Quote :

"How the fuck is this thread still going? People, I answered the question twice."

oh shit, you're right...


THREAD OVER PEOPLE

11/21/2008 4:32:31 PM

I don't understand how the Jewish analogy is any different...

Jew goes to a restaurant because they're hungry.
Jew is told they are welcome to eat the food any enjoy.
Jew tries to order a kosher meal.
Jew is told that the kitchen is not kosher and therefore a kosher meal is not going to happen.
Jew has the choice to eat non-kosher food, or leave.

Homosexual goes to a dating site because they want a date.
Homosexual is told they are welcome to join and get set up on a date.
Homosexual tries to order a same-sex partner date.
Homosexual is told that the website does not offer that service and therefore a same sex date is not going to happen.
Homosexual has the choice to get a non same sex date, or leave.

11/21/2008 4:33:00 PM

Quote :

"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."

How about taking a taste of your own medicine? You're fundamentally ignoring issues of free association that people have brought up, not to mention that we're not looking at exclusion codified into law (as was once the case), or a dearth of alternative sites.

One site fails to offer a product for homosexual couples. Dozens of others provide it.

What exactly is the problem, here?

Quote :

"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."

Including forcing people to associate with people they don't voluntarily choose to do such with?

Look - if this was about the state coming in and saying, "You can't offer this service to homosexuals," then I'd be all up behind any lawsuit challenging this. If it was, "You can't cater to both," I'd still agree. If it was the only dating service out there, I'd be open to hearing your case.

But none of these is the case. It's one site among dozens, potentially hundreds - all of which are more than willing to cater to homosexuals. The walls aren't exactly closing in, here.

Quote :

"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."

Uh, that's a rather extreme and unfounded statement.

Let's look at this from eHarmony's perspective, for a moment. For a brief moment, let's assume that their model is uniquely based upon a particular demographic - generally middle-class christians. Not a huge stretch - eHarmony has been rejecting more than just homosexuals.

Now, assuming they don't want to dump capital - for whatever reason - into researching match dynamics outside of their target demographic - they've got two options. Offer their current service, which will admittedly be an inferior experience for those outside the target demographic - or not take their money.

In other words, they have the option to dilute their brand name by offering sub-optimal matches to particular individuals - again, because for whatever reason they've chosen not to invest in improving their algorithm for these groups, therefore compromising their brand integrity - or they refuse to offer their service to those who they can't provide as high of a quality of matches to, therefore excluding some from their service.

Does it not make any sense at all why their is a viable reason for them not to offer their service universally here?

But, of course, it must be bigotry. After all, alternet and Noen say so!

[Edited on November 21, 2008 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2008 4:49:40 PM

Oh I love how I'm a bigot b/c I agree with evolution and biology, awesome.

11/21/2008 4:49:42 PM

Maybe I should sue eHarmony because i like to hook up with little girls and they discriminate by preventing 9 olds from putting their pretty little profiles on teh site

11/21/2008 4:50:37 PM

Quote :

"How can it be legal to make a private company set up a completely new part of their business because someone cries unfair?"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/11/19/eharmony.same.sex.matches/

After reading this article, it seems it never actually came to a ruling, eHarmony agreed to settle the lawsuit (which means a judge never made a ruling, eHarmony essentially conceded). So technically, this isn't the gov. making a private company do something, it's a private company caving to a threat from a lawyer.

eHarmony already has a disclaimer on their site too noting that some people can't be matched, but no where on its site does it address homosexual couples. Considering this, and considering their commercials, it could be construed as false advertising.

The only reason I can think for them to settle though would be if they knew their algorithm would also work for homosexual couples (and really, now that I think about it, I don't see why it shouldn't), but they were just artificially limiting their clientele for discriminatory purposes. This seems to be supported by the fact they have now decided to start a gay version of eHarmony using the same algorithm (and they'll probably make money from it too).

If it were due to a technical reason why the didn't offer it to gays to begin with (which should be easy to prove), I could see them prevailing in court, or at least only being forced to modify their marketing to note the limitations of their system.

11/21/2008 4:56:12 PM

Based on my understanding here, though - I doubt a technical issue would get them around the legal issue in question; it seems more like they settled to avoid a long and costly legal battle and the negative PR that would go with it. In other words, their lawyers didn't think this was a winning battle in court.

This doesn't mean their matching algorithm actually provides the same quality of results.

Also, I find it notable that they're setting up a parallel site to handle gay matches - again, it seems like they're concerned with their brand integrity. I strongly suspect the quality of the matches for the gay site is going to be inferior to those provided for its hetero counterpart. Otherwise, why separate the two at all?

11/21/2008 5:00:15 PM

Quote :

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

There IS a difference. Gays are NOT EXCLUDED from the site. They can still access and register, they just don't have the ability to select a same-sex match. There is no law keeping them from doing this, it is simply a service that the site does not offer. Gays are NOT EXCLUDED from finding another site that does offer the service. There is no reason why there should be a lawsuit over this silly shit. I'm more concerned about why I can't go to a justice of the peace and marry the person I love.

11/21/2008 5:00:48 PM

^exactly

11/21/2008 5:06:26 PM

as the resident bleeding-heart liberal from seattle... i gotta say this issue is bogus

i mean, think about it: what self respecting faggot really wants to find a date on eHarmony? Its like the well-scrubbed christian dating site for red state people.

hell, i wouldnt even go there. if I want to find me a church lady to date, I'll go to a gotdam church. as for eHarmony, i won't even give them the pleasure of logging my IP for 0.03 cents in ad revenue.

but just because i personally find eHarmony ridiculously lame, doesnt mean they should be forced to accommodate some demographic that doesn't fit their business model because a few whiney queers have sticks of self-righteousness stuck in their assholes.

11/21/2008 5:22:48 PM

I would make a joke about how much they enjoy having those sticks of self righteousness up there.

But this is soap box, so I won't.

11/21/2008 5:30:18 PM

Quote :

"I doubt a technical issue would get them around the legal issue in question"

If there truly was a technical issue, I can't see why it WOULDN'T have won them a case.

I think the restaurant comparison does hold some water, it's not really practical for every restaurant to offer meals appropriate for all diet types, and I can't see a lawsuit being successful based on discrimination. Likewise, if there were actually a technical reason eHarmony couldn't cater to gays, then they shouldn't have to invest in the research to make it possible. Unless they were somehow marketing themselves as being appropriate for everyone (which they actually do), but that not actually being the case.

But, as more studies are done that show that gays are psychologically normal as anyone else, I can't see why their algorithms wouldn't also work for gays. Which would means their limitation of gays was artificial and discriminatory. It's kind of like the Boy Scouts.

They "discriminate" against females, but there are obvious practical reasons for this that would be upheld in court, I think (if they haven't already been).

11/21/2008 5:35:47 PM

Well, for one, is there an actual exception to the law which allows for a technical exception? It seems like in this case, a likely outcome would have been for the courts to force them to invest in a comparable algorithm, if they were to do business in NJ.

I'm far from an expert on psychology or relationships, but it seems like eHarmony's policy of excluding many other people other than homosexuals demonstrates my point about technical specifics, however. They appear to have created an algorithm to deal with a finely calibrated set of people and rejected those who fell outside the variance. Homosexuals were just a subset of the excluded classes.

Meanwhile, interesting bit of trivia - I was looking to see who the lawyer representing eHarmony was, and I was little surprised - Theodore Olson. As in, former Solicitor General Theodore Olson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_B._Olson

Huh. Small world.

11/21/2008 5:44:35 PM

Quote :

"They can still access and register, they just don't have the ability to select a same-sex match. "

No, they can't. You register, you take the test and it EXCLUDES YOU FROM THE MATCHING.

Quote :

"Jew goes to a restaurant because they're hungry. Jew is told they are welcome to eat the food any enjoy. Jew tries to order a kosher meal. Jew is told that the kitchen is not kosher and therefore a kosher meal is not going to happen. Jew has the choice to eat non-kosher food, or leave. Homosexual goes to a dating site because they want a date. Homosexual is told they are welcome to join and get set up on a date. Homosexual tries to order a same-sex partner date. Homosexual is told that the website does not offer that service and therefore a same sex date is not going to happen. Homosexual has the choice to get a non same sex date, or leave."

Kosher restaurants are billed as such. No Hasidic Jew would ever go to a restaurant and assume it kosher, the opposite would be the case. They have taken a belief with the knowledge that it differs from the normal culture of the US and as such they assume the responsibility and limitations their beliefs impose on them.

Sexuality is not a choice you make. If someone asked for a date, assuming they meant a heterosexual one is discriminatory. The choice of "non same sex date or leave" is entirely different than "non-kosher food or leave". The former is intentionally exclusionary, the latter isn't.

Quote :

"One site fails to offer a product for homosexual couples. Dozens of others provide it."

One site specifically excludes homosexuals from their product, which is different than just not specifically offering it.

Quote :

"Including forcing people to associate with people they don't voluntarily choose to do such with? "

We are talking about businesses, not people. And yes, I think it should be illegal to refuse business based on gender, orientation, race or creed.

Quote :

"But none of these is the case. It's one site among dozens, potentially hundreds - all of which are more than willing to cater to homosexuals. The walls aren't exactly closing in, here."

All it takes is a single organization to proliferate hate. Your argument is essentially that Racism is fine, as long as there's enough non-Racism to counter it. Which is mind-boggling. This has nothing to do with lack of competition or alternative, it has to do with maintaining a marketplace that is non-discriminatory.

Quote :

"Does it not make any sense at all why their is a viable reason for them not to offer their service universally here? But, of course, it must be bigotry. After all, alternet and Noen say so! Now, assuming they don't want to dump capital - for whatever reason - into researching match dynamics outside of their target demographic - they've got two options. Offer their current service, which will admittedly be an inferior experience for those outside the target demographic - or not take their money."

There is absolutely no viable business reason to reject someone from the site. In reality, they would be much better off financially by letting people know they MAY not be matched, but taking their money anyway. There is no capital cost to NOT exclude people who won't have good matches.

You are making classic arguments into legitimizing discrimination in the marketplace. Turning a blind-eye isn't acceptable to me.

11/21/2008 5:46:40 PM

Quote :

"Well, for one, is there an actual exception to the law which allows for a technical exception? "

I would think it wouldn't be in keeping the "spirit of the law" which is a legally valid concept.

Quote :

"I'm far from an expert on psychology or relationships, but it seems like eHarmony's policy of excluding many other people other than homosexuals demonstrates my point about technical specifics, however. They appear to have created an algorithm to deal with a finely calibrated set of people and rejected those who fell outside the variance. Homosexuals were just a subset of the excluded classes."

The difference is that eHarmony puts in their fine print that matches could be rejected based on personality issues (which I think was also prompted by a lawsuit), but no where in their commercials or their website does it imply matches could be rejected based on sexuality. This could give the impression they are trying to be discriminatory, which does also seem to be the tone of their lawyer's statements.

11/21/2008 5:50:12 PM

Quote :

"No, they can't. You register, you take the test and it EXCLUDES YOU FROM THE MATCHING."

As do others who aren't homosexual. As in, the test does not single out homosexuals alone.

They are offering access to a service to those clients who they believe they can actually provide a service for, and declining those they feel they can't. This is not just homosexuals.

Quote :

"One site specifically excludes homosexuals from their product, which is different than just not specifically offering it."

They exclude lots of people, and not just homosexuals. They exclude anyone their matching algorithm rejects - which happens to include homosexuals.

Quote :

"We are talking about businesses, not people. And yes, I think it should be illegal to refuse business based on gender, orientation, race or creed."

Last time I checked, businesses are owned and run by people. So, until our robot overlords get here (who I for one, welcome), my point stands - your contention is that equality includes forcing people to associate with those who they would otherwise not voluntarily do so with,

Quote :

"All it takes is a single organization to proliferate hate. Your argument is essentially that Racism is fine, as long as there's enough non-Racism to counter it. Which is mind-boggling. This has nothing to do with lack of competition or alternative, it has to do with maintaining a marketplace that is non-discriminatory."

Please - this is not about the KKK. And given the fact that homosexuals are not the only group excluded - plenty of "abnormal" hetero folk get scratched by the algorithm too - it's not even clear that this is about bigotry at all.

But leaving those things aside, your rejoinder is ridiculous. If eHarmony doesn't want to cater to certain groups, other people will. We've already seen this to be so. As long as we're not actively preventing people from offering accommodation - as we in fact have in the past - the result is that universal accommodation prevails. Other vendors fill the void - in fact, match.com has explicitly exploited this fact in their "Rejected by eHarmony" ad campaign.

No one is being shut out of the market here, despite your shirt-tearing and chest-beating to the contrary.

Quote :

"There is absolutely no viable business reason to reject someone from the site. In reality, they would be much better off financially by letting people know they MAY not be matched, but taking their money anyway. There is no capital cost to NOT exclude people who won't have good matches."

So, if you know so much about the business model, why don't you start a site and compete with them? Given that you obviously know eHarmony's business model better than... eHarmony. And hey, maybe if you're as smart as you claim, you'll even run them out of business - ending bigotry in the good old-fashioned capitalist way.

Unless, of course, perhaps your business model isn't all it's cracked up to be, and in fact eHarmony has found it better to not try and match people who fall outside the normal ranges of their algorithm - straight and hetero. But hey, what do they know? It's only their algorithm.

Quote :

"You are making classic arguments into legitimizing discrimination in the marketplace. Turning a blind-eye isn't acceptable to me."

Oh please, spare us the holier-than-thou lectures. Next up, you'll be calling anyone who disagrees with you bigots as well.

It couldn't possibly be the fact that simply mandating eHarmony cater to everyone might be the wrong solution for this kind of problem. No, it must be that we're all accessories to bigotry.

11/21/2008 7:19:42 PM

tangent here... but I'm just curious why you men don't sue all those mall parking lots that have those pregnant people only parking spaces...I mean since it's physically impossible to be a pregnant male, you guys are being discriminated against based in your sex.

I would sue.

11/21/2008 7:28:26 PM

Quote :

"Willy Nilly: 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) 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."

I just want to let it be known that I have had this argument about a thousand times... If my post seemed simplistic or glossed over the points that you think are important, you should know that that was by design.

To be clear, I do not really care about an owner's right to be a bigot. There are major human rights abuses taking place every day...I just can't get it up for some dipshit that doesn't want redheads and bald people in his bar.

And I'm unclear why you feel the need to defend the rights of bigots. Is it a slippery slope issue or something? Are the Ruskies gonna invade if we let homosexuals get on eHarmony?

[Edited on November 21, 2008 at 7:30 PM. Reason : sss]

11/21/2008 7:29:57 PM

we should all go register on eHarmony, and see who gets rejected and who gets accepted.





[Edited on November 21, 2008 at 8:28 PM. Reason : ]

11/21/2008 8:27:29 PM

Quote :

"No, they can't. You register, you take the test and it EXCLUDES YOU FROM THE MATCHING."

It also excludes straight people that they determine aren't compatible with their matches. Why aren't you screaming and swearing about all the people that are being oppressed because their personality sucks? Do you think Eharmony should set up an alternate site for people that were originally rejected? I bet you don't because you like everyone else thinks that it's ok to discriminate based on some factors and not others.

11/21/2008 9:57:42 PM

it also discriminates against married folks lookin to score a little strange

OMFG I'M SO

11/21/2008 10:06:50 PM

Quote :

"The only reason I can think for them to settle though would be if they knew their algorithm would also work for homosexual couples (and really, now that I think about it, I don't see why it shouldn't), but they were just artificially limiting their clientele for discriminatory purposes. This seems to be supported by the fact they have now decided to start a gay version of eHarmony using the same algorithm (and they'll probably make money from it too)."

I can think of two reasons -- bad press and the possibility of more gays jumping on the lawsuit bandwagon trying to get a piece of the pie, which could result in more litigation fees and potential payouts if they were to lose. I guess they thought they might as well start up a gay site and make money from them instead of pay it out.

11/22/2008 12:41:30 AM

DrSteveChaos Dude, you keep shifting the argument. It's not even worth continuing to write responses to you, because I write the same shit over and over again, and you shift the argument back. I'll leave you to understand why there's a difference between personality mismatch and sexual orientation.

Quote :

"If you're currently married, you've been divorced three times, you're looking for a same-sex match, or you're extremely depressed or argumentative, the system will reject you."

Plain and simple. The first one is a legal issue, the second is a personal choice for the individual, the third is DISCRIMINATION, the fourth is a legal issue. Those are the 4 ways you get rejected from eHarmony every single time. Get it through your head, they specifically weed out homosexuals. Rejecting anyone else is superfluous because only the rejection of homosexuals is discrimination.

Quote :

"Last time I checked, businesses are owned and run by people. So, until our robot overlords get here (who I for one, welcome), my point stands - your contention is that equality includes forcing people to associate with those who they would otherwise not voluntarily do so with,"

Where did I ever say that? Nice strawman attempt. I only said it should be illegal to refuse business on 4 conditions. It's perfectly legitimate to refuse service to a person based on their attitude, personality, or any other non-discriminatory reasoning you want.

Quote :

"If eHarmony doesn't want to cater to certain groups, other people will. We've already seen this to be so. As long as we're not actively preventing people from offering accommodation - as we in fact have in the past - the result is that universal accommodation prevails. Other vendors fill the void - in fact, match.com has explicitly exploited this fact in their "Rejected by eHarmony" ad campaign. "

You are making incorrect assumptions about their service. If you are going to act like a prim and proper law student in here, at LEAST do your due diligence and know what the fuck you are talking about. Right now it's completely out of your ass, and you are basing your entire argument off of several incorrect base assumptions.

a) eHarmony doesn't have to cater to any group. They just can't EXCLUDE a group solely on the basis of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. They are. Case closed, argument over.

b) Competition doesn't justify, allow, or abdicate discrimination in the marketplace. It's the right of the citizen, if they encounter it, to report it and have it removed from the businesses practices.

c) It has nothing to do with have alternatives, or being in or out of the market. You still don't get that.

Quote :

"So, if you know so much about the business model, why don't you start a site and compete with them? Given that you obviously know eHarmony's business model better than... eHarmony. And hey, maybe if you're as smart as you claim, you'll even run them out of business - ending bigotry in the good old-fashioned capitalist way. Unless, of course, perhaps your business model isn't all it's cracked up to be, and in fact eHarmony has found it better to not try and match people who fall outside the normal ranges of their algorithm - straight and hetero. But hey, what do they know? It's only their algorithm."

What does this have to do with anything? I spent 30 minutes and researched their matching algorithm. I don't even know what your point is here, other than to look ignorant. There have been multiple people who have reverse engineered eHarmony's matching system and have shown empirically how it works.

So really, feel free to keep conjecturing on how it might or might not work. I know how it works, which is exactly why eHarmony settled out of court.

Quote :

"Oh please, spare us the holier-than-thou lectures. Next up, you'll be calling anyone who disagrees with you bigots as well. It couldn't possibly be the fact that simply mandating eHarmony cater to everyone might be the wrong solution for this kind of problem. No, it must be that we're all accessories to bigotry."

It's not a lecture. And if you want to rolly-eyes, go right ahead. Gotta love more strawman's thrown in there as well. Man I hope you aren't a law student. And way to miss the point AGAIN, for the 4th or 5th time in one post. Just to sum up: You don't MANDATE eHarmony to cater to homosexuals. You MANDATE eHarmony to not categorically reject homosexuals. If you don't see the difference there, don't even bother responding again.

11/22/2008 12:46:09 AM

Quote :

"tangent here... but I'm just curious why you men don't sue all those mall parking lots that have those pregnant people only parking spaces...I mean since it's physically impossible to be a pregnant male, you guys are being discriminated against based in your sex. I would sue."

It's called a medical condition. Handicap people have similar parking spots, except they likely never return to normal. It's not discrimination against men, it's an affordance given to temporarily handicapped women. If a man gets a medical condition that only men can get, and it hampers his mobility, he would get a handicap permit and be able to park even closer than the preggers woman. It's not descrimination.

11/22/2008 12:48:46 AM

Quote :

"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."

So you don't stand behind your original statement? I think you're a coward then.

You asked why a gay person would want to partake in a heterosexual site. I asked, by analogy, why Rosa Parks would want to partake in an overtly hostile situation with regards to her race.

And you shifted to some macro-scoped argument about what the bus company wanted. If that isn't intellectual dishonesty, nothing is. I can't say I expected much more from you. Shameful.

11/22/2008 6:13:57 AM

Quote :

"They exclude lots of people, and not just homosexuals. They exclude anyone their matching algorithm rejects - which happens to include homosexuals. "

eHarmony explicitly said that they had excluded same sex couples from the very definition of their matching algorithm. At no point did they claim that the algorithm excluded them via the normal course of its execution -- they are a priori denied.

Given that, either you have either willfully ignored the facts at hand, or you are unclear what an algorithm really is. I'd bet on some combination of the two.

As to the arguments about free association -- this is one of those "fire in a crowded theater" situations. Since when does Free Association necessarily trump the legitimate interest of the state in ensuring the social equality of minority groups? You have a steep hill to climb in making such an argument.

The state made the judgment that segregation is wrong per se; the fact that gay dating alternatives exist is just mere circumstance. It doesn't change the fact that the state has a legitimate interest in ending such segregation. The reasons why are obvious -- that it has been shown in the past that Separate But Equal, even in the private sector, leads to inferior choices for minority groups.

I therefore argue that there is a chilling effect when large sites like eHarmony have the ability to explicitly discriminate against minority groups in blatant violation of the law. The question here is not about the market; it's about the "moral hazard" that is present when large players like eHarmony are allowed to discriminate. Part of that moral hazard is the disregard of established law, the other part is the idea that minority groups must fend for themselves entirely with their own capital to counteract basic bigotry -- a position that puts them at a unique disadvantage in any open marketplace.

11/22/2008 6:39:05 AM

TKE-Teg

Quote :

"Oh I love how I'm a bigot b/c I agree with evolution and biology, awesome."

Are you all going to let this guy say some dumb shit like this and not respond? He thinks that evolution and biology somehow indicate that homosexuality isn't a "natural" sexual orientation, but that heterosexuality is. He is obviously confused about both sexuality and science. Would any of the other defenders of homosexuality care to comment about this bigot's bogus claim of innocence?

BridgetSPK

Quote :

"And I'm unclear why you feel the need to defend the rights of bigots"

All individuals' rights should be defended. (Duh.) No one has more rights than someone else. We are all equal under the law. (or at least should be, as Lonesnark has repeatedly pointed out.)

I mean, do you think bigots somehow lose their rights? (fyi, rights are inalienable) or are you simply saying that it's your opinion that bigots should be in the "back of the line" when it comes to society coming to the defense of one's rights?

Defending the rights of non-bigoted virtuous people is like picking low-hanging fruit. What makes our society great is that we work hard to defend everyone, not just those who are popular or "good."

Perhaps you think that denying rights (or the defense of rights,) to those whom you deem immoral is an appropriate way to address (more like punish,) their perceived immorality. Perhaps you think individuals should be treated differently under the law based on whether or not they are "good." If you do think these things, then you're wrong.

11/22/2008 9:54:09 AM

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos Dude, you keep shifting the argument. It's not even worth continuing to write responses to you, because I write the same shit over and over again, and you shift the argument back. I'll leave you to understand why there's a difference between personality mismatch and sexual orientation."

Once again, your failure to comprehend even the original argument is not a failure on my part.

Quote :

"Where did I ever say that? Nice strawman attempt. I only said it should be illegal to refuse business on 4 conditions. It's perfectly legitimate to refuse service to a person based on their attitude, personality, or any other non-discriminatory reasoning you want."

I know, I know, reading is hard, but let's roll back the tapes.

Quote :

"We are talking about businesses, not people."

And, seeing as businesses are run and owned by people, my point about forced association stands. Wow that was hard.

Quote :

"a) eHarmony doesn't have to cater to any group. They just can't EXCLUDE a group solely on the basis of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. They are. Case closed, argument over."

You are making the argument that they must provide a matching service to homosexuals. That is, that they must be willing to match homosexuals with other homosexuals. What exactly is this other than demanding specific accommodation?

Look, as dumb as the whole anti-gay marriage argument of "well gays can still marry opposite-sex people" is when it comes to the state (and believe me, it is pretty dumb), in this case, eHarmony is plenty willing to provide opposite-sex matching within a certain range of parameters. They're not willing to provide this service on a same-sex basis. Which really is the problem, here - they're not providing a service that a particular segment of the population wants - same-sex matching. Since they don't offer the service, of course they're not going to take their money - the same way that they don't take money from anyone else who they won't provide matches for.

Your argument is predicated upon the fact that this is an a priori discrimination, but let's face it - what they're setting up here is an exclusive, pre-defined service; they're basically providing a matching service for a select group of middle-class, christian, heterosexuals. Anyone who doesn't fall into that class gets excluded. Homosexuals get excluded the fastest simply because they don't provide the service at all. Other people get excluded later on once they get kicked out from the criteria screening.

Ergo, your whole argument is predicated upon the fact that they must provide an equivalent matching service for homosexual customers. Assuming they do not, your remedy is worthless - they let homosexuals be matched with any opposite-sex partner they want. It's worthless for these customers - as worthless as the whole anti-gay marriage argument is ("well, gays can still marry women!"). Therefore, the only effective remedy they can come up with is to provide the same-sex matching service that they originally refused to provide.

Again, I ask - why do they have to provide a service that they have chosen not to - for whatever reason?

Quote :

"Competition doesn't justify, allow, or abdicate discrimination in the marketplace. It's the right of the citizen, if they encounter it, to report it and have it removed from the businesses practices."

Okay, little debate lesson here - declaring principles as a given does not take the place of say, making the argument that it should be so. I know you don't have to do this over in Tech Talk, but over here your little blustering game where you shout down anyone who disagrees with you on principle doesn't really work.

Try again - this time with feeling.

Quote :

"c) It has nothing to do with have alternatives, or being in or out of the market. You still don't get that."

Uh, despite your assertion to the contrary, the fact that there are many, many alternatives is pretty damned relevant - namely because it moots the whole issue entirely. If other accommodations were unavailable, then yes, we'd be seeing a large-scale disenfranchisement. But we're not. People aren't being shut out from the market - they're being shut out from one service because they don't offer their service to homosexuals, or to many straight people for that matter.

Basically, your whole argument has boiled down to the fact that it's okay to leave out any straight people they want, so long as they provide services for homosexuals.

Quote :

"What does this have to do with anything? I spent 30 minutes and researched their matching algorithm. I don't even know what your point is here, other than to look ignorant. There have been multiple people who have reverse engineered eHarmony's matching system and have shown empirically how it works."

If you know so much and have done so much research, why don't you spend less energy blustering and name-calling and actually provide a little insight? (Trifling, I know.) How about actually giving us some links to this research of yours to, I don't know, enlighten us?

Unless you think we should all be taking your word for it.

Quote :

"Man I hope you aren't a law student."

And I certainly hope you don't apply your shitty logical skills to writing code - because you suck at this game. Code, like many other things in life, does not simply work by virtue of your fiat.

Quote :

"And way to miss the point AGAIN, for the 4th or 5th time in one post. Just to sum up: You don't MANDATE eHarmony to cater to homosexuals. You MANDATE eHarmony to not categorically reject homosexuals. If you don't see the difference there, don't even bother responding again."

I know it's hard, but try actually reading a little before declaring everyone wrong.

eHarmony did not provide same-sex matching. So, let's say they drop categorical rejection. And they do... what, exactly? Provide no matches?

Unless we also mandate that they provide matches, too. Which kind of gets back to my original point, which apparently is too difficult to understand.

11/22/2008 10:54:26 AM

Quote :

"eHarmony explicitly said that they had excluded same sex couples from the very definition of their matching algorithm. At no point did they claim that the algorithm excluded them via the normal course of its execution -- they are a priori denied. Given that, either you have either willfully ignored the facts at hand, or you are unclear what an algorithm really is. I'd bet on some combination of the two."

I go back to my original statement - they don't provide the service. They're excluding anyone who they won't provide their matching service to - which includes homosexuals and many straight people.

Again, the way this strikes me is as a filtering algorithm - they know they don't provide same-sex matching, so in that sense, it's a moot point to run through the matching algorithm - they don't provide the service at all.

Other people get booted later down the line - after it is clear that they won't provide the service to them.

Thus, their discrimination - a priori or not - seems to be predicated upon whether they are capable and willing to provide matches. If they don't provide same-sex matching at all, why run homosexuals through the matching algorithm?

But okay. Let's assume eHarmony basically are just jerks, and their algorithm works just fine at matching homosexual couples. In which case, there's no technical reason to provide for a priori exclusion other than the fact that for whatever reason, they don't provide matching of same-sex partners. Which means ultimately their service would offer the worthless alternative of matching gay people with partners of the opposite sex.

So, now again we come to the crux of the matter - the argument that eHarmony must provide same-sex matching if they provide opposite-sex matching. But again, why? They offer one service - opposite-sex matching, and thus they must offer the other?

Again, if your complaint is simply that they exclude homosexuals a priori, dropping that exclusion alone doesn't seem to do much for you in terms of remedy. Homosexuals still don't get matches if you don't boot them a priori unless you actually provide the subsequent same-sex matching service too.

Quote :

"As to the arguments about free association -- this is one of those "fire in a crowded theater" situations. Since when does Free Association necessarily trump the legitimate interest of the state in ensuring the social equality of minority groups? You have a steep hill to climb in making such an argument."

For one, how does one site's failure to provide a service to a segment of the population produce a compelling state interest to intervene?

Quote :

"The state made the judgment that segregation is wrong per se; the fact that gay dating alternatives exist is just mere circumstance. It doesn't change the fact that the state has a legitimate interest in ending such segregation. The reasons why are obvious -- that it has been shown in the past that Separate But Equal, even in the private sector, leads to inferior choices for minority groups."

But this is not the same thing as segregated lunch counters and bathrooms - it's not even close. For one, we're not talking about a state-mandated discrimination - i.e., where equal access is forbidden by law.

Second, let's consider the issue of eHarmony again for a moment. Assuming they didn't segregate a priori - assume instead they just didn't provide matches. This would still be a problem, I assume - because the same basic failure is there. Only this time, homosexuals are in the same boat as many straight folks. Yet I'd hardly think you'd assert that the problem is strictly the fact that they boot homosexuals out of the algorithm a priori - it's that they refuse to provide their matching service to them.

So, what is the state's compelling interest in this case? That eHarmony doesn't provide for a priori discrimination, or that they provide for equal accommodation overall? And again, given the fact that eHarmony is but one player in a vast, vast series of franchises, is the assertion that eHarmony's exclusion provides an inferior experience to a minority (in this case, homosexuals) even valid?

Furthermore, assuming we drop a priori exclusion, why is it okay for them still to exclude hetero folks (and, we assume, some homo folk) who get bumped via their algorithm? Simply because their exclusion is not "categorical?"

Quote :

"I therefore argue that there is a chilling effect when large sites like eHarmony have the ability to explicitly discriminate against minority groups in blatant violation of the law. The question here is not about the market; it's about the "moral hazard" that is present when large players like eHarmony are allowed to discriminate. Part of that moral hazard is the disregard of established law, the other part is the idea that minority groups must fend for themselves entirely with their own capital to counteract basic bigotry -- a position that puts them at a unique disadvantage in any open marketplace."

Ok - I don't think anyone argues that anybody should be above the law. I agree with you that this constitutes a rather significant moral hazard.

However, I don't think this is the argument being made. Rather, it's in the appropriateness of the law and application of the law itself. In this case, as to whether it is appropriate for the law to force sites like eHarmony to provide services they have chosen not to provide upon their own.

And again - in this case, we have seen a plethora of alternatives to eHarmony spring up, which I think is fairly relevant to the issue. The fact is, many operators out there want to cater to these groups, and eHarmony's failure to do so has provided them the opportunity to do so.

Much of the argument about equal accommodation rests in the idea that minority groups deserve equal access to facilities; at the time of the civil rights movement, this was clearly not the case. Comparable alternatives didn't really exist - segregation was prevailent even outside of places where it wasn't codified into law.

But here we see nearly the opposite scenario - eHarmony is one player who refuses to so do, while its competitors openly exploit this fact in their ad campaigns. So is it really appropriate to apply the same logic here, when equal alternatives exist and the opportunity for competitors to step in clearly appears to be there?

11/22/2008 11:19:38 AM

^, ^^ jesus fuckin epic christ


[/thread]

11/22/2008 1:02:42 PM

^^, ^^^ a complete pwning up there

11/22/2008 2:19:32 PM

seriously

DrSteveChaos wins.

11/22/2008 2:21:20 PM

Quote :

"So, now again we come to the crux of the matter - the argument that eHarmony must provide same-sex matching if they provide opposite-sex matching. But again, why? They offer one service - opposite-sex matching, and thus they must offer the other? "

I don't think this is the crux of the argument.

I think it's that they advertise themselves as a matching service, but yet they a priori don't match homosexuals. This is different that the straights that get rejected, because these straights don't know they can't be matched until their individual situation is analyzed. eHarmony doesn't note anywhere in its advertising or on its website why they can't match gays (but DO note why certain straights can't be matched), which could be construed as being plainly discriminatory (which I imagine is maybe one of the reasons the law suit was filed... to find out why in particular they don't match gays).

From some peoples' perspective (and possibly NJ's laws), there's no inherent meaning in "finding a match" for someone that excludes gays.

eHarmony doesn't call itself "eOnlyForStraightPeopleHarmony." The fact that they presume that dating only refers to straights could be considered a slap in the face to gays, and really, if the gov. and society ever come to accept gays as "equals," then this type of practice would be construed by everyone to be that way. And it's very likely anyway this type of law doesn't spread everywhere, it's STILL legal in North Carolina for example for a country club to be whites only, and some might argue this ("this" being non-intervening laws-- not racist country clubs) is the best way for things to be.

I think most people realize and accept that it's absurd, in general, to force a matching service to work for gays. Just imagine instead of using a computer algorithm, they had people who just knew people looking for dates. If the case was they just didn't know any gays, and weren't actively isolating themselves for gays, and actually made specific note they didn't know any gays, I can't see how they would feel forced to settle against a similar lawsuit. My hunch is that eHarmony knows its no-gay policy has no technical merit, and under NJ law, they were likely doing something illegal. We won't know though because their settling means their methodology won't be scrutinized, and they're apparently using the same methodology on a gay site now too.

Quote :

"Again, if your complaint is simply that they exclude homosexuals a priori, dropping that exclusion alone doesn't seem to do much for you in terms of remedy. Homosexuals still don't get matches if you don't boot them a priori unless you actually provide the subsequent same-sex matching service too. "

Just to round things out... but this is assuming their methodology inherently can't match gays, and i'm not convinced that is the likely case.

11/22/2008 4:16:47 PM

They should have just put a drop down menu item 'men looking for men' 'women looking for women' and then be done with it. It would have gone against eHarmony's apparent principles but now they have to do a shit ton more.

Because then they wouldn't have to be specific on why they can't find a match...just that they can't. If they had done it this way would you all have let it go?

11/22/2008 4:56:52 PM

Quote :

"Should they be forced to offer a service to gays? Actually, yes."

How the fuck do you figure? It's their own fucking business. if they don't want blacks or gays, that's their prerogative. It's also the prerogative of customers to know this and to say "fuck you, I'm not going to use your service, you bigoted asshole." This is a blatant affront to the right of people to run their businesses the way they want to. if faggy mcfaggerson wants to find another fag on the internet, then go to a fucking website that will let him do so. There are plenty of them. let bigots.com do whatever the fuck it wants. Quit pushing your fucking agenda on other people via the government

Quote :

"Sexuality is not a choice you make."

The fuck it isn't. Such a claim requires this thing we have called "proof." Thanks for trying

11/22/2008 4:58:44 PM

Quote :

"I think it's that they advertise themselves as a matching service, but yet they a priori don't match homosexuals. This is different that the straights that get rejected, because these straights don't know they can't be matched until their individual situation is analyzed. eHarmony doesn't note anywhere in its advertising or on its website why they can't match gays (but DO note why certain straights can't be matched), which could be construed as being plainly discriminatory (which I imagine is maybe one of the reasons the law suit was filed... to find out why in particular they don't match gays)."

Sure they don't advertise why - they just don't offer the service at all. I just guess I don't see why they should have to do so, assuming they're not billing themselves as a provider of said service.

But here's a scenario for you - let's say that there was no a priori rejection of homosexuals. It just did one of the following - returned no same-sex matches (i.e., opposite-sex only) or returned no matches at all (i.e., "booting" them in the same manner as outlier heteros). A) Wouldn't this effectively be the same outcome, regardless of the presence or lack thereof of a priori rejection? B) Wouldn't the same people having a problem now still have a problem with this outcome?

You raise a point near the end which I think is interesting:

Quote :

"My hunch is that eHarmony knows its no-gay policy has no technical merit, and under NJ law, they were likely doing something illegal. We won't know though because their settling means their methodology won't be scrutinized, and they're apparently using the same methodology on a gay site now too."

I suspect this is possible, but what I believe to be more probable upon consideration is the fact that they don't want their proprietary methodology being publicly scrutinized at all. In that sense, creating an off-brand with the same or modified algorithm appears to be worth more to them than opening up the black box.

Whether or not their a priori rejection of gays would stand up to technical inspection is up for debate, but even if it did, they still probably concluded that it was in their best interests to avoid publicly disclosing it. So, I think this raises an interesting point about why they would choose to settle.

11/22/2008 5:12:18 PM

Quote :

"Willy Nilly: Are you all going to let this guy say some dumb shit like this and not respond? He thinks that evolution and biology somehow indicate that homosexuality isn't a "natural" sexual orientation, but that heterosexuality is. He is obviously confused about both sexuality and science. Would any of the other defenders of homosexuality care to comment about this bigot's bogus claim of innocence?"

It would be awesome if you responded. The rest of us have been responding to him and people like him for a long time. They will engage you in a long debate in which they shimmy in and out of a series of lame "arguments" and you will be right, correct, superior in every post. When you finally think you might change their mind or even just "win," they will stop responding or claim that they won because they "trolled" you.

Quote :

"Willy Nilly: All individuals' rights should be defended. (Duh.) No one has more rights than someone else. We are all equal under the law. (or at least should be, as Lonesnark has repeatedly pointed out.)"

Agreed. If an individual wants to start a business in which he discriminates, I respect his right to do so. There are lodges and country clubs that do it all the time. Shit, it's illegal to show your privates in public, but bottomless strip clubs still exist. If bottomless strip clubs can skirt the law, so can eHarmony...of course, they might have to be grouped with flesh peddlers, but at least they'll still be able to exercise their right to bigoted business.

Quote :

"Willy Nilly: I mean, do you think bigots somehow lose their rights? (fyi, rights are inalienable) or are you simply saying that it's your opinion that bigots should be in the "back of the line" when it comes to society coming to the defense of one's rights? Defending the rights of non-bigoted virtuous people is like picking low-hanging fruit. What makes our society great is that we work hard to defend everyone, not just those who are popular or "good.""

I would defend the rights of a bigot. I don't think defending unpopular, "bad" people is what makes us great though. It makes us neat and cool, I guess. And sometimes, defending an unpopular person kinda makes us righteous and awesome and totally kickass. But when I reflect on what makes the US great, I don't exalt our defense of bigots.

Quote :

"Willy Nilly: Perhaps you think that denying rights (or the defense of rights,) to those whom you deem immoral is an appropriate way to address (more like punish,) their perceived immorality. Perhaps you think individuals should be treated differently under the law based on whether or not they are "good." If you do think these things, then you're wrong."

No, I do not think these things. Congrats on the straw man though.

11/22/2008 5:15:16 PM

i don't think that's a strawman, babes. He didn't say it was your belief or argument. he just said if it was your belief, then you would be wrong

11/22/2008 5:17:16 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro : It's their own fucking business. if they don't want blacks or gays, that's their prerogative."

i hear eHarmony allows race mixing.

you should file a complaint

11/22/2008 5:25:24 PM

^^Look. Perhaps you think cruelty to animals is fun and exciting. I don't know. Maybe, just maybe, you think adults should be allowed to exchange candy with children for sex services. If you do think these things, you are wrong!!!


Does that feel like a straw man?

It wasn't an elaborate straw man or anything, not like a classic example. I just wanted to make really clear that I don't think those things, that he was pretty much arguing with the wind on that one.

[Edited on November 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM. Reason : ]

11/22/2008 5:28:47 PM

it was a total strawman, bridget... you're right to call it out as such.

aaronburro is one of the least literate people here. don't let him fool you into thinking he knows a damn thing about formal logic.

11/22/2008 5:34:49 PM

Quote :

"^^Look. Perhaps you think cruelty to animals is fun and exciting. I don't know. Maybe, just maybe, you think adults should be allowed to exchange candy with children for sex services. If you do think these things, you are wrong!!! Does that feel like a straw man?"

Nope. Because you are offering a perfectly fine statement. I am perfectly allowed to come in and say "i don't believe any of that." In the end, we come up seeing that I am not wrong by your logic. You say "If X, Then Y" I say "Not X" Thus, your statement is, ultimately, meaningless. Look up the definition of strawman.

I find it ironic that joe_schmoe is accusing me of not knowing the principles of logic when he is blatantly ignorant about the one about which he claims me to be ignorant.

It would be a strawman if the previous poster said that you did believe those things, and then he proceeded to call you wrong. A strawman requires that the arguer claim something to be your position when it is not. The previous poster did not do so. Thus, it can't possibly be a strawman.

Quote :

"I just wanted to make really clear that I don't think those things, that he was pretty much arguing with the wind on that one."

And that's all you needed to say. "Hey, fuckstick, I don't think that, so what is your point?"

11/22/2008 5:40:29 PM

Quote :

"But here's a scenario for you - let's say that there was no a priori rejection of homosexuals. It just did one of the following - returned no same-sex matches (i.e., opposite-sex only) or returned no matches at all (i.e., "booting" them in the same manner as outlier heteros). A) Wouldn't this effectively be the same outcome, regardless of the presence or lack thereof of a priori rejection? B) Wouldn't the same people having a problem now still have a problem with this outcome? "

You already posited this...

But, I don't think the people having a problem now would still have a problem, if the algorithm meaningfully ran the results through, and STILL couldn't find any matches. If the user was just flagged for rejection, then it's still discriminatory, it'd just be a lot harder to realize it, unless you had many gay buddies that applied and were all rejected. The way I see it, a lot of it has to do with intent, just like with hate crime laws (or threats against the president laws). If their intent was to try and match people, regardless of orientation, and they fail anyway, they are in the clear. If their intent is to reject gays, and they tailor their mechanisms to do so, then they are operating outside of NJ's laws.

11/22/2008 9:21:02 PM

aha, eH should have just rejected everyone in NJ and called it a day. That would have been fucking hilarious

11/22/2008 10:04:40 PM

^ That is actually a very viable option.

There have been other businesses that have had to cease operations in a state because they didn't want to go through the trouble of complying with a particular state's laws.

11/22/2008 10:59:29 PM

Quote :

"But, I don't think the people having a problem now would still have a problem, if the algorithm meaningfully ran the results through, and STILL couldn't find any matches. If the user was just flagged for rejection, then it's still discriminatory, it'd just be a lot harder to realize it, unless you had many gay buddies that applied and were all rejected."

The big problem with this is that the algorithm is just another point of screening. I mean essentially what we're arguing here is that it's bad because when you sign up they let you choose man seeking woman or woman seeking man with no other option, but if they had instead left that out of the sign up process and instead included

if (customer.gender == potential.gender){
rejectPotential()
}

11/22/2008 11:03:23 PM

^ it would be trivial to modify that for...

if (customer.gender == potential.gender && customer.orientation!=potential.orientation){
rejectPotential()
}

11/22/2008 11:17:15 PM

you miss the point.

eHarmony targets a demographic that doesnt want to share their packets with dirty homos.

11/23/2008 12:06:53 AM

Quote :

"But okay. Let's assume eHarmony basically are just jerks, and their algorithm works just fine at matching homosexual couples. In which case, there's no technical reason to provide for a priori exclusion other than the fact that for whatever reason, they don't provide matching of same-sex partners. Which means ultimately their service would offer the worthless alternative of matching gay people with partners of the opposite sex. Again, if your complaint is simply that they exclude homosexuals a priori, dropping that exclusion alone doesn't seem to do much for you in terms of remedy. Homosexuals still don't get matches if you don't boot them a priori unless you actually provide the subsequent same-sex matching service too. "

You don't have to assume this. This is EXACTLY what their algorithm does. Exactly. It's only taken me posting the same damn information 4 times for you to finally get it. They don't have to match homosexuals with other homosexuals. It's perfectly legal if their algorithm simply won't be able to find any matches. That has never been my argument, as again, it's only taken you two pages of textual diarrhea to figure out for yourself.

You call me out for blustering, when you just wrote like 12 paragraphs filled with absolute non-sense?

Let me point you to the New Jersey LAD:

Quote :

"It is unlawful for a person to refuse to buy from, sell to, contract or otherwise do business with an individual because of the individual's race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, marital status, domestic partnership status, liability for service in the Armed Forces of the United States, age, sex, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability or because of race, creed, national origin or other protected characteristics of the person's spouse, partners, employees, business associates, suppliers or customers."

So you see, even though you continue to bitch and moan about competition, and all the other nonsense and irrelevant superfluous crap to try and back your incorrect position, the law very simply states otherwise.

So let me sum up for you again, DrSteveChaos:

a) eHarmony excludes homosexuals from their service explicitly. A priori, if you want to use that term to make yourself feel better. It doesn't exclude them because it can't match them, it doesn't exclude them because they don't have the interface to match male-male or female-female. It excludes them because they are homosexual. This is publicly available information, that you can track down from a half hour of googling.

b) It is against New Jersey state law to do this, as well as almost every other state's laws.

c) To be legally compliant, they do not have to cater to homosexuals. They simply have to remove the exclusionary practice from their site. It's perfectly fine to let them sign up, and provide 0 matches because their business logic doesn't have the ability to match homosexuals.

d) Competition has nothing to do with it. Free association has nothing to do with it. Your assumptions about their business practices were at best ill-informed and at worst completely unchecked assumptions that you continued to mold and modify throughout your posts as you backpedaled. You are wrong.

[Edited on November 23, 2008 at 10:10 PM. Reason : ]

11/23/2008 10:09:41 PM

in before the gays

11/23/2008 10:14:30 PM