This isn't Gay Rights.

[archibaldcrane]

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

Well, of course you realize that eHarmony.com wasn't forced to do this, they chose to settle to prevent further legal battles, who knows how it would've ended up if the case had gone to trial (or whatever exactly civil suits do).

The legal system is how these things are done - if a straight person sued a company that exclusively offered gay matchmaking, and they won a ruling or a court decision that required the offending site to equalize their practices, then yes.

I'm not positive if there are any gay-only sites though - from a quick look at gay.com it looks like you can create a profile as a man or a woman and message both men and women - you aren't required to identify as only gay. This entire "well why don't gay sites have to offer to straights!" may be a huge limp-wristed straw man.

[Kuya]

I didn't mean odd-ball weddings like gay weddings

lol

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

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?

Right, I don't understand what you're saying here since there are many different departments, branches, and views in our government. This isn't a monarchy. Naturally a decision by one majority will "gain" if it passes.

For me socialized healthcare is a gain, for others a ban on gay marriage is a gain. Nothing is in hand for the winning side, but how does "government" gain?

How did "government" gain by the Civil Rights movement? Black people were still paying taxes, they just couldn't vote. Seems like a fair shake for the "government" in my opinion. Taxation without representation.


So yes, please go read you some books.

[Woozie]

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.

You have a point here. If I understand correctly, he paid for the service, then realized they couldn't match him with other men. Eharmony should be set up in a way so that this couldn't possibly happen. A person should have been clear about what kind of services was offered before paying, and it's up to eHarmony to have that posted on the site somewhere before payment.

Then again, it probably is in the terms of agreement that you have to read and the guy probably didn't just read it. Who knows.

[Tyche]

I'm lost now Kuya! I thought you thought that I was talking about gay weddings when I said "odd-ball". I meant the strange ass wedding ceremonies of every religion out there. Does that make sense? I think we both misunderstood each other.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

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.

Seeing as religion and preference of place of worship are separated from state I'd still say this is a bogus argument. However if it's an event hall that people rent out for weddings and deny an odd-ball voodoo wedding this would also be included into discrimination.

[Kuya]

I'm lost now Kuya! I thought you thought that I was talking about gay weddings when I said "odd-ball". I meant the strange ass wedding ceremonies of every religion out there. Does that make sense? I think we both misunderstood each other.

Okay, i understand now, thanks.

[archibaldcrane]

His denial wasn't because of his sexual orientation.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...Picture1-3.png
The first question after your name is exclusionary to homosexuals. They deny anyone who doesn't fit into their model, because their model is inherently legally discriminatory. If a photographer said "oh, I don't have any film that can properly expose black people - sorry niggers!" would that be a legitimate legal reason to deny them service? Or should this photographer be required to have a company capable of photographing all races, as they are legally protected?

Tyche, your chapel argument is about the only one that could be considered somewhat valid, but the basic premise of wedding planning could still be performed, and if you just pass along whatever expenses you incur to the customer, I don't see what the problem is. Every wedding is different and every one has different expenses. If it's an inconvenience to do a crazy African wedding or whatever, yes, the planner should still be required to serve them if they are willing to pay the rate.

[Tyche]

Seeing as religion and preference of place of worship are separated from state I'd still say this is a bogus argument. However if it's an event hall that people rent out for weddings and deny an odd-ball voodoo wedding this would also be included into discrimination.

There are chapels that specialize in marriages and have nothing to do with religious ceremonies.

[Woozie]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...Picture1-3.png
The first question after your name is exclusionary to homosexuals. They deny anyone who doesn't fit into their model, because their model is inherently legally discriminatory. If a photographer said "oh, I don't have any film that can properly expose black people - sorry niggers!" would that be a legitimate legal reason to deny them service? Or should this photographer be required to have a company capable of photographing all races, as they are legally protected?

You just proved my point. He has a choice of using their service, but didn't want any of the options available to him. He could have chosen Man Seeking Woman and got matched with women. He didn't want to because he doesn't want women. He chose not to take advantage of the available service.

If there was some sort of camera that didn't properly take pictures of black people, and I went to that photographer, he could still take a picture of me if I'm willing to. If I chose not to because his film wont properly capture my image, then I wasn't discriminated against. He didn't turn me down because I was black. He was willing to take my picture, but I didn't like the film he used so I asked for my money back and went to a different photo studio. It wasn't racial discrimination. He was willing to serve me even though I'm black, but I decided I didn't like the kind of service he offered.

[archibaldcrane]

In a similar vein, you can't build Mom and Pop's coffee shop and put a 10-foot rock wall that must be scaled to reach the entrance. Even though it's clear that the 10-foot rock wall is there when you approach the building, and even if all the advertising says "hey, come to Mom and Pop's Coffee - just remember, you have to scale a 10-foot rock wall to get here, so don't come if you can't!" such a practice of denying access because you don't want to do what it takes to provide access to legally protected categories doesn't fly.

You can argue about what should or shouldn't, but this is what is.

Kuya won't like this line of reasoning, but putting a checkmark for gays is sometimes akin to putting a wheelchair ramp for handicapped people. Both legally are required to have access, whether you want to serve them or not.

[archibaldcrane]

You just proved my point....If there was some sort of camera that didn't properly take pictures of black people, and I went to that photographer, he could still take a picture of me if I'm willing to.

On eHarmony.com, gays aren't granted the opportunity to attempt to use the site even if they don't think it will work out well for them. The very first question is a "straights only" restriction. What if the photographer says "we can't service blacks because of our film, sorry - I won't take a photo of you whether you want me to or not" - then how does it fly?

[Woozie]

In a similar vein, you can't build Mom and Pop's coffee shop and put a 10-foot rock wall that must be scaled to reach the entrance. Even though it's clear that the 10-foot rock wall is there when you approach the building, and even if all the advertising says "hey, come to Mom and Pop's Coffee - just remember, you have to scale a 10-foot rock wall to get here, so don't come if you can't!" such a practice of denying access because you don't want to do what it takes to provide access to legally protected categories doesn't fly.

In this case, they're making it physically impossible for handicapped people to obtain the offered services. This guy was perfectly able to receive the offered services, but didn't want them. If I went to a coffee shop and they didn't sell Cafe Mocha for some reason, I'd just go to another coffee shop, not sue the coffee shop into selling Cafe Mocha's.

[Woozie]

On eHarmony.com, gays aren't granted the opportunity to attempt to use the site even if they don't think it will work out well for them. The very first question is a "straights only" restriction. What if the photographer says "we can't service blacks because of our film, sorry - I won't take a photo of you whether you want me to or not" - then how does it fly?

Gays can still use that site. I don't know why they'd want to, but they're perfectly capable of using the offered service.

[Seraph]

"Welcome to Burger King, we sell food here."

"Hi, I'd like a taco."

"Um, I'm sorry, we only sell burgers."

"But you said you sold food?"

"Burgers are food."

"Well, can you take the ingredients used to make burgers and make a taco instead for me?"

"Your money isn't worth the time it would take for us to do that. May we suggest Taco Bell?"

"I'm going to sue you for taco discrimination!"

"Here is $5000 because we wern't clear enough and you misunderstood us, please pull through."

---

See how stupid it is when you don't put an actual discrimination label on it? Ask a burger joint for a taco, and see how far you get. Explain to them it is their duty to sell you a damn taco when there is a taco joint right up the road. Watch them laugh at you. The same thing, on a different level, happened here.

If the site had refused to let a homosexual try to date a member of the oposite sex, then I would absolutely agree that is it discrimination, but that didn't happen here. I guess that would be more of a bisexual issue, not a homosexual one though...

[Julian]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...Picture1-3.png

God forbid they do something as simple as change the "I'm a" into two boxes, one being gender, and one being interested in: male/female.

And the photo thing is bullshit, because they could easily match up gays if they wanted, they just choose not to. In that example, the film doesn't process black people or whatever, and this is hardly the same case here.

Are you all under the impression that gays are different than straight people? Obviously they can't fall in love, can't have feelings for each other, don't want to date, and just want to have evil gay sex all day and night and ruin your lives, right? There is no fucking difference at all, except for the fact that gay people are interested in the same sex.

edit: Honestly, I don't care about the site, the thing that irritates me is how badly uninformed you people are. Maybe if they actually taught this shit in school people wouldn't be so fucking ignorant, but that's a whole other topic that would cause many flames towards me, so w/e

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

In this case, they're making it physically impossible for handicapped people to obtain the offered services. This guy was perfectly able to receive the offered services, but didn't want them. If I went to a coffee shop and they didn't sell Cafe Mocha for some reason, I'd just go to another coffee shop, not sue the coffee shop into selling Cafe Mocha's.

No, he was not perfectly capable and didn't want them. He is gay. He wanted the dating service they provide, they just didn't provide them to him because of who he is.

[Woozie]

No, he was not perfectly capable and didn't want them. He is gay. He wanted the dating service they provide, they just didn't provide them to him because of who he is.

See burger king analogy a few posts above.

[Kuya]

Gays can still use that site. I don't know why they'd want to, but they're perfectly capable of using the offered service.

Though i haven't picked a side in this segment of the argument, and though my example has the government involved in it, doesn't your argument sound like the same exact one some people have used in the case of same sex marriage? That they can marry people of their opposite sex but they just choose not do; they aren't actually denied the right to marry, they just don't want to marry was it "offered".

Kuya won't like this line of reasoning, but putting a checkmark for gays is sometimes akin to putting a wheelchair ramp for handicapped people. Both legally are required to have access, whether you want to serve them or not.

The fact that you mentioned me means that you're aware of the ethical problem of the comparison so therefore it slides.

[Julian]

I'm sorry, we can't match black people because their thought process is different and our service only works for whites, please go somewhere else.