. However, once I think about it, I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't. That would be a huge step for everybody. Since homosexuality is a normal, healthy, natural orientation, just like heterosexuality, it doesn't make sense for homosexuals to be excluded. Ultimately, we're all the same."

True, but it's pretty common (street) knowledge that eHarmony is for heterosexuals only.

11/20/2008 9:36:11 PM

Quote :

"This is going to be one of those interesting cases, however. For one - will J-Date have to comply as well? (I mean, discriminating upon ethnic/religious background, after all)."

There are a number of non-Jews on JDate. Furthermore, JDate doesn't actually do any matching.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 10:51 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2008 10:49:11 PM

personally i look down on anyone that uses online dating anyhow so i'm all for this

11/20/2008 10:53:31 PM

You guys all missed my damn point.

eHarmony INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDED homosexuals.

JDate, Steakhouses and all the rest are IMPLICIT exclusions. It's not that you CANT use their services, it's that non-target audiences won't find them very appealing.

There's a easily missed, but marked, difference in those two.

Quote :

"e-Harmony's logic was that their matching algorithm was based upon their research with heterosexual couples. Which means they - unsurprisingly - offered their service to heterosexuals. No one was stopping anybody else from setting up a competitor site to match gay couples - and plenty have."

I don't know where you got that information from. eHarmony's founder is a christian conservative and is linked to several christian organizations who are effectively hate groups. They have purposefully excluded gays and non-christians from the site since it's inception.

Quote :

"Although eHarmony does not seem to be officially linked to any Christian group, the site's founder, Neil Clark Warren, has appeared on several evangelical Christian television programs, and Warren has had books published by Focus on the Family's publishing house. While I don't consider Focus on the Family to be a cult, the group is certainly a prominent proponent of "Christian values," mainly as interpreted by media minister James Dobson. "

http://www.alternet.org/story/21291/ is a pretty good story about it.

11/20/2008 11:23:51 PM

You know I know this country is about the principles of things and I get it...but doesn't there come a point when you say, 'OK...I can spend the next 4 years fighting a battle to convince a company to cater to me' or.... I can use one of the many alternatives. And I ask again, why would anyone want a company that had such a clear negative attitude towards me, to set me up with anyone?

And yes Bridget, it seems that minorities get concessions a lot of the time and don't have to be held accountable or it...like for instance, the BET awards or Latino awards... I'm not sure at what point though it becomes more damaging than helpful to your race/ethnicity/religion. How come no white women can compete in Miss Black America...can you imagine if there were a Miss White America? As long as people highlight the goal to isolate themselves, then they become the one's to blame for the problems that ensue.

Every person is prejudice against someone...and when those people seek to create a greater difference between them, they just enrage the situation.

I remember when that girl petitioned to get into whatever military school that was that didn't accept women...I can't remember the name but I do remember that she finally got in, and then dropped out soon after...this set women back, not forward.

Let's say I'm black...and I live in the whitest town in America where 95% of people are white...If I go to a bank for a loan to open up an African-American beauty shop, and they say no...is it because I'm black? Or because chances are pretty fucking good that this shop ain't gonna do very well? Because then I'd be asking a company, private or public, to take a huge risk on something...does that make them racist? No...it makes them business people... Now if I had the cash and found property in the town that I could pay for without needing a loan, and the owners refused to sell to me because I was black, then yes, that's racist as hell...because the viability of my business has nothing to do with anyone other than myself.


^well then why on earth would anyone else WANT to have them set you up on a date?

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:27 PM. Reason : ^]

11/20/2008 11:25:51 PM

Quote :

"I don't know where you got that information from. eHarmony's founder is a christian conservative and is linked to several christian organizations who are effectively hate groups. They have purposefully excluded gays and non-christians from the site since it's inception."

Uh, from their press release?

Quote :

"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. 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."

But I'm sure left-wing agitprop trumps the actual press release of the organization every time.

Seriously, though - even assuming what you post is true, so the hell what? So e-Harmony shoots themselves in the foot by excluding a potential market - there are dozens upon dozens of other sites on there, all of which seem to think gay peoples' money is just as good as everyone else's.

So what exactly is the problem that demands the government step in, exactly? Other than somebody in the right jurisdiction getting a bug up their ass, that is.

11/20/2008 11:27:41 PM

quote]eHarmony is a private business, and they specialize in getting heterosexual couples together. it is NOT the government's business to decide they need to expand their business.[/quote]

Here here, fuck'em (asshole in NJ). Besides, eHarmony blows.

Quote :

"Since homosexuality is a normal, healthy, natural orientation, just like heterosexuality, it doesn't make sense for homosexuals to be excluded."

Yeah how about no.

11/20/2008 11:32:42 PM

Quote :

"Seriously, though - even assuming what you post is true, so the hell what? So e-Harmony shoots themselves in the foot by excluding a potential market - there are dozens upon dozens of other sites on there, all of which seem to think gay peoples' money is just as good as everyone else's. So what exactly is the problem that demands the government step in, exactly? Other than somebody in the right jurisdiction getting a bug up their ass, that is."

It's called a slippery slope. All eHarmony had to do LEGALLY was allow gays to join the site, take the quiz and never be able to match them to anyone. That's it. They had to do MORE work to specifically exclude them from the site, than it would have taken to include them and ignore them. Which is usually the case.

Quote :

"How come no white women can compete in Miss Black America...can you imagine if there were a Miss White America? As long as people highlight the goal to isolate themselves, then they become the one's to blame for the problems that ensue."

They can. There is nothing in the rules limiting entry to black women for Miss Black America. There was however a RULE FOR ENTRY for the Miss America pageant:

""must be of good health and of the white race""

Which is why Miss Black America was started. Today the name is just a vestige. Hell, the winners of MBA have been a shitload more intelligent and successful over the years than MA have.

11/21/2008 12:53:15 AM

Quote :

"This is interesting. My instinct is that eHarmony shouldn't have to include homosexuals. However, once I think about it, I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't."

I can think of several reasons why they shouldn't:
1) They don't like gay people
2) They created their little matching algorithm with straight people in mind and don't think it would work for homosexuals
3) They're a private business and can do what they want

Quote :

"You guys all missed my damn point. eHarmony INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDED homosexuals. JDate, Steakhouses and all the rest are IMPLICIT exclusions. It's not that you CANT use their services, it's that non-target audiences won't find them very appealing. There's a easily missed, but marked, difference in those two."

Eharmony makes implicit exlcusions too. It's not that gay people can't use their services, they just won't find them very appealing because they'll be matched up with people of the opposite sex. I bet you would get pissed off if you went into a knife store and couldn't find a gun for sale.



Edit: On a side note, it's nice to see someone win a settlement that wasn't asking for $100,000,000,000.

Quote :

"McKinley, who remains single, will receive $5,000 and free membership for a year to the new dating service. eHarmony will also pay $50,000 to the state Attorney General's office to cover administrative expenses. "I was never in it for the money," said McKinley about the settlement. But he added it was a win-win for both himself and eHarmony. "

[Edited on November 21, 2008 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2008 12:55:40 AM

Quote :

"I've never bought the argument that gay marriage—i.e., the government's evenhanded recognition of relationships between couples, without regard to sexual orientation—is a way of forcing "the gay agenda" onto people who object to it. But this coerced agreement, compelling a private business to provide a service it did not want to provide, certainly is. As Michelle Malkin notes, "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.""

If it is true that the founder of eHarmony is a christian nut-job, then why does the homosexual in question wish to no end to associate with him? Afterall, where does he think the profits of eHarmony will end up?

The truth of the matter is not that the individual in question has any interest in getting hitched via eHarmony. Their only interest was in his share of the settlement and using the force of irrational legislation to hit those he disagrees with.

11/21/2008 1:05:48 AM

Aren't there sites that cater exclusively to homosexuals?

11/21/2008 1:12:17 AM

Quote :

" As long as people highlight the goal to isolate themselves, then they become the one's to blame for the problems that ensue. "

Haha, is that what you tell yourself?

11/21/2008 1:30:54 AM

Quote :

"But he added it was a win-win for both himself and eHarmony."

I don't really see how it's a win for eHarmony. I guess maybe in the long run it could be if they got enough additional customers from the expanded service.

11/21/2008 1:56:36 AM

^^If you disagree with something I say then by all means do so, but ridiculing me does a disservice to me, you, and anyone reading the thread.

And it's not something I 'tell' myself. Perhaps I've grown up in the most liberal state in the country...where my little private school even back in the mid 90s had black, white, asian, Jews, Christians, Catholics....and the only clubs we had were things like the science club, and the drama club, and the ski club...and the N word never ever slipped out by anyone....so maybe it's different in the south but I have no idea because I've never lived that. And maybe because my parents grew up in South Africa they went out of their way to make sure my surroundings were filled with people from every race, religion, etc..... so for me, when I hear about something that is 'black only' or, and I love you Noen, but I don't think anyone who wasn't black would want to enter Miss Black America for the simple reason that a white person probably wouldn't make a good role model for African-American young women. Of course I might be wrong, but it's how I see things.

So yes, moron, when I see people segregating themselves by becoming part of a 'group' that only allows those people in, I see it as racist and it leaves a bad feeling in my mouth. Groups and societies that were created in the past to deal with discrimination and still exist, lead me to believe that there is a need for it and as long as people see that those people themselves feel like victims of discrimination, then the whole 'everyone is equal' thing will never ever happen.

11/21/2008 2:33:48 AM

Quote :

" Anyone else find this outrageous?"

Not really. eHarmony settled and agreed to start the site. It was their business decision.

As to whether it's wrong in general? Well, no. I believe the basis of such a lawsuit is that they were violating anti-discrimination laws. You might find this terribly hard to believe, but in this country, if you start a business you actually have to obey the laws of the states you operate in.

Should they be forced to offer a service to gays? Actually, yes. Imagine a restaurant that systematically turns away black people. The restaurant owner argues that the blacks who come through the door are all thugs and therefore his establishment can't serve them. Maybe it's actually true. Guess what? Too bad. Them's the breaks. He's violating the law and must accommodate them.

As to the "it's like a vegetarian in a steakhouse" comparison -- well, it's just plain stupid. eHarmony tries to make the case that because their site is based on research about heterosexual couples, then their business reason for discriminating is that they have no research about homosexual couples. They could, they claim, offer such a service in the future if they ever did the research.

It's amazing how transparently obtuse that position is. By that logic they could exclude on any basis -- like matching Muslims, for example, who clearly have very different dating and marrying habits than WASPs. Somehow despite these enormous difficulties, eHarmony manages to only lack research on same-sex couples. Translation: there's a reason they settled. Does any reasonable person think they could have gotten away with conveniently "lacking research" on a larger minority group? If so I have a bridge to sell you.

Having said all that I am not convinced their "separate but equal" web site meets the standard of the law; but it was likely a defensive play because this likely won't be the last lawsuit.

11/21/2008 3:09:47 AM

Quote :

" If it is true that the founder of eHarmony is a christian nut-job, then why does the homosexual in question wish to no end to associate with him?"

Well, here's a question for you: why would Rosa Parks want to ride in the front of the bus with the asshole white driver?

Quote :

"Their only interest was in his share of the settlement and using the force of irrational legislation to hit those he disagrees with."

Just to be clear here -- it's your position that businesses shouldn't actually have to abide by the law?

Interesting.

[Edited on November 21, 2008 at 3:18 AM. Reason : foo]

11/21/2008 3:16:08 AM

Quote :

"Imagine a restaurant that systematically turns away black people. The restaurant owner argues that the blacks who come through the door are all thugs and therefore his establishment can't serve them. Maybe it's actually true. Guess what? Too bad. Them's the breaks. He's violating the law and must accommodate them."

Seems to me that is not the right comparison. The vegan in the steak house is much more like it.... Imagine a religious Jew who keeps kosher, walks to the doors of a regular restaurant and says that they want to come in. So the owners say, 'Sure'. So they sit down to order and find that there's nothing they can eat because they require all of the food to come from a kosher kitchen which this place clearly doesn't have. So the owner says, 'Look, you're welcome to sit here, but our food is not kosher, and we don't have a great desire to spend the money on building another kitchen just for those people that keep kosher'. And the Jew says, 'Well then I'm going to file a complaint because you're being discriminatory.'

eHarmony said, 'Sure, come on in....but we don't have anything you want to eat...If at some point you decide that you can eat non-kosher food then by all means we'll be happy to serve you'.

It's the same thing.


Now if this were a prison or something where the government has ordered a criminal to go, then this is a legitimate case for building a kosher kitchen. But the government has nothing to with who a privately owned company caters to and if that company doesn't want to spend the money on making that investment, then in all reality, given all the gay/lesbian dating sites, it's probably the smarter business decision. In this case it seems they've decided to give in and to be honest with you...knowing how little interest they have in catering to the homosexual community, I don't know why anyone who is gay, would actually go there.

11/21/2008 3:33:58 AM

^

It would help if in your next response you please address the actual facts of the case instead of just responding to the one analogy in my longer post, out of context. The question is whether or not they have a legitimate business interest that justifies the discrimination.

And the answer, as I was careful to post, is no. They do not.

Smoker4:

Quote :

"It's amazing how transparently obtuse that position is. By that logic they could exclude on any basis -- like matching Muslims, for example, who clearly have very different dating and marrying habits than WASPs. Somehow despite these enormous difficulties, eHarmony manages to only lack research on same-sex couples. Translation: there's a reason they settled. Does any reasonable person think they could have gotten away with conveniently "lacking research" on a larger minority group? If so I have a bridge to sell you. "

Somehow eHarmony is able to develop a matching system for the multitude of individuals with different tastes, but they have simply -- in their own words -- neglected to extend it to homosexual couples. Keeping with the stupid analogy game, it's a little like a restaurant that serves every cuisine in the world except kosher. Why? Well, they just so happened to not have done kosher. Of course.

11/21/2008 3:40:19 AM

I wonder if Jews and Muslims can sue barbecue restaurants and hot dog stands.

11/21/2008 4:05:35 AM

ok....here's a fact:
"The settlement, which did not find that EHarmony broke any laws..."

And here's the kicker, "McKinley hasn't found the man of his dreams yet. And though EHarmony has to offer him a year's free subscription on the new service, he's not sure he'll accept it."

And this isn't a complete waste of the courts time?

Like I said, I get the whole 'principle' of things, but there comes a point (and it was crossed a long time ago) where society gets stuck in a cycle that does no one any good.

11/21/2008 4:59:55 AM

eHarmony with online dating, as well as churches that provide venues for marriage ceremonies are both PRIVATE entities. If they do not want to cater to the gay community call them bigoted, ignorant, or whatever u want but this is their right.

Maybe Raul and Billy can be entrepruneurs to start the gay eHarmony.

This is about just as stupid as non-smokers suing the bar for allowing smokers to use their cancer sticks in the the PRIVATe bar. IF non-smokers don't like cigarette smoke than DON't go to the bar or find a bar that is non-smoker friendly.

11/21/2008 8:33:50 AM

Quote :

"homosexuality is a normal, healthy, natural orientation, just like heterosexuality, it doesn't make sense for homosexuals to be excluded."

(Note: TKE-Teg and other sexual-orientation bigots that disagree with this fact, shouldn't have their opinions regarded very highly on this matter.) Anyway, BridgetSPK is correct about homosexuality, and the nonsensical nature of its exclusion, but businesses aren't legally (and shouldn't be otherwise,) compelled to "make sense". They should be allowed to make whatever nonsensical business decisions they want. (And subsequently fail, or be marginalized)

Quote :

"This is interesting. My instinct is that eHarmony shouldn't have to include homosexuals. However, once I think about it, I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't."

Your instincts are correct. Liberty is interesting in that civil rights cannot conflict with other civil rights. Ever. IOW, one's civil right to own a property and allow certain business to take place on that property CAN NOT conflict with someone else's alleged right to be accommodated everywhere they go, public or private. (There is no such right. Title II of the ironically named civil rights act actually works to take civil rights away from property owners.) Prejudice, (whether racial, sexual, or other,) is ugly, illogical, and unhealthy, but should not, in and of itself be a crime.

Quote :

"eHarmony is a private business, and they specialize in getting heterosexual couples together. it is NOT the government's anyone's business but their own to decide they need to expand their business."

this is all that needs to be said.

Quote :

"This is going to be one of those interesting cases, however. For one - will J-Date have to comply as well? (I mean, discriminating upon ethnic/religious background, after all)"

exactly. should privately owned atheist, homosexual, latino or polygamist dating sites be compelled (by popular opinion or legal "harassment", and not necessarily by government force,) to allow theists, heterosexuals, non-latinos, or monogamists "equal" access? No. This is just stupid. It may come as a surprise to some people, but private entities are well within their rights to do unpopular things. Last time I checked, unpopularity is not a crime.


[Edited on November 21, 2008 at 9:03 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2008 8:59:48 AM

Quote :

"Keeping with the stupid analogy game, it's a little like a restaurant that serves every cuisine in the world except kosher. Why? Well, they just so happened to not have done kosher. Of course."

And what would be wrong with that? Maybe they don't do it because they don't like jews, and if so who cares? Their intolerant attitude might turn people off and hurt their business, but again who cares? They should be able to serve whoever they want and to exclude whoever they want for any reason they want.

11/21/2008 9:00:59 AM

Quote :

"The question is whether or not they have a legitimate business interest that justifies the discrimination."

They do. They are christian nutjobs and hate gays, as such they do not feel confident in their impartial ability to avoid telling every homosexual that signs up all about willing female partners in their area and how much god loves hetero-sex.

There is a conflict of rights here: religious nuts don't want to associate with homosexuals yet congress has granted homosexuals the right to compel others to associate with them. This law is wrong and should be changed.

Quote :

"why would Rosa Parks want to ride in the front of the bus with the asshole white driver?"

Was the driver an asshole? As I remember my libertarian history, the bus company (and its drivers) wanted to allow blacks to sit anywhere because it cost time and money to do otherwise, but the city passed laws requiring the separation. As such, the white driver was unlikely to be an asshole, he was being forced by law in his association with blacks. Well, now eHarmony is being forced by law in its association with homosexuals.

11/21/2008 9:23:34 AM

Quote :

"If you disagree with something I say then by all means do so, but ridiculing me does a disservice to me, you, and anyone reading the thread. And it's not something I 'tell' myself. Perhaps I've grown up in the most liberal state in the country...where my little private school even back in the mid 90s had black, white, asian, Jews, Christians, Catholics....and the only clubs we had were things like the science club, and the drama club, and the ski club...and the N word never ever slipped out by anyone....so maybe it's different in the south but I have no idea because I've never lived that. And maybe because my parents grew up in South Africa they went out of their way to make sure my surroundings were filled with people from every race, religion, etc..... so for me, when I hear about something that is 'black only' or, and I love you Noen, but I don't think anyone who wasn't black would want to enter Miss Black America for the simple reason that a white person probably wouldn't make a good role model for African-American young women. Of course I might be wrong, but it's how I see things. So yes, moron, when I see people segregating themselves by becoming part of a 'group' that only allows those people in, I see it as racist and it leaves a bad feeling in my mouth. Groups and societies that were created in the past to deal with discrimination and still exist, lead me to believe that there is a need for it and as long as people see that those people themselves feel like victims of discrimination, then the whole 'everyone is equal' thing will never ever happen."

Do you realize that you are blaming your OWN prejudices on someone else? Blacks didn't form Miss Black America to piss off whites. As Noen pointed out, it was formed in response to the Whites Only Miss America. Both ceremonies since then have become traditional. The blacks aren't trying to say "fuck you whitey" but since blacks are only ~15% or so of the population, by the pure simple fact of mathematics, ANY "democratic" pageant is going to have very little blacks in it. What sense does it make to have a "Miss White America" where any representative Miss America pageant is going to have 70% whites anyway? Do you not get what the words "majority" and "minority" means? Do you not realize our country was founded as a republic, and our constitution was specifically written with the intent to express the will of the majority, but to PROTECT the voice of any minority groups (such as hunters or gun owners or farmers, etc)? Because if you did EVERYTHING absolutely by majority rule, you would eliminate any minority groups in short order.

The fact that YOU get mad when minority groups have events to increase their own awareness is YOUR OWN failing. These groups aren't saying "hey we're better than you" or "don't be our friends because we're different than you" I can't fathom why you'd get this impression. They are saying "hey share in our unique culture with us". Do you not realize, that because of the pure mathematics of the situation, most Americans are primarily exposed to white American culture, because you represent 70% of the country? So do you think this is how it MUST be and that no other culture should be able to express themselves, without you thinking they are "segregating" themselves?

And when you make arguments that are no more mature than a high-school level, you invite ridicule. You can take practically any political science class or sociology class, and they teach these very basic, easy to understand concepts. It almost seems that you WANT a reason to dislike these groups, and you choose to maintain your naive and immature perspective to force this perspective.

11/21/2008 10:07:29 AM

Quote :

"eHarmony settled and agreed to start the site. It was their business decision."

If they tried to fight it and made a big deal about it, all the gays of the world would unite and protest in every state, legislative building, and governor's mansion. Haven't you noticed the POWER OF THE GAY PROTEST recently?


This is what really turns me off to the entire gay movement. Fight for marriage and legal rights, fine... that makes sense. But demanding acceptance to an online service specifically designed for Christians and heterosexuals just because you were excluded? Fight battles that actually mean something - I mean, really... even if you agree with this guy, was this really another step forward for gays in the United States? Maybe they think otherwise (maybe somebody in the know could shed some light) but in my opinion, it's stupid lawsuits like this that set their movement back.

The more ridiculous complaints and lawsuits, the more people are just going to say, "Oh look, another gay guy is complaining about something meaningless." And when the lawsuits that really matter take place, nobody is going to give a shit. It's just like all the cries of racism nowadays, a large percentage of them are people just trying to take advantage of the PC world we live in so usually when I hear a brief mention of them, I just assume it's something ridiculous.

11/21/2008 10:11:12 AM

Quote :

"Do you not realize, that because of the pure mathematics of the situation, most Americans are primarily exposed to white American culture, because you represent 70% of the country?"

This is an absurd point. You are exposed to the culture you want to be associated with. You watch the TV you want, you read the web-sites you want, and you hang out with the people you want. While you have little say over your server at the DMV or the individual arresting you, everything else you have complete control over.

The objection is to the double standard. Some of us are free to associate only with those we wish, some of us are not. That is wrong, all should be treated equally by the law. If Black Miss America is free to exclude white contestants then eHarmony should be free to exclude gay contestants. If neither are free then neither should be free, and the corporation operating the Black Miss America pagent should set up a White Miss America pagent or be sued by the next white person off the street that didn't feel comfortable entering a black contest.

Afterall, if the existance of Gay dating sites is no defence for eHarmony, then the existance of non-black Miss America should be no defence.

[Edited on November 21, 2008 at 10:22 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/21/2008 10:19:44 AM

Quote :

"That is wrong, all should be treated equally by the law. If Black Miss America is free to exclude white contestants then eHarmony should be free to exclude gay contestants. If neither are free then neither should be free, and the corporation operating the Black Miss America pagent should set up a White Miss America pagent or be sued by the next white person off the street that didn't feel comfortable entering a black contest."

I don't think anyone is saying that Miss Black America is legally allowed to say "no whites" because AFAIK, this is not official policy. (and I vaguely recall at least seeing some hispanics in their lineup)

m2c was saying that she felt personally offended they were even allowed to have a miss black America and I was explaining why she is wrong to feel offended.

[Edited on November 21, 2008 at 10:38 AM. Reason : ]

11/21/2008 10:37:53 AM

Excellent post by moron.

11/21/2008 11:56:20 AM

Frankly, as a member of the gay community, this guy is an idiot. Why would you want to spend money that will go into the pocket of a bigot? It's like when I found out Orson Scott Card is a homophobe, I decided I would never buy his books again. We should be fighting for equality under the law, not in people's private affairs, including their private businesses. As it's already been referred to, it's one thing to have a restaurant and tell someone you won't serve them because they're a Jew, rather than simply not offering kosher food because it's not cost effective or you just plain don't want to. If I can't find the product/service I need from one company, I simply move on and give my money to someone else.

11/21/2008 1:51:36 PM

Wow.

How the fuck is this thread still going? People, I answered the question twice. Think about what I am saying before you make another stupid, repetitive reply.

There is a WORLD of difference between catering to a particular interest group, and EXCLUDING a particular group based on race, creed or religion.

The entire argument of "why would someone go where they aren't wanted" is so fucking stupid, it makes my blood boil. The only reason that: WOMEN, MINORITIES and GAYS have ANY rights is because the went where they weren't wanted but they wanted to be included. Part of building an maintaining an open, equal, and just society is TAKING PART IN KEEPING IT OPEN, EQUAL and JUST.

If you don't want to enter Miss Black America, that is YOUR choice.

If you can't enter Miss Black America, the choice has been made for you.

That is the entire point of his lawsuit, and anti-discrimination laws in general. Arguing that such laws are a burden on business, or on consumers or on tax payers is also ridiculous.

As a business, it is universally more expensive to EXCLUDE an audience than it is to INCLUDE everyone. eHarmony spent time and money to EXCLUDE specific groups of people, including homosexuals. As a consumer, it is universally more expensive and time consuming having to prove you are or aren't something. Open consumerism is easier on the consumer. As a tax payer, litigating settlements of cases like this is insanely cheaper than a single court case that escalates to a state or federal supreme court.

On all fronts, inclusion and equality in the marketplace is sound business practice.

On top of that it is also part of the responsibility of everyone to ensure that your fellow country-men have the same freedoms of CHOICE that you do.

11/21/2008 4:00:50 PM

Quote :

"As it's already been referred to, it's one thing to have a restaurant and tell someone you won't serve them because they're a Jew, rather than simply not offering kosher food because it's not cost effective or you just plain don't want to."

This another silly analogy.

A Jewish person still has the choice whether to eat, or not eat the food. Kosher or not.

A homosexual person does NOT have the choice whether to be matched with other people. Gay or not, they are EXCLUDED from the site.

11/21/2008 4:02:53 PM