“[T]he eHarmony settlement is like a meat-eater going to a vegetarian restaurant and demanding a ribeye.”

False analogy. eHarmony is offering a service and saying that Demographic X is not allowed to take part. Straw Man X is going to a service provider and demanding a product they do not offer.

“Steyn’s analogy is like a meat-eater going to a window treatment store and demanding a ribeye.”

Fixed.

“Shared societal space” my ass. Steyn wants “separate but equal”, then he plans to burn the gay space to the ground.

I have to say that I never fully understood this controversy. eHarmony didn’t want to put gay people together, and wouldn’t. Now they will. But I always thought gays (and everyone else) had plenty of other ways to get together, even online. And I also thought that gays who met other gays on a site that didn’t really want to pair up gays were probably going to be ill-served. Score one for equality and all, but I hardly consider this important in the long run.

Then again, unless and until I know eHarmony’s numbers, I can’t really speculate that the negative ads had an effect on the (more numerous than gays) straight-but-not-hater potential users.

But I have to say that the reaction to eHarmony’s caving in to pressure is important: the haters are realizing that their hate isn’t as popular as they want it to be, and now they’re only left with their fear. And it’s hard to be strong and courageous when you don’t have as many friends backing you up as you confront your fears.

My guess? In a world free of gay hysteria, many of these people would enjoy trying a little carpet munching and butt sex. And not just in the “curious about” sense.

Well, jon, you could also say that there were plenty of other restaurants for blacks to eat in and, besides, they’d be “ill-served” in whites-only restaurants.

Steyn sure doesn’t deserve his NR title of “The Happy Warrior”. Perhaps “The Gay Warrior”? Love the shop there, BTW.

Clif beat me to the obvious response. So, what Clif said.

I hate to be a cynic (actually, that’s a lie) but I suspect this is more about $$$ than a sudden desire to stop being assholes.

Not the fear of a large cash settlement, but the fear of missing out on money they’d receive from a portion of the population that tends to have more disposable income. I seem to recall reading some time ago that eH was struggling and I imagine things have gotten worse in this economy.

I swear we may be the first minority group to buy our way to social equality. All hail capitalism!

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go soak my eyes and occipital lobes in bleach. Fucking pShop. Fucking S,N!

See!

We told you this would happen if you made an islamocommieterrorfascimetrosexual the Preznit.

P.S. Clif, you forgot teh mandatory abortion.

I’ve heard some people say that eHarmony also has an unpublished policy of refusing customers who aren’t Christian. Apparently they screen those “free compatability surveys” and notify the atheists in the bunch that they can’t find any matches for them without specifying that it’s because they aren’t true believers. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I’ve heard several people who weren’t among the elect say that. I wouldn’t be surprised though, since American businesses have been doing this kind of thing for years. I had a friend who worked at Wal-Mart corporte headquarters who said they had an unwritten policy of not hiring smokers. Anyone who filled out an application who truthfully reported being a smoker would be turned down but given other reasons for why they weren’t hired, and anyone who was a smoker but indicated otherwise on the application – if they were “caught” smoking, then they had lied on the application which was grounds for termination. So the eHarmony not accepting non-Christians thing sounds all too plausible.

What? White guys don’t like chicken wings? Have you seen the demographics of a Buffalo Wild Wings?

Umm, not that I particularly want to read more Mark Stain than is quoted, but a linkee to the mocked article might be helpful.

D-K W — Oops. Link now added.

Shorter Concern Troll: They’ll be happier among their own kind. And if they’d shut up about how they’re treated and stuff, more people might have sex with them.

I may very well prove to be totally ignorant here but I had thought eh was the stealth jeebus approved dating service. I know a lot of bible thumping money helped start it. And yes, I had heard that as well as screening out teh gay, they screened out anything that might make the baby jesus cry.

Just so much heresay.

Nice big bear pshop too. At least I don’t want breakfast now. I just drink what is left in this bottle of cough syrup…

Meh. I can see the equality side of the argument but honestly my gut reaction to the whole eHarmony thing was basically the same as the “concern troll” above. While I respect that there may be people who wish to use this service who have a preference for members of their same gender, my personal choice would not be to deal with a talibangelical-connected type of site like this. In a general sense, yay equality but I don’t see this as anything huge.

But I have to say that the reaction to eHarmony’s caving in to pressure is important: the haters are realizing that their hate isn’t as popular as they want it to be, and now they’re only left with their fear. And it’s hard to be strong and courageous when you don’t have as many friends backing you up as you confront your fears.

This, I like. This makes sense to me. So, yes, I see the equality argument, but I can see the other side too.

I had a friend who worked at Wal-Mart corporte headquarters who said they had an unwritten policy of not hiring smokers. Anyone who filled out an application who truthfully reported being a smoker would be turned down but given other reasons for why they weren’t hired, and anyone who was a smoker but indicated otherwise on the application – if they were “caught” smoking, then they had lied on the application which was grounds for termination.

Sounds about right. I don’t know if the employees at the Home Office have the same “contract” (i.e. none) that shelf-stocking drones do, but if they do it says you may be terminated at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. It’s a pretty standard thing among shit-wage bottom-level jobs; you work at their pleasure. Especailly ironic since I think Arkansas is a “right to work” state.

But then again, this is the company that decided it could cut its health care costs by only hiring healthy people, so that’s where they’re coming from.

Thanks for the linkee, unfortunately click on it is like picking at a scab. Mark’s jsut piggybacking on Michelle Malkin (there’s an unsightly mental image for you). That sucker has 700+ comments so if you’re bored and are looking for homophobic lulz with a side order of Islamo-pantloading then that there’s a gold mine for you. Fortunately, the MM link goes to the last page of comments and #701 deflates this bullshit so very very nicely:

Oh, whatever. If you all want to hate gay people so much that you twist and distort reality to such an extent as you obviously do; then go ahead. I think I’m finished trying to argue against the grotesque illogic of it all. Just know this: your side is losing. Homophobia isn’t acceptable any more (at least, in civilised society it’s not. It’s a-ok in conservative circles, it seems). Even as the religiosity of Americans remains very high, acceptance and tolerance of gays is growing and growing and growing. I know you’d love more than anything to ensure gay teenagers grow up knowing their own country rejects them, but it won’t always be that way. Just keep that in mind the next time you decide to blow millions of dollars on lying to American citizens in order to strip gays of their rights.

Snap. The best revenge is eating your enemy’s pancreas while cackling maniacally as moody organ music rumbles in the background living well.

I wasn’t saying I agreed with Steyn, nor am I. I was just saying that this is small potatoes. And I also was saying that Steyn and his ilk are making themselves look like fools for freaking out about this minor stuff, and showing why it’s not so minor. And that alone shows that there are much bigger fish to fry.

Minor victory, but I still would wonder why anyone (gay, straight, or whatever) would use the service when there are so many other, better matchup websites. I guess what I’m really saying is that this particular company should be shunned even after it did the right thing. That’s all.

Okay, not having read Clif’s post nor the comments, I already demand a new thread immediately so as to push that … that … that thing further down the page. Seriously, guys. I cannaught look at that every time I click over here today. Way worse than Squash-Patch or Doughy’s gin-blossomed mug. I’m begging here.

I swear we may be the first minority group to buy our way to social equality.

Nope. See: the Irish.

The main problem with this imam attack theory is that there aren’t enough cliffs in most of the country.

Wow! That was quick! Thanks, guys!

Because under the settlement all straight people on eHarmony are now going to be forced to have at least one gay date complete with butt sex and interior design tips.

I could use tips on the interior design of my butt. It’s hard to see in there from here.

Way worse than Squash-Patch or Doughy’s gin-blossomed mug.

I don’t know. I mean, I get what you’re saying. In theory you’re certainly correct. But there’s something fascinating about that pShop — and by fascinating I mean it has that whole hide-behind-the-chair-and-peek-out-in-terror-like-it’s-the-wicked-witch-of-the-west-coming-to-get-Toto thing going on.

…you may be terminated at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. It’s a pretty standard thing among shit-wage bottom-level jobs; you work at their pleasure. Especailly ironic since I think Arkansas is a “right to work” state.

I’m pretty sure that’s what “right to work” actually means. It is, IIRC, a weird coded way of saying you have the right not to join a union, because unions can prevent non-union people from getting jobs. It’s all the rage in the red states.

Utah, where I live, is a staunch right-to-work state, which means I’ve never had any job security guaranteed in writing.

Or a black person going to a white restaurant and asking for a seat.

Fixed yer commentary, Clif

Minor victory, but I still would wonder why anyone (gay, straight, or whatever) would use the service when there are so many other, better matchup websites.

Jon, I’m going to disagree with this, and once you see this, maybe you’ll see why this isn’t small potatoes.

eHarmony touts itself as a safe place to meet people really interested in making long terms relationships work. That’s why, if you watch their commercials, they inevitably talk about the couple they present as being either married or engaged.

What eHarmony is trying to do is skim off the people who are just trying to find an easy lay from emotionally vulnerable people. You have to answer a long questionnaire (or so I’m told) which actually gets reviewed by a flesh and blood person. You also have to sign off that you are not married and are free of other encumbrances (a criminal record, for example).

So it’s much more than the “other places” out there.

You can intuit Le Human Steyn’s entire orthodoxy from his use of scare quotes around the word tolerance. This type of sputtering jack-offery will always increase when progressives try to, you know, progress — the tiresome (and increasingly indefensible) notion of “but but but you don’t get to participate in X Y or Z because you’re not really a full human being because you’re [fill-in-the-blank: colored, female, homo].”

Seriously. This bullshit reminds me so much of how classified ads for employment were always divided into “men” and “women” listings, until those screeching ugly lesbo feminists in the late 1960s got their granny panties in a wad about it. Ridiculous now, sure, but at the time, what a mainstream-media-enabled uproar from the same bunch of obstructionist asswipes as the current crop of rightwhingers.

Reeducation camps would certainly speed things up, but alas, that’s not how we do things, dammit.

I’m pretty sure that’s what “right to work” actually means. It is, IIRC, a weird coded way of saying you have the right not to join a union, because unions can prevent non-union people from getting jobs.

Yep. My father worked for a major auto parts supplier in management, his specialty was union negotiations, he participated in national negotiations a few times before he basically had to retire last year. He knew a thing or two about labor law.

He wasn’t exactly a union-busting thug, though—he started on the assembly line just like his father did, at the very same plant—his father was part of the local UAW leadership during his career. He didn’t hate the union or the hourly people (just the politics and other normal human bullshit), he just tried to do his best in the context of a struggling industry.

@Jennifer: I’ve heard that too. Here’s what I know: For a long time, eHarmony’s matching algorithm would kick back 1 in 4 submitted profiles as “unmatchable.” I actually once sat down to take the much-hyped personality test. After spending an hour on the painfully long, repetitious test which seemed designed primarily to root out armed psychotics, it soundly rejected my submission. Didn’t tell me why either. As I am not gay, godless nor deranged, I can only assume that the site is shit.

The real reason this is a tempest in a teacup, though, is that most users will probably never encounter any homosexuals on the site. eHarmony matches users automatically, so unless you list homosexual or bisexual preferences, you should never encounter those members. In other words, the wingers are upset because a bunch of gay people they will never have to interact with are using a service in a way which does not effect them personally. In other words, it’s the Internet version of the gay marriage issue.

So it’s much more than the “other places” out there.

Actually, there are a few sites like eHarmony that are gay-friendly. Chemistry.com was specifically advertised as such. Still, I don’t know if it’s any better than eHarmony (from what I’ve heard, probably not).

E-harmony rejected me a couple years back. I answered all the questions and got a “we can’t help you.” answer along with some gibberish that e-harmony’s methoods don’t work for about 20% of the population.

But for the record True.com isn’t that encourging either. Their shorter advice is “date someone who is a lot more emotinally aware and knows more about relationships than you do.” Nice adivce but really I have to wonder what the hell’s in it for them?

meh.

> Seriously. This bullshit reminds me so much of how classified ads for employment were always divided into “men” and “women” listings, until those screeching ugly lesbo feminists in the late 1960s got their granny panties in a wad about it.

I saw those kinds of ads as late as 1975 or so. I think I still have one, kept as a morbid memory.

It is really weird to look at want ads separated in that way nowadays. You imagine they’re looking for buggywhip makers or something.

With regard to “right-to-work”: I think that’s one reason the big automakers are in such deep shit now. What with their quaint unions and all, they’ve become dinosaurs compared with the non-unionized labor forces of the several Southern states that now are home to such automakers as Saturn, Toyota, and I forget who else — Right to Work means not having to say you’re sorry when you hire and fire at will and don’t have to provide no dang Yanqui-style benefits or nuthin’ if ya don’t have a mind to.

It is really weird to look at want ads separated in that way nowadays. You imagine they’re looking for buggywhip makers or something.

It was because higher-paying professional jobs were “men’s work” and lower-paying clerical/cleaning/teaching/nursing jobs were for old spinsters who couldn’t snag themselves a husband. I am shitting you children not. Wow that sounds weird.

Methinks Mr. Steyn(ed shorts) needs to redecorate his closet.

In other words, the wingers are upset because a bunch of gay people they will never have to interact with are using a service in a way which does not effect them personally. In other words, it’s the Internet version of the gay marriage issue.

But teh ghey! It’s contagious! They’re using the same server as me and leaving precious bodily megabytes behind! NNOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

eHarmony discriminates against all kind of non-Christians. My ex-roomate is drop dead gorgeous but was rejected because she put “Not Religious” down.

eHarmony has a right to cater to whomever they want. This isn’t medical treatment or other licensed profession that has some public-interest responsibility. Its a fucking dating site and I can see how this seems bullshit to people.

The Malkin comment thread is beautiful. The attempts to reconcile their hatred of TEH GHEY with their hatred of SHANIA LAW which also hates TEH GHEY is TEH AWESUM.

Anyone check to see about any Islamic dating sites providing same-sex matches? Have they filed suit against them too? I mean, lets be fair now

The above will not happen…I mean having a spokesperson from CAIR outside one’s bathhouse making hand gestures of beheading is probably more than enough to prevent a lawsuit from a queer advocate because Ibrahim Hooper is.. well.. “misunderstood in the ‘hood“

Wheeeee!!one1!

Also of note: When someone points out that Malkin’s analogy is wrong and it’s more like denying someone service based on race – the righteous indignation that explodes is amazing.
from response #79

NO. You could not be MORE WRONG. You really need a review of logic.

This person was not refused a service that the business offered. This person demaned a service the business DID NOT OFFER.

Michelle’s analogy was spot on. Yours was off in space.

And that’s the problem with the left. No logic.

With apologies to our gracious hosts, Sadly, No!
http://www.eharmony.ca/about/eharmony

In 1997, after 35 years practicing as a clinical psychologist and counseling thousands of married couples, Dr. Neil Clark Warren had come to believe that there was a better way to find love than leaving it up to chance. He knew from his experience in clinical work that although some American marriages were ending in divorce, many others were deeply satisfying unions of two fulfilled individuals. He observed that, in many cases, the marriages that endured were composed of compatible people, while marriages that deteriorated often did so because the differences between the individuals became harder to resolve over time. What if he could define the traits most likely to lead to relationship success? Could certain characteristics predict compatibility and lead to more satisfying relationships?

Dr. Warren set out to test this theory in collaboration with Dr. Galen Buckwalter, then a research professor at the University of Southern California. They sought to identify the characteristics between spouses that were consistently associated with the most successful relationships. After three years of research and development, they successfully identified the key dimensions of personality that predicted compatibility and the potential for long-term relationship success.

Pasadena-based eHarmony (www.eharmony.com) launched in 2000 and is now the Internet’s No. 1 trusted relationship services provider. eHarmony’s patented Compatibility Matching System® allows eHarmony members to be matched with compatible persons with whom they are likely to enjoy a long-term relationship. Millions of people of all ages, ethnicities, national origins and religious and political beliefs have used eHarmony’s Compatibility Matching System to find compatible long-term relationships. Today, an average of 236 eHarmony members marry every day in the United States as a result of being matched on the site.* eHarmony is available in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.

emphasis mine.

So really it’s more like a meat-eater going into a vegetarian restaurant and demanding ribeye because the sign in the restaurant window says “Ribeye Served Here”.

eHarmony has a right to cater to whomever they want. This isn’t medical treatment or other licensed profession that has some public-interest responsibility.

That’s the same argument that diners in the South used. Or men’s clubs. Or country clubs that catered to Christians. Or….

They were wrong. So was eHarmony.

Oh, whatever. If you all want to hate gay people so much that you twist and distort reality to such an extent as you obviously do; then go ahead. I think I’m finished trying to argue against the grotesque illogic of it all. Just know this: your side is losing. Homophobia isn’t acceptable any more (at least, in civilised society it’s not. It’s a-ok in conservative circles, it seems). Even as the religiosity of Americans remains very high, acceptance and tolerance of gays is growing and growing and growing. I know you’d love more than anything to ensure gay teenagers grow up knowing their own country rejects them, but it won’t always be that way. Just keep that in mind the next time you decide to blow millions of dollars on lying to American citizens in order to strip gays of their rights.

Conservatives: standing athwart history yelling “Stop!” as they get run over. Again and again and again.

Doop-de-doop, mindin’ my own business, checkin’ out S,N! at work….

GAaah! Please let me say for the record that there are many modest, non-tattooed, non-leather, non-pierced, non-accessorized bears out there wearing respectable cotton flannel and demin attire. We just aren’t getting laid.

For the record, when I filled out the eharmony form out of idle curiosity, I was accepted, and I’m a godless type. The result is that every few months I get emails telling me that this is MY LAST CHANCE!!!11 to pay them money, or it’ll be too late. Then, a few months later–more emails. It’s become kind of an empty threat. But the point is, I really don’t think you can attribute rejections to atheist-hatred.

Most interesting, threadsters. Great discussion. Permit me to engage in some borderline mawkishness.

I admit to feeling at first, just like jon, why fight to give money to douchebags? Now the good people here have shown me a larger and better point of view. So thanks.

Sadly, No! can be trying when trolls arrive and everything turns infantile. It helps restore my faith reading banter that’s actually civilized and compelling.

The “tolerance” enforcers are jeopardizing the very possibility of any shared societal space.

1. this seems a little on the swanky side, if you know what i mean (and i think you do.)

2. WTF is steyn even trying to say here? we can’t have any shared space if you guys keep making us share our space with those people? besides being openly discriminatory (with a side of junior high meanness) this is vaguely reminiscent of some of the more head asplodey arguments made recently by the pro-prop. 8 folks.

aw, my comment got eaten.

No! Not that!
Not DATING!
The bastards!

What Sacred & Hallowed Institution will those nefarious gheyz be threatening with their evil secret agenda next?

Wanking?
Wolf-whistling?
Crotch-grabbing?
Leering?
Frottage on crowded buses?
Flashing?
Bicycle-seat-sniffing?

Won’t someone think of the lecherous perverts?

you could also say that there were plenty of other restaurants for blacks to eat in and, besides, they’d be “ill-served” in whites-only restaurants.

But food isn’t a product/service related to love or sex so what would be the point of tailoring food service to only those of a certain sexual orientation or skin color?

Look, Steyn is an idiot and nothing will change that. But I’m not feeling put out if eHarmony or anyone else who wants to form a matching service chooses a niche. They’re not getting my tax dollars. There is nothing remotely like a monopoly on matching services. the resources needed to create some form of one online are incredibly minimal and access to those resources cannot be denied based on sexual orientation because the products have shit to do with it.

I work for a hookup site that’s all about men looking for men. We allow women to create profiles if their scene involves having sex with men who have sex with men (not as uncommon as some think). Adult businesses that try to be everything to everyone suck because community is of course built around a common interest. It would be a pain in the ass if we were forced to divert resources into providing a product (a social community built around a common sexual interest) in which we have no interest. And then how long before we’re in hot water for not supporting that product equally?

I’ve read the bar analogies, too. That if you allow this sort of discrimination at online hookup/singles sites then soon bars will turn people away based on sexual orientation. Bars are in the business of serving alcohol. They are not singles services. Any product or service that isn’t very directly related to sexual orientation should absolutely be open to use by anyone willing to pony up whatever the cost.

My take on eHarmony is from my brother, who used it. He found nothing but whacked out christianist women who were heavy into MLM schemes (Where’s the best place to find suckers? Your own church, of course!). He thought christians were more stable women (yeah, he’s that dumb).

It’s a pretty standard thing among shit-wage bottom-level jobs; you work at their pleasure.

Not just shit-wage jobs. When I got an offer for my first decent-paying job in publishing, the HR department sent over a four-page, single-spaced letter that I had to sign, acknowledging that they could fire my ass any time they felt like it and I could do nothing about it. My favorite sentence from the letter: “While we hope you have a long and fulfilling career at Nitpick Publishing, there is no guarantee that this will occur.”

It so happened that the HR woman who sent me that letter was herself downsized a few months later.

D-K W:
Hah, I believe that bit of pop psych like any other. Of course people who have more interests in common are going to get along better – on the surface. Emotional maturity matters more than interests or personality and most of my friends married for fairly superficial reasons (looks, money, common interests). They all divorced, too. I don’t believe there’s a measurable way to assess whether a relationship will work out in the long term.

Steyn laments —
The “tolerance” enforcers are jeopardizing the very possibility of any shared societal space.

Perhaps he should just set up permanently on the National Review cruise ship —
Commenting on Steyn’s “societal space”, Johann Hari —
Some people go on singles cruises. Some go on ballroom dancing cruises. This is the “The Muslims Are Coming” cruise – drinks included. Because everyone thinks it. Everyone knows it. Everyone dreams it. And the man responsible is sitting only a few tables down: Mark Steyn.
He is wearing sunglasses on top of his head and a bright, bright shirt that fits the image of the disk jockey he once was. Sitting in this sea of grey, it has an odd effect – he looks like a pimp inexplicably hanging out with the apostles of colostomy conservatism.
Ship of fools: Johann Hari sets sail with America’s swashbuckling neocons http://tinyurl.com/yomkx8

It would be a pain in the ass if we were forced to divert resources into providing a product (a social community built around a common sexual interest) in which we have no interest.

I dunno what the architecture of your site is like, but letting people sign up with a form doesn’t seem like a waste of resources at all.

Because under the settlement all straight people on eHarmony are now going to be forced to have at least one gay date complete with butt sex and interior design tips.

This problem is more widespread than you might think. I joined a local dating service and somehow ended up on a date with an Islamosexual. I’m not gey or anything, but he did buy me a very nice dinner so I felt sorta obligated…

I had a friend who went the eHarmony route because she hit that must be married NOW thing that some people fall into. Yes, she eventually got matched with someone she ended up marrying, but not after dating guys like the one who’s best buddies referred to their wives as their “pig”. Yes, she was a bit desperate, and yes, the marriage is looking shakey. A graduate degree doesn’t guarantee emotional maturity.

I’ve got a larger issue here though. I make it a point to avoid businesses that feel compelled to make sure you know Jebus is their best buddy, and that goes for eHarmony as well. If there is a fish or a bible quote in their ad materials, I’m gone and so’s my money. I ended up here because I live near Fucktards on the Family and since they felt/feel compelled to make their religion a case of Us against Them in all things religious and secular, then I can play that game with their compelled to be in your face supporters. It often seems to me that the fish/verse crap is a way to self identify and therefore only interact with fellow travelers; fine, let me help with that.

I dunno what the architecture of your site is like, but letting people sign up with a form doesn’t seem like a waste of resources at all.

Again, we’re talking about a product that is essentially a privately owned forum for written communication among people with a particular interest. If that’s not allowable then should we also have to support (bandwidth, programming, etc.) traffic from people who want to communicate about, um, classic car auctions or parenting skills, etc.?

The fundamental of their product is matching people with a shared interest in companionship, love, and sex with members of the opposite sex. Why should they have to offer a different product? If people want to use a restaurant analogy here then in my mind it would be like suing McDonald’s for not offering t-bones or vegan dishes.

Again, we’re talking about a product that is essentially a privately owned forum for written communication among people with a particular interest. If that’s not allowable then should we also have to support (bandwidth, programming, etc.) traffic from people who want to communicate about, um, classic car auctions or parenting skills, etc.?

My bet is that folks talk about cars and kids whether you want them to or not. I still don’t see a technical or economic reason to deny anyone entry.

The fundamental of their product is matching people with a shared interest in companionship, love, and sex with members of the opposite sex. Why should they have to offer a different product?

Because discrimination is ungood.

If people want to use a restaurant analogy here then in my mind it would be like suing McDonald’s for not offering t-bones or vegan dishes.

You’re missing the analogy: the eHarmony product you’re talking about is “companionship, love, and sex” and then after that you identify a group of people to whom that is offered: heterosexuals. That’s about as clear as a whites-only drinking fountain.

Well aside from discrimination being ungood, I think I hammered this sucker outta the park with my previous comment but here’s the crux again:
eHarmony doesn’t say jack shit about heterosexuals. They bill themselves as being a service for matching people – individuals – in a method to promote meaningful long-term relationships. They actually pride themselves on catering to a diverse clientele. So to correct your analogy, it’s like suing McDonalds for not offering T-bones during their nationally advertised Mc T-Bone campaign.

FFS, here’s the point – eHarmony was not billing themselves as a heterosexuals only service, they were just acting like one. Kinda like having a Whites-Only policy, but keep it hush-hush, on the DL, in case the Man tries to bust us up.

You’re missing the analogy: the eHarmony product you’re talking about is “companionship, love, and sex” and then after that you identify a group of people to whom that is offered: heterosexuals. That’s about as clear as a whites-only drinking fountain.

Bubba’s got a point: there’s an advertising issue involved here too.

724, if you believe that eHarmony is entitled to operate as they see fit, fine. Let’s alter the business a little to be more honest. Let’s say their advertising says they offer “heterosexual companionship, love, and sex”, in bold type in the adverts, or hell, even acknowledge the site is for straight people in small print in the ads.

That’s more accurate and honest, wouldn’t you agree?

So why isn’t this Christian matchmaking site saying precisely that?

I can think of three really good reasons, not least of which is they didn’t want to attract precisely what they got: legal trouble (the others being the ability to advertise without boycotts, and the scam of skimming a whole lot of personal information from even the people they end up rejecting and selling a mailing list).

So, if as you say, why not simply state up front: If you’re gay, don’t bother.

My bet is that folks talk about cars and kids whether you want them to or not. I still don’t see a technical or economic reason to deny anyone entry.

Moderating. It keeps communication on-topic and more effective and is used by many sites. Readers and audience generally find it more appealing to gain knowledge about something without having to read about that funny thing someone’s car did last night…unless of course it’s a place for people interested in kitty antics. That also gets to the economic reason to manage and organize communication in your privately owned space. If it’s a free for all people will go elsewhere. No traffic means no money.

drinking fountain.

Water is about thirst. Thirst has no relation to skin color or sexual orientation.

Companionship, love and sex, unlike water, must factor sexual orientation.

I’m simply not understanding why a privately owned communication forum must accommodate all people and topics. How is it different than putting up a campaign sign in your front yard and then being forced to allow people to attach signs for their own candidate to it…or signs seeking a politically conservative bearish top into light BDSM?

So, if as you say, why not simply state up front: If you’re gay, don’t bother.

If it’s an issue of false advertising then I get it. The complaints seem to be that this is discrimination issue though. And sure it is. But again, it’s discriminating over basis of communication in a space financed by their own resources. What’s wrong with the ability to do that?

Moderating. It keeps communication on-topic

Wait a minute. You’re talking about forum communications and I’m talking about who can sign up. Sure, moderate away according to your policy.

I’m simply not understanding why a privately owned communication forum must accommodate all people and topics.

Topics are your own business, people are everybody’s business. Again, it’s about who can sign up.

How is it different than putting up a campaign sign in your front yard and then being forced to allow people to attach signs for their own candidate to it…or signs seeking a politically conservative bearish top into light BDSM?

I don’t know what type of drugs they feed you in 724 land. The thing that differentiates democracy from mob rule is society’s institutions. The reason why the majority can’t just take away all the rights of any minority they please (except folks who look kinda Islamic) are these protections built into the system. Stuff like the Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights Act. Publicly offering a service for sale, and then saying “No Blacks” is illegal. In California, where the class-action suit is filed “No Gays” is also a verbotten sign. You got a problem with protecting the rights of homosexuals – then go make that argument.

Private forum. Pffft. Here’s an example that might help you see things a little more clearly – imagine that I somehow found a way to circumvent the Second Law of Thermodynamics and can now mass produce units that will provide unlimited, cheap, clean energy. But I don’t – not until I get a promise from the world that my invention won’t be used to help out those fucking lazy Mexicans. Dirty, smelly, fucking lazy amigos will never see a milliwatt of magic energy. See any problems with that?

Sure, moderate away according to your policy.

But if the sole topic of a site is people of the opposite sex looking for companionship with those of the opposite sex then you effectively moderate out homosexuals seeking other homos. Why offer a sign up in the first place?

The reason why the majority can’t just take away all the rights

My rights aren’t being taken away by the existence of privately owned forums for communication on a topic that’s specific to people only interested in finding those of the opposite sex for companionship.

My rights would be violated if ISPs or hosting companies decided that I couldn’t start and access (manage) a place for people to meet for a shared, legal interest simply because I’m a homosexual.

But if the sole topic of a site is people of the opposite sex looking for companionship

DKW noted that it wasn’t.

then you effectively moderate out homosexuals seeking other homos. Why offer a sign up in the first place?

At this point I confess to n00bility: each and every forum post at eHarmony and at your place has to be concerned with a sexual act?

But yeah, in general, people don’t sign up at sites that offer little utility to them. That doesn’t mean that locking them outside the gates is your first step.

My rights aren’t being taken away by the existence of privately owned forums for communication on a topic that’s specific to people only interested in finding those of the opposite sex for companionship.
True.
My rights would be violated if ISPs or hosting companies decided that I couldn’t start and access (manage) a place for people to meet for a shared, legal interest simply because I’m a homosexual.
True.

Now, in the case of eHarmony, they are offering a service – a matchmaking service based on proprietary methods, and which they claim has significant value. They charge a fee for this service and apparently, plenty of people pay this fee – demonstrating that yes, the service they offer has some value…but No Gays.

Which of your two scenarios does the eHarmony case fall closer to?

BTW, energy, like water, is not a product that has any relation to ethnicity or sexual orientation. Of course no one should be denied access to a product or a service where that has zero bearing. Seeking someone for sex or love is inherently about sexual orientation.

I’ve read the men-only and/or whites only country club arguments, too. But again, golf and cocktails are products that don’t have anything to do with gender, race…or sexual orientation. And golf and cocktails are what country clubs are in the business of providing — that it’s a forum for communication of perhaps like-minded people is incidental.

BTW, energy, like water

Nah, I’m just shitting you. I don’t hate the Mexicans – they are a quaint and curious people with very fast talking mice. Who could hate that? It’s just that I hate Ayn Rand.

Anyways, you’re saying it’s okay to discriminate against gays on matters relating to sex/relationships. Is this the new justification for Prop 8?

Look, if eHarmony was actually soc.christians.looking.for.marriage.but.no.gays then sure you’ve got a point. But they aren’t. They are a multi-million dollar business that has decided that there is a class of people that they won’t sell to. Also, the cowardly fucks don’t have the guts to say “No Gays”. If I were Preznit Obama, it’d be fucking Gay Marxist Abortions for all those eHarmonizers.

Is this the new justification for Prop 8?

Marriage, in terms of civil rights, is only important in that it’s a product consisting of tax structure and legal conveniences. The government believes the inherent stabilities of a partnership between two people has an overall stabilizing effect on society and so they’ve created this product. The argument against Prop 8 is that sexual orientation has little no relevance to that product — that the stabilizing (yeah, I know…relationships are often not stable in micro terms) effects remain the same whether a couple is same or opposite sex.

The legal rights of marriage are a totally different product than a convenient, effective matchmaking service for hetero or homosexuals only. Differing sexual orientation is relevant to one and not to the other.

The legal rights of marriage are a totally different product than a convenient, effective matchmaking service for hetero or homosexuals only.

Y’see after the word “for” you discriminate. Magic Shaving Powder, made for black men, would lose a significant amount of business if white folks were not actually allowed to purchase it.

If it’s an issue of false advertising then I get it. The complaints seem to be that this is discrimination issue though.

But it is discrimination. If by advertising that a site is available to the general public, using the general public’s broadcast medium, and then you slam the door shut on sectors of the general public, that’s not false advertising.

That’s discrimination.

As for the financing, said financing is provided by the general public, because clearly eHarmony is running a for-profit enterprise.

Too, we’re discussing this all in a vacuum, because this might be a statuatory issue in California, where discrimination laws might specifically dictate the terms under which this lawsuit was filed.

No one’s doubting that a private organization has the right to discriminate. The SCOTUS decided that in 2000 regarding the Boy Scouts.

What is in doubt is whether a for-profit publicly advertised dating service can truly be considered a “private organization”?

They are a multi-million dollar business that has decided that there is a class of people that they won’t sell to.

Toys-R-Us puts up a sign: “No Muslims”. That’s a pretty good analogy, D-KW

… a black person going to a white restaurant and asking for some chicken wings.

Or some iced tea.

Motherfucker.

You know, it could also just be that their mysterious proprietary 29-dimensional matching algorithm supercomputertron just doesn’t work well for same-sex couples because of the model that they use. I think the psychologist running things said it wasn’t really his area of expertise.

On the other hand, it’s also a bit like the maître d’ telling a black couple “You’re welcome to make a reservation, but we don’t serve soul food.”

What’s odd to me is not just the story, but that the terms of the settlement basically said “you have to provide equal gay matchmaking services but it can be a separate website”.

Not quite off topic, but similar: is it okay for me to request a male or a female to give me a massage? (I get to choose.) Can the yoga place I go to have women-only and men-only classes? (It does.) If a place does brazilian waxing, do they have to do it for both sexes? (Just wondering.) Can my girlfriend’s lingerie store refuse to let men try on the bras? (She asked me for some reason, and I wasn’t able to come up with an answer.) Can I join the Red Hat Society? (I’d rather not, but there are a lot of wealthy widows in those stupid things.)

Discrimination may be ungood, but sometimes service providers and their customers are discriminating. I know I am at times. Show of hands: who’d put their toddlers in a preschool staffed exclusively by men?

ChrisS said,

What? White guys don’t like chicken wings? Have you seen the demographics of a Buffalo Wild Wings?

Buffalo Wild Wings is to chicken wings what the Detroit Lions are to a pro football team.

I would. But only if the preschool staff was exclusively GAY men.

Nope, the fact that eHarmony had received an avalanche of bad press over the years for not doing same-sex matches and was probably losing business over it had NOTHING to do with it…

For some reason, I just got the urge to go rent a Mad Max movie.