eHarmony sued for excluding gays

[otseng]

eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays

The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

Does eHarmony have the right to decide what profile of customers it wishes to serve even at the expense of excluding certain groups?

Should eHarmony include gays seeking other gays in their dating service?

[twobitsmedia]

eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays

The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

Does eHarmony have the right to decide what profile of customers it wishes to serve even at the expense of excluding certain groups?

Should eHarmony include gays seeking other gays in their dating service?

I heard about that on the news yesterday. I think eHarmony should be able to serve whoever they want. There is a smorgasgbord of lesbian/gay dating sites on the net that are exclusively for them. If eharmony loses, it will set a precedent requiring those sites to allow heterosexuals. And technically, Linda Carlson is not denied access to eHarmony, there just aren't any other lesbians on there I presume.

[McCulloch]

If this read a little differently, how would we react?

Augusta National Golf Club sued in Georgia for excluding blacks

The prestigious golf club Augusta National was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to blacks.

Does Augusta National Golf Club have the right to decide what profile of customers it wishes to serve even at the expense of excluding certain groups?

Should Augusta National Golf Club allow blacks to play golf with each other or even with whites and others?

I heard about that on the news yesterday. I think Augusta National Golf Club should be able to serve whoever they want. There is a smorgasgbord of golf clubs exclusively for them. If Augusta National Golf Club loses, it will set a precedent requiring those sites to allow whites and others. And technically, Tiger Woods is not denied access to Augusta National Golf Club, there just aren't any other blacks on there I presume.

[twobitsmedia]

If this read a little differently, how would we react?

Augusta National Golf Club sued in Georgia for excluding blacks

The prestigious golf club Augusta National was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to blacks.

Does Augusta National Golf Club have the right to decide what profile of customers it wishes to serve even at the expense of excluding certain groups?

Should Augusta National Golf Club allow blacks to play golf with each other or even with whites and others?

I heard about that on the news yesterday. I think Augusta National Golf Club should be able to serve whoever they want. There is a smorgasgbord of golf clubs exclusively for them. If Augusta National Golf Club loses, it will set a precedent requiring those sites to allow whites and others. And technically, Tiger Woods is not denied access to Augusta National Golf Club, there just aren't any other blacks on there I presume.

"Blacks" are a race. When "gays/lesbians" become an established race, I will agree with you.

[McCulloch]

"Blacks" are a race. When "gays/lesbians" become an established race, I will agree with you.

So discrimination based on race is bad but discrimination based on sexual orientation is not? Why is that? Discrimination based on religion, political affiliation and other non-race attributes is considered wrong, even illegal, why should sexual orientation not be included?

[otseng]

I'm not sure eHarmony is specifically discriminating against gays.

The company said the allegations of discrimination against gays were false and reckless.

"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages," it said in a statement.

"Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted," eHarmony added.

Their service is based on their research of compatibility between heterosexual couples. It does not appear that their research involved anything with homosexual couples.

It would seem like if they were going to offer services to gays, then they'd have to expand their research with gay couples. So, I'm not sure then this would be a case of discrimination, but rather a lack of their capability of matching gays.

[twobitsmedia]

"Blacks" are a race. When "gays/lesbians" become an established race, I will agree with you.

So discrimination based on race is bad but discrimination based on sexual orientation is not? Why is that? Discrimination based on religion, political affiliation and other non-race attributes is considered wrong, even illegal, why should sexual orientation not be included?

And what is sexual orientation? Will that mean eharmony would have to allow for people who love sheep and horses, too, in order to be "nondiscriminatory?" Some who have been convicted of "pedophilia" claimed they couldn't help themselves. Does eharmony have to provide for them also? And as far as "political affiliation," I wouldn't care if the Dems and Reps want to have their own elite club. I woudn't join either of them, but I wouldn't be offended. And as far as that goes, if the Baptists (or insert denomination here) don't want to have gay ministers, they shouldnt be required to. The gays can create their own Baptist (insert denomination here) church. The church has long been accused of forcing beliefs down peoples throats, and mostly unfairly...though it has happened, but the new gay agenda doesn't even pretend they aren't forcing ideas on people, they are DEMANDING it.

[sledheavy]

Yeah knew this was coming.

[Greatest I Am]

If I have two job applicants in front of me that are identical in all qualification and talent and one is my color or race and the other is not.

What is my best choice.

Should I prefer my own race or color over the other as a positive reason to hire.
Should I hire the other as my best choice and reverse discriminate.

I believe that it is quite OK to prefer my own color or race. Why not?
Not because I discriminate negatively the other race or color.

Is this the wrong thing to do.
Am I not allowed to be loyal to my own?

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

I'm not sure eHarmony is specifically discriminating against gays.

The company said the allegations of discrimination against gays were false and reckless.

"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages," it said in a statement.

"Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted," eHarmony added.

Their service is based on their research of compatibility between heterosexual couples. It does not appear that their research involved anything with homosexual couples.

It would seem like if they were going to offer services to gays, then they'd have to expand their research with gay couples. So, I'm not sure then this would be a case of discrimination, but rather a lack of their capability of matching gays.

So why don't they simply offer the service to gays. People are people. Whatever you do to find compatible people, probably works as well for gays as for the rest of us.

And what is sexual orientation? Will that mean eharmony would have to allow for people who love sheep and horses, too, in order to be "nondiscriminatory?" Some who have been convicted of "pedophilia" claimed they couldn't help themselves. Does eharmony have to provide for them also?

How about within the law? It is not discriminatory to exclude providing a service that would be against the law.

And as far as "political affiliation," I wouldn't care if the Dems and Reps want to have their own elite club. I woudn't join either of them, but I wouldn't be offended. And as far as that goes, if the Baptists (or insert denomination here) don't want to have gay ministers, they shouldnt be required to. The gays can create their own Baptist (insert denomination here) church. The church has long been accused of forcing beliefs down peoples throats, and mostly unfairly...though it has happened, but the new gay agenda doesn't even pretend they aren't forcing ideas on people, they are DEMANDING it.

This thread is not about forcing religions to adhere to the laws that our society has regarding discrimination. Religions already have a pass in that arena. Religions are allowed to operate with full government recognition of their religious charitable status, even though some do not allow full participation by women. Religions are allowed to discriminate against gays. In Canada, even though under common law, religious organizations are allowed to refuse to marry any couple for any reason, the law enacted to recognize same-sex marriage, explicitly states that no religious group will be required to perform same-sex weddings. Should it be legal for a church be allowed to operate if it did not allow people of a certain racial or ethnic background to be leaders?

If I have two job applicants in front of me that are identical in all qualification and talent and one is my color or race and the other is not.

What is my best choice.

Should I prefer my own race or color over the other as a positive reason to hire.
Should I hire the other as my best choice and reverse discriminate.

I believe that it is quite OK to prefer my own color or race. Why not?
Not because I discriminate negatively the other race or color.

Is this the wrong thing to do.
Am I not allowed to be loyal to my own?

Your best choice is to do whatever you would have done if the two applicants were (as far as you could tell) identical in all qualifications and talent period. Usually what is done is to further examine the qualifications of the applicants to show that one or the other is more qualified. No reason to discriminate based on race.