This isn't Gay Rights.

[Penthesilea]

It's that simple. Choosing who may or may not participate in the purchasing of your services / goods based on anything other than them having the appropriate funds to do so is discrimination.

I haven't read the article about it but he got his service and was dissatisfied that he didn't get his match. His ignorance of how they operated is what caused his lack of matching, not discrimination on behalf of their company.

[Drex]

nvm not even gonna bother lol, it's a settlement people. he didn't "win" the case, they threw money at him so he'd stop giving them bad publicity

[Penthesilea]

nvm not even gonna bother lol, it's a settlement people. he didn't "win" the case, they threw money at him so he'd stop giving them bad publicity

They bought him off, he was corrupt. If he felt the need to crusade for gay rights he wouldn't shouldn't have taken the $5000, or gotten more to continue fighting for gay rights. His reparations shouldn't amount to more than a refund of whatever he paid.

[Tyche]

Hardly. It's a dating service, it's self selling. It's not hard to put a M for M and F for F category and let the programming do the rest. It can obviously discern between an M and an F and other "compatibility" features.

This is discrimination based on lifestyle plain and simple.

The amount of ass analogies coming from this thread make me question peoples ability to comprehend particular concepts, which thus lead to fear of ___________ and in return discrimination.

eHarmony provides a service, like McDonalds sells hamburgers. Everyone knows what they intend to purchase when they go to each respective business. Of course you market the product, and you have a business model. McDonalds markets to people who may at some point in time want a tasty burger, or a litre of cola. eHarmony markets to people who want to date or enter into a relationship.

It's that simple. Choosing who may or may not participate in the purchasing of your services / goods based on anything other than them having the appropriate funds to do so is discrimination.

Tell me something, are you willing to stake your business reputation and profits on a huge addition to your business without doing any R&D? Seriously? I've read somewhere about businesses that follow that model, I think it was in Chaper 11 or Chapter 13.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Tell me something, are you willing to stake your business reputation and profits on a huge addition to your business without doing any R&D? Seriously? I've read somewhere about businesses that follow that model, I think it was in Chaper 11 or Chapter 13.

Providing service to a group of people isn't a huge addition to a business. If he sued them for not selling cars, you have a point. The model is a dating service, the discrimination is not allowing a group to participate in said dating service.

There is no reputation or profits at stake. It's not going to become a gay sex lounge. It's a PG-rated dating site. I'm sure KKK members eat at McDonald's even though they serve "colored folk," and I'm sure bigots will still need or want a relationship even though the service they choose serves "rainbow folk."

The guy took it to civil court. He didn't sue for a million bajillion and say he had suicidal thoughts etc etc. It brought media attention and eHarmony offered a settlement. If you read the article then would have seen this "The settlement was the result of a discrimination complaint filed by Eric McKinley against eHarmony in 2005, which will be dismissed under the settlement agreement."

It wasn't some slimeball asking for money, he agreed to return or not take the settlement in an agreement to create a like website for gays and lesbians. At least you ( to Pent not Tyche ) admitted to not reading the article. But let's make an argument based on fact not assumption next time.

[Tyche]

Providing service to a group of people isn't a huge addition to a business. If he sued them for not selling cars, you have a point. The model is a dating service, the discrimination is not allowing a group to participate in said dating service.

>>>There is no reputation or profits at stake.<<< It's not going to become a gay sex lounge. It's a PG-rated dating site. I'm sure KKK members eat at McDonald's even though they serve "colored folk," and I'm sure bigots will still need or want a relationship even though the service they choose serves "rainbow folk."

The guy took it to civil court. He didn't sue for a million bajillion and say he had suicidal thoughts etc etc. It brought media attention and eHarmony offered a settlement. If you read the article then would have seen this "The settlement was the result of a discrimination complaint filed by Eric McKinley against eHarmony in 2005, which will be dismissed under the settlement agreement."

It wasn't some slimeball asking for money, he agreed to return or not take the settlement in an agreement to create a like website for gays and lesbians. At least you ( to Pent not Tyche ) admitted to not reading the article. But let's make an argument based on fact not assumption next time.

Are you thinking this out? Can you fathom how a business is ran? If you rush a product out to satisfy a demograph without any R&D, there's a good chance of putting out a less than stellar product, thus, making your company look bad and losing out on potential customers. There's a reason it's going to take eHarmony several months to implement it...they don't want to rush it and offer a sub-par product. If they did, it'll hurt their business in the long run. If they take their time, put in research into the metrics, they will draw more consumers and increase their profits.

[Kuya]

Can we stop implicitly trying to demonize teh gays for trying to act special when i think it was made obvious that the guy wasn't fighting for "gay rights". I swear some people will use anything to try and take a swipe at things they don't like.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

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.

The settlement was the result of a discrimination complaint filed by Eric McKinley against eHarmony in 2005, which will be dismissed under the settlement agreement.


Come on man, let's be real here I know you're smarter than this. Nearly 9 years from the websites conception, nearly 4 after the lawsuit... that's a bit much to call all of this R&D and rushing out a product.

I agree with the idea of your point, but not in this context. The owner and founder obviously had a motivated viewpoint for not allowing a gay dating portion or website associated with eHarmony. Or better said - serving gay customers.

[archibaldcrane]

Even though your business is making burgers, you can't make a burger you aren't prepared to make, it isn't discrimination, it's lack of tools/preperation/R&D.

PREFERENCE FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF BURGER IS NOT A LEGALLY PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC.

Jesus fucking christ stop making terrible analogies (not just you Tyche). You can't say "faggots get out", if you want to provide a service it needs to be made available to gays and straights, if your R+D only caters to straights and you use that as an excuse to not cater to gays, you're plain and simple creating a company that is discriminatory from the ground up, and that's a good way to attract lawsuits.

It's not "you have to serve gays and straights equally only if gays are able to use the exact same facilities as straights".

[Gregorio]

I hope for your sake that's not a general statement but a statement about the US Government.


Even if you are you're making a broad generalization and may want to go back in time some to prove yourself wrong.


Unless of course you meant "any time a political viewpoint or party..." I'd agree much more with that statement.

Both parties tread on our natural born freedoms every day, it's happened all throughout the history of our government. What example do you have in mind that I "go back in time some" which proves me wrong?

[Beckwin]

Can we stop implicitly trying to demonize teh gays for trying to act special when i think it was made obvious that the guy wasn't fighting for "gay rights". I swear some people will use anything to try and take a swipe at things they don't like.

Stop trying to demonize teh gays?


Look, this is America, faggot.

[Kuya]

If there are sites that only serve homosexual relationships, shouldn't they also be forced to offer services to heterosexual inclined customers?

[Woozie]

If the gay person had been willing to hook up with female matches, he wouldn't have been denied any service. His denial wasn't because of his sexual orientation. It was because he wanted something that the company didn't offer. Discriminating against gays is illegal. Not providing services that your company isn't prepared to provide isn't illegal.

[Tyche]

PREFERENCE FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF BURGER IS NOT A LEGALLY PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC.

Jesus fucking christ stop making terrible analogies (not just you Tyche). You can't say "faggots get out", if you want to provide a service it needs to be made available to gays and straights, if your R+D only caters to straights and you use that as an excuse to not cater to gays, you're plain and simple creating a company that is discriminatory from the ground up, and that's a good way to attract lawsuits.

It's not "you have to serve gays and straights equally only if gays are able to use the exact same facilities as straights".

Religion is, however. As I said, there are wedding chapels not prepared to service some wedding styles, it's not discrimination. It's not profitable for every chapel to prepare for every odd ball fucking wedding there is in the world, and they don't have to. Whether it's burgers, weddings, matchmaking, medicine, etc, you can't provide a service that you haven't researched. As Woozie said, if he wanted to utilize the companies services, he could have, he wasn't discriminated against because of his sexual orientation. If he was gay and wanted to test out a fling with a female, this would have made it possible, hence, undeniable proof a gay man can use eHarmony!

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Both parties tread on our natural born freedoms every day, it's happened all throughout the history of our government. What example do you have in mind that I "go back in time some" which proves me wrong?

You've painted a very black and white picture. You've made the assumption that government is one thing with one vision at all times. Short of a tinfoil helmet comment I'd said go read some history books to make clear your opinion that Big Brother is always pushing down the man.

Government ( in my opinion ) is to exist at the will and betterment of the people. It is a service provided to us, by us, for us. Maybe I'm trying to understand your definition of "gain" and the personification of "government."

[Kuya]

odd ball fucking wedding

Tyche, tell me how you really feel about same sex marriages.

[Beckwin]

but anyways, there's no problem with eHarmony setting up opposite-gender relationships, but I suppose they have to be careful with their wording and policy. You can't really just say "sorry, we don't serve you because you're gay"; you just need to make it clear that the service being provided is opposite sex matchmaking, regardless of who the client is- and apparently eHarmony handling it properly. It's poor business practice to advertise as a general dating site but really be a Christian heterosexual specialty site. Other religious, ethnic, specific-sexuality, etc sites make it clear as day what service they're offering.

[Gregorio]

You've painted a very black and white picture. You've made the assumption that government is one thing with one vision at all times. Short of a tinfoil helmet comment I'd said go read some history books to make clear your opinion that Big Brother is always pushing down the man.

Some history books...ok gotcha. You're right the government is super duper and always has our best interest at heart. What was I thinking?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Government ( in my opinion ) is to exist at the will and betterment of the people. It is a service provided to us, by us, for us. Maybe I'm trying to understand your definition of "gain" and the personification of "government."

[Tyche]

Tyche, tell me how you really feel about same sex marriages.

I didn't mean odd-ball weddings like gay weddings, I meant odd-ball weddings like the central african religious ceremonies with smoke and shamans. I don't give 2 shits if gays get married. I don't give 2 shits if they don't.