This isn't Gay Rights.

[archibaldcrane]

Eharmony didn't want their brand sullied by allowing those AIDS-ridden faggots onto their interwebs - it's the same reason I screen gays out of my blood donation clinics.

Erm, wait.

I'm confusing my sarcastic metaphors. Let me sleep on this one.

[Gwynplaine]

Actually the analogy works fine. They are in business for a specific thing. They have absolutely no obligation to provide specific kinds of business. Kleenex doesn't have to make toilet paper, MGM doesn't have to produce interpretive dance, E-harmony doesn't have to offer same sex dating, and Gay.com doesn't have to offer heterosexual dating. It's simple consistency. Anything else is hypocritical. And if you don't approve no one has to like it, or speak positively of them. If you want FFXI to make dragoon better, bitch and complain all you want and argue your point, but don't force them to.

[archibaldcrane]

Actually the analogy works fine. They are in business for a specific thing. They have absolutely no obligation to provide specific kinds of business.

Some would argue that the service they provide is matchmaking.

If you start saying "well they offer -heterosexual- matchmaking!" then you can say "well my diner offers -caucasian- coffee services!" Don't try to tell me what kind of coffee services I have to perform, you're changing my entire business model!

[Talus]

The difference is that for a lot of businesses, the clientele is largely self-selecting. So for someone's example of a traditionally black barbershop, sure, they would cut anyone's hair that walked in the door and paid for the cut, trim, whatever.

That doesn't mean that their client base isn't predominantly black, but it's a self-selecting base. It's the same thing with online dating. It's a service. It's not the same as a diner being oriented towards Caucasians, even though it may end up that way, i.e. have a self-selecting clientele, where the bulk of the customers are white. Because white people are dumb and like paying $4 for a cup of coffee.

[thestalkmore]

this fucking shit is what pisses me off. if you're gay, that's great, be gay and do whatever you wanna do. but quit doin shit like this. this is the same thing as having a gay marriage. quit trying to impose your lifestyle onto everyone else. you're gay, not fucking special. the world doesn't have to change just because you stand out and think you're deserving of the rewards that you dont qualify for.

seriously, why the hell should a company change just because you can't find a guy on your own?

what's next? suing the company because they never found anyone for you?
fuck faggots like this guy.

You aren't helping.

[Ryany]

Straight men have to deal with straight women, who hold far higher standards (and probably more unrealistic) than men do of either orientation. We need the extra help more.

I don't hold too much sympathy if his intentions really were to use the service since men hold lower standards than women. I honestly don't mind it if it was to just make a political point.

[*Shinzon*]

When you pay for a service you accept their terms. If it says ANYWHERE that they don't allow homosexual matching then guess what, you lose its just that simple no if, ands or buts about it. Hope this guy has money to piss away in the court system lol.

[Yuri-G]

The difference is in how the system finds matches. Eharmony (supposedly) have a system in place that's based off of extensive research of hetero couples. This supposed research may not necessarily apply to gay couples as well, so in theory, it may not be as easy as making an extra box to check and pairing people who clicked the same box.

Hmm, I didn't know this, I thought it was just a general dating site. If that's the case, I'm even more on the side of e-harmony (though I don't like admitting it).

[Seraph]

Unspecific advertising isn't necessarly false advertising. I've never seen two dudes holding each other and completing each others sentences on any eHarmony comercial.

This guy just decided to be an asshole, found a technacality in thair advertising, and made a quick $5,000 because I'm sure the website just wanted to be rid of him.

My comparative example is a guy walking into a gynacoligst's office and complaining he can't have his vagina looked at. An amusing visual example, to be sure, but it makes it a little more apparent what a joke this situation is.

I can't wait for the first lawsuit because a doctor won't write a perscription for birth control for a homosexual. :-þ

[zoobernut]

Unspecific advertising isn't necessarly false advertising. I've never seen two dudes holding each other and completing each others sentences on any eHarmony comercial.

This guy just decided to be an asshole, found a technacality in thair advertising, and made a quick $5,000 because I'm sure the website just wanted to be rid of him.

My comparative example is a guy walking into a gynacoligst's office and complaining he can't have his vagina looked at. An amusing visual example, to be sure, but it makes it a little more apparent what a joke this situation is.

I can't wait for the first lawsuit because a doctor won't write a perscription for birth control for a homosexual. :-þ

Hmm cue discussion about whether or not the "pregnant man" is really a man...

[Seraph]

Hmm cue discussion about whether or not the "pregnant man" is really a man...

I'd go with 'Surgically altered female' myself. I don't really think a chick going under the knife, taking some 'dude hormone' pills, and then getting pregnant makes her a 'pregnant man'.

[Lordwafik]

Some would argue that the service they provide is matchmaking.

If you start saying "well they offer -heterosexual- matchmaking!" then you can say "well my diner offers -caucasian- coffee services!" Don't try to tell me what kind of coffee services I have to perform, you're changing my entire business model!

Nothing to do with race. Are you saying same sex match making sites have to produce for opposite sex too?

[HAcoreRD]

does this mean if a gay guy goes to Target and asks for Sam's cola, they better word their shit correctly or be sued?

[*Shinzon*]

Some would argue that the service they provide is matchmaking.

If you start saying "well they offer -heterosexual- matchmaking!" then you can say "well my diner offers -caucasian- coffee services!" Don't try to tell me what kind of coffee services I have to perform, you're changing my entire business model!

If they don't have both the technical means and research needed to match gay coupes its irrelevant. This is such a stupid argument. How can they provide a service that they don't provide. They advertise as a matchmaking website. So because they can't match you now its obviously about the fact that hes gay and not the fact that they don't have the means to match gays right?

[guartz]

They didn't refuse him because he was gay, they refused him because they don't offer homosexual matching.

They don't fucking offer it. Simple as that.

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

It is as simple as that.

Not that I agree that the guy should sue them.

[archibaldcrane]

I was just picking apart the argument that "a business has no obligation to provide specific types of services" (ya know, the thing I quoted when I made that statement), since obviously there's plenty of services that businesses are obligated to provide whether they think they should have to or not.

This guy just exploited their arguably misleading advertising and got a small settlement - he gamed the system, not some grandiose idea of equal protection or gay rights. The panty-bunching in this thread is humorous though - he not only trolled eHarmony's evangelical founder to the tune of a whopping $5k, he trolled BG as well.

[Septimus]

Do you know why he sued and it was settled? Because the guy paid for a membership and did not find out that they did not offer same-sex matching until he was filling out information. It is amazing all of the vaging going on in this thread, as near as I can tell this settlement does not mean that on-line dating sites are forced to make straight men have gay sex, just that e-Harmony is going to make a hell of a lot more money.

[Kuya]

Oh god no, if we keep allowing gays into stuff then i won't be able to control my straight self and have sex with them, jesus christ this is horrible!

[Kuya]

no homo btw

[kuronosan]

Some would argue that the service they provide is matchmaking.

If you start saying "well they offer -heterosexual- matchmaking!" then you can say "well my diner offers -caucasian- coffee services!" Don't try to tell me what kind of coffee services I have to perform, you're changing my entire business model!

I thought about that when I was making my post and I almost thought the same thing as you did. Except I stopped right at the racism part. Excluding someone because of race or sexuality is never right.

This is more like a guy going into a steakhouse restaurant asking for soul food and getting pissed because they refused to serve him collard greens and mashed potatoes with sweet potatoe pie. The restaurant can't meet that order, but the guy gets to win because they serve food and he asked for food.

Do I really need to make more analogies about this? It's really, really, really easy you know. They almost write themselves. Here:

1) Guy goes to a gas station and gets mad because they can't accomodate his electric car yet advertise themselves as a "filling station".

2) Guy goes to an Apple Store and asks for a Windows PC and gets mad because they advertise "computer sales".

3) Guy goes to a wedding cake maker and gets mad because they won't bake him a loaf of bread when the sign says they're a "bakery".

4) Guy goes to an earring store and then gets mad because they don't have the big hoops that spread out your earlobes and their sign says "Earrings Unlimited".

5) Guy goes to a fruit stand and gets mad because it doesn't have tomatoes.

I could on all day. They weren't capable of matching him because he was gay and they don't have the means to do it. Simple as that. It doesn't help that they were founded by Christians or are a Christian-based organization, but it's their choice and obviously they weren't going to promise something they couldn't deliver... then they would be digging themselves an even deeper hole.