eHarmony sued for "discrimination"

[ditchdj]

--Appearantly a gay man sued for "discrimination" because an online dating service didn't serve gays. I dont think it's right that the government can force a company to serve people. If the gay guy didnt like it how about just taking his business somewhere else??? That's what I do when a business treats me like a leper. I don't just go out and file a "discrimination" lawsuit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081119/us_nm/us_gay_marriage_eharmony

[Shards]

You forget that you are a sane and rational human being.

Therein lies the difference. The fact is, people have been trained to believe that it is the government's responsibility to take care of all their problems for them so they can live in their own little fantasy world, and it's only going to get worse with a left-controlled capital.

[DrT]

You forget that you are a sane and rational human being.

Excellent point.

I have a second one: in this day and age, people go to extreme to get their 15 sec of fame. And a lot of them use the tribunals for that.

[IDrinkaRum]

I thought it was a well known fact that eHarmony doesn't cater to the gay community. And there plenty of other sites that do.

I agree with everyone here. You find ONE company that doesn't cater to your needs, go some place else. Do you truly want to do business with a company who is forced to do business with you?

[Greenday]

There are plenty of dating sites where you can go to regardless of sexual orientation.

Though I think eHarmony was missing out on some cash by not having anything for the gay community. Just adds more business.

[DrT]

There are plenty of dating sites where you can go to regardless of sexual orientation.

I don't think there's any debate there.

I think what we're missing is a bunch of people named the 'common sense police' who'll give a good wack to the head to people suing for no valid reason

[Pedersen]

I don't just go out and file a "discrimination" lawsuit.

It's a good thing you weren't a black man living in the south in the 1960's then.

Right now, the gay community is trying to get itself recognized as being equal. They're going through an uphill battle trying to accomplish this goal.

Personally, I applaud this move. The man is doing what he can to rectify a social injustice, and he's using the existing laws to do so. Good for him.

[daleduke17]

I've known eHarmony doesn't cater toward several varieties of people for a long while. The reason is that the ownership is religious. I believe they don't cater to divorced people, either. I'm not sure as I have no use for the company's services.

[anriana]

I kind of wish I had thought of that. For some reason I thought the best action was making snarky comments when their commercial came on and cheering on chemistry.com.

[wanderingjoe72]

I think this one falls into the frivolous realm.

If a business doesn't offer a feature or item you want, find one that does. I see it like a man suing Limited Too because they don't stock clothes in his size. It is a specialty store, they specialize for a certain clientele.

A specialty website works the same way. I am not going to sue a gay website for not having straight pride items for me to buy. It is a matter of being reasonable.

[smileyeagle1021]

you know, I'm all for gay equality (for obvious reasons)... but in this case I think this is something that is better left to voting with your wallet. You don't like how a busniess operates, use a different business... eHarmony doesn't offer the service you want, simple solution, go to chemistry.com... eventually eHarmony will either have to start offering the service to be competitive or go out of business. Hell, even if they do stay in business and never offer the service, not every business can satisfy every person... otherwise there'd be just one giant company that did everything.

[Evandril]

With as big of a deal that eHarmony makes about being able to match people 'correctly', all they'd have to say is they didn't feel they could comfortably match gay couples, and they'd be covered. As such, all the suit is doing is making the more justified suits get lost in the spam.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I have to go with the folks who said take the business elsewhere. eHarmony (which sucks anyway, from what I've heard, and not just because they won't serve particular groups of people) isn't the only fish in the bowl out there. Surely there are dating services that are more gay-friendly and likely to bring the desired results?

The fact is, people have been trained to believe that it is the government's responsibility to take care of all their problems for them so they can live in their own little fantasy world, and it's only going to get worse with a left-controlled capital.

Sez who? Last I looked, we ain't done so great under a right-winger bunch.

[anriana]

With as big of a deal that eHarmony makes about being able to match people 'correctly', all they'd have to say is they didn't feel they could comfortably match gay couples, and they'd be covered. As such, all the suit is doing is making the more justified suits get lost in the spam.

I don't think that would work - they'd just have to include those "I am a... woman seeking a man/woman seeking a woman/man seeking a woman/man seeking a man." drop down boxes. It shouldn't have any effect on their compatability questions.

[SorryIsGoodEnough]

I wanted the personality profile so I signed up at E-harmony and they said they couldn't match me so I had to go away.

They don't cater to under 21s though, so I'm curious if that was the only reason why they turned me down. I haven't made a fake birthday up to see if that was the case.

I don't want to use the service, I'm just curious now, to see if I'm one of those personality types who can't be matched by them.




Signed,
The E-Harmony Reject

[Boozy]

It's a good thing you weren't a black man living in the south in the 1960's then.

Right now, the gay community is trying to get itself recognized as being equal. They're going through an uphill battle trying to accomplish this goal.

Personally, I applaud this move. The man is doing what he can to rectify a social injustice, and he's using the existing laws to do so. Good for him.

Yes, yes, and yes.

You get it.

Despite popular belief, a business in the United States cannot do whatever they want under the guise of "private property" and "personal freedom." Many private property rights do not apply once you've thrown up a shingle, invited the public in to your business, and asked them for money.

For example, restaurants cannot serve spoiled meat. We have government inspectors to prevent that (in theory :rolleyes:). And if a restaurant did serve spoiled meat, I can't imagine anyone would be saying, "Well, anyone who gets sick should just vote with their feet."

Likewise, since the demise of the Jim Crow laws, a business owner cannot refuse service to someone based solely on the colour of his skin. Without question, this infringes on the "personal freedom" of individuals to be racist pricks. But these anti-discrimination laws were and are absolutely necessary to integrate minority populations into society, and absolutely necessary for the health of the country and the economy. I guarantee you - there would still be separate bathrooms and drinking fountains for blacks in many parts of the States without these laws.

How is someone being refused service based solely on his sexual orientation any different? Why should eHarmony be allowed to discriminate just because other dating websites do not, and this man could use them instead? Anti-discrimination laws must be applied equally to every business, internet or brick-and-mortar, regardless of the number of competitors in the market.

I don't know the specifics of this guy's case. I don't need to know, because a court is going to make the decision based on all the evidence. But don't deny him his day in court. He has a valid argument and he needs to be heard.

[Slytovhand]

Sorry, Boozy, but I have to disagree with you on this one, for one very essential fact that you (IMHO) have overlooked.

Relevance!

Bathrooms and drinking fountains make no distinction based on skin colour - they work exactly the same way for all concerned.

Sexual preferences on a dating site is a relevant distinction.

Now, I'm damn sure that there are internet dating sites which cater purely to specific religions. Same also for catering to specific nationalities. Do we hit them all up with an anti-discrimination case because they don't cater to everyone??

And as my gay workmate here has just advised me, there are also gay dating sites which don't cater to straight people.

Laws are nice to protect people's rights - but don't go into a vegetarian restaurant and then sue them cos you can't get a hunk of steak.

[The Shadow]

Normally I'd say the guy suing needs to get over himself and find another site. But I have a hard time getting to worked up about this one way or another because of all the bad things I've heard about eharmony and pay dating sites in general. Nobody I know who has used eharmony had anything good to say about it. And I also know that Yahoo personals and match.com have had class action lawsuits filed against them for fraud. I suspect one could also be launched against lavalife. Free dating sites like plentyoffish and OKCupid have found other ways of generating revenue (advertising space primarily) without charging their users. The pay dating sites are going to have to change if they want to remain competitive, or else they're just going to go the way of the dodo.

[Devilboy]

I'm having a hell of a time finding a nice heterosexual woman to date on these sites:

http://www.pridedating.com/

http://gayfriendfinder.com/

http://gaysinglesonline.com/

I think I am going to sue each and every one of them for discrimination against heterosexuals.



....or I could just do the logical thing and, y'know... look on a site that is geared toward and intended to be used by heterosexual men and women.

And the other day when I went to Maoz Restaurant (http://www.maozveg.com/pages/show/10) on South Street, they wouldn't serve me a Philly Cheesesteak because they won't serve meat to people. That's discrimination against carnivores!!! I'm going to sue them and make them add meat items to their menu!!!!!eleventy!!111!!!

[smileyeagle1021]

Sorry, Boozy, but I have to disagree with you on this one, for one very essential fact that you (IMHO) have overlooked.

Relevance!

Bathrooms and drinking fountains make no distinction based on skin colour - they work exactly the same way for all concerned.

.

oh, must resist the temptation... it's too much... ah hell

Slyt, you meen that black people pee the same way that white people do :eek: All this time I thought that it was that white guys peed standing up and black guys sat down to pee :p

FTR (and I'll try to say this in a way that doesn't make me sound like more of a pervert than I am) I have seen guys of probably most nationalities peeing, and pretty much all used a rather similar technique... however, like Slyt said, dating is completely different for straight and gay guys and I have no problem with sites that cater to one or the other based on those differences.

[Boozy]

Sexual preferences on a dating site is a relevant distinction.

Yes. But eHarmony may simply have to add a pull-down box at the beginning of its questionnaire indicating straight/gay/man/woman.

Other than that, how would it be different? My gay friends looked for the same things in their partners as I looked for in mine - compatibility of personalities. Which is the very thing that eHarmony claims to be so successful at providing.

eHarmony could make the argument that their system doesn't work for gay people, and they are welcome to do so in their defense. But frankly, I can't see how they can claim that their personality tests don't work for non-heterosexual people. Gays are not some bizarre sub-species of humanity. Most of them are normal people looking for the same things as everyone else.

However, I am not sufficiently informed about eHarmony to know for sure. These are issues for an unbiased court to decide. My concern is that people are saying that this man is not justified in bringing the suit to begin with. I disagree. If eHarmony cannot show that it has good reason to exclude homosexuals from using its service, then they are guilty of discrimination. It's a valid question and I'm pleased that someone was brave enough to put himself out there and ask.

[Devilboy]

My concern is that people are saying that this man is not justified in bringing the suit to begin with. I don't think anyone here has said that this man was unjustified with his suit.
I do believe that many feel his lawsuit is petty and somewhat of a moot point, seeing that there are several sites that "specialize" in homosexual matches.

Is there even a glimmering hint of discrimination here? Possibly.

Are there more pressing and much more blatant acts of discrimination present in today's society? Of course there are.
Are hetero-only dating sites one of those pressing and blatantly discriminatory issues? I would say they aren't.

I would tend to call eHarmony more of a site that "specializes" in hetero matches. Of course, any time a company "specializes" and focuses on a certain aspect or group, that company effectively shuts out someone.
Whether it's a vegetarian restaurant not selling meat to those who want it, or a dating site that doesn't cater to homosexuals.

eHarmony is the most prominently advertised dating site out there. My opinion is that these people crying "discrimination" were possibly out for a quick buck.
Just like the people who bring frivolous lawsuits against fast-food places or other big-name companies, they were likely thinking that if they brought a suit against a large and presumably lucrative company, that they would get "paid".


In the end, whenever one group excludes another... for whatever reason, no matter how benign... those excluded will fight tooth and nail to get in.
They'll play the gender card, the race card, the religion card, the sexual orientation card... you name it.
Look, simply put, you can't please everyone all of the time.

I would hardly lump an exclusive online dating service into the annals of the greatest discrimination offenders.

[IDrinkaRum]

I met Mr. Rum when I put a personal ad on Yahoo! Personals when it was still free. 7 years later (6 married), we're still happy together. The concept of eHarmony is just wacky (to me). My sister tried it and it was a bust. She met her second husband at work (they were working for 2 different Government subcontractors (but they worked in the same building) & he saw her across a crowded cafeteria and wanted to meet her).

I don't like any lawsuit that cries "Wah! I want everything to go my way and if I have to sue to make it so, then I will." It's like the McDonald's lady at the hot coffee suit. Leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

[Flyndaran]

Then let me be the first one here to say that his lawsuit is frivolous and wrong.
Just because a company provides a service does not mean that it should be required by law to provide its related but opposite service.

That's absurd.

If I sell raisin cupcakes, I should not be forced to sell cupcakes without raisins regardless of how easy YOU say it would be to add them to my merchandise.

Wah, what I want doesn't exist. That's called an unfilled market niche. There are many around. Get used to it and stop whining, or start your own business.

... It's like the McDonald's lady at the hot coffee suit. Leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Really? This suit is like an elderly woman that suffered second and third degree burns to her pubic and leg areas from a product overheated beyond what was legally required and allowed?
I wish people would actually use real frivolous lawsuits in their argurments rather than legitimate ones that were won in court.

[anriana]

Omnivoreness is not a protected category under N.J. law.

[Evandril]

The sheer amount of dating websites out there that cater to very specific tastes is impressive...and eHarmony is only one of 'em. The argument I can see them making, from their ignorance of the subject in general, is that they do not know if a gay man would be looking for the same things in a guy as a straight woman, so they would have to totally revise their matching software far more than adding one thing to a drop down menu. They claim to have done research into compatibility that goes beyond just liking the same things.

Their service offers to find someone of the opposite sex they feel you would be interested in. If someone who was gay wanted to find someone of the opposite sex, I'm sure they would happily take their money...Which means it's not discrimination, IMO, since they are not being denied the service offered. The fact the service isn't what they WANT is another point all together, and fits under the steak at a veggy place setting.

[smileyeagle1021]

Really? This suit is like an elderly woman that suffered second and third degree burns to her pubic and leg areas from a product overheated beyond what was legally required and allowed?
I wish people would actually use real frivolous lawsuits in their argurments rather than legitimate ones that were won in court.

you're right... the lady did have a legit complaint... however the issue is that she asked for way too much because of it... besides this would have been avoided had she not been stupid and used her cup holder instead of holding it in between her legs :p

[Cat]

I was rejected from eHarmony the first time I tried get my profile. Then, as an experiment, I changed my answers.....and was accept...waht joy, lol. Turns out my only matches were men twice my age from TX. Thought that was pretty funny.

[Devilboy]

Their service offers to find someone of the opposite sex they feel you would be interested in. If someone who was gay wanted to find someone of the opposite sex, I'm sure they would happily take their money...Which means it's not discrimination, IMO, since they are not being denied the service offered. The fact the service isn't what they WANT is another point all together, and fits under the steak at a veggy place setting.Exactly.
Since the site doesn't offer matches for homosexuals, it is automatically "discriminatory".
Never mind the overwhelming, bone-crushing majority of other dating sites that cater to all sexual orientations, or the numerous sites that are homosexual-specific and don't deal with hetero matches in any way, shape or form... eHarmony are prejudiced, discriminating bigots.

It's the dreaded double standard... it's okay to have sites specifically for homosexuals... but the second you have a site dedicated to hetero coupling only, the discrimination card gets thrown into the ring.

And we can have "Gay" Bars and that's okay. Hetero people are certainly welcome in these establishments. I have gone to many gay bars with my homosexual friends, even though I am heterosexual.

But heaven forbid it if I wanted to open my own bar and specifically market and advertise it as a "Straight" Bar, even if any and all sexual orientations are welcome... I would be labeled as prejudiced, or worse some mental deficient would call me "homophobic" (95% of the time I see or hear that word used, a tiny Inigo Montoya pops into my head saying, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ")

Look, there's no lack of gay-only dating sites on the web. There are also blacks-only dating sites, Asians-only dating sites, Christian-only dating sites, Jewish-only dating sites, Age 50+ dating sites, etc.
If those criteria don't jive with your preferences, you simply pass those sites over and find a site that does deal with your specific criteria and preference.
You don't start whining about discrimination and start suing people.

Why should it be any different when it's the other way around?

[Rapscallion]

Interesting one. I'd fall on the side of saying it's a ridiculous suit. They offer a service where one person can meet another person of the opposite gender. If a gay man wants to meet a heterosexual woman, then it's fine for that. There are plenty of alternatives around for those who want a same-sex meeting.

I would have a beef with it if they made it a major part of their site - boasting that they don't do anything for gays because of their principles etc. If they used it for anti-gay propoganda, I'd be very much against it.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

I don't think anyone here has said that this man was unjustified with his suit.

It sounded to me like a few people were:

If the gay guy didnt like it how about just taking his business somewhere else??? That's what I do when a business treats me like a leper. I don't just go out and file a "discrimination" lawsuit.

I think this one falls into the frivolous realm...I am not going to sue a gay website for not having straight pride items for me to buy.

As such, all the suit is doing is making the more justified suits get lost in the spam.

Some very good points have been made in defense of eHarmony. But no one here has all the facts, so I'd like to see the suit continued.

Incidentally, I think eHarmony is being targeted because its founder Dr. Warren has a strong history with James Dobson's Focus on the Family, a vocal anti-gay group. So there is at least the possibility that his company excludes gays for less practical, more nefarious reasons. That possibility must be explored.

[Slytovhand]

Even if there are nefarious reasons, so what? Does that really matter?

Oh, and I'm not sure if anyone else has used this phrase, so I will... I think this person was unjustified in bringing this suit (presuming, of course, that the 'facts' are as straight..hahaha... forward as indicated).

The problem I see with this lawsuit is that it legislates (ie - forces) people to be 'fair' or to take everyone into consideration. A person is no longer allowed to think a particular way - so it's just another form of thought policing. The service offered is not a necessity, it is not an essential, and it certainly ins't a monopoly... so who really cares?

[Devilboy]

I think eHarmony is being targeted because its founder Dr. Warren has a strong history with James Dobson's Focus on the Family, a vocal anti-gay group. So there is at least the possibility that his company excludes gays for less practical, more nefarious reasons. That possibility must be explored.Quoted from a 2005 USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-18-eharmony_x.htm):Warren says eHarmony promotes heterosexual marriage, about which he has done extensive research. He says he does not know enough about gay and lesbian relationships to do same-sex matching.

And from a 2005 interview (http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2005/06/10/warren/index.html):"I have a lot of respect for a lot that goes on in Focus on the Family....Where I get nervous is when people think we're political like Focus on the Family. You kind of have to trust me on this, I guess, but we don't talk about things like abortion. I wouldn't have the slightest idea where our employees would stand on that issue." ..."Where Focus on the Family and a lot of these other places come from is that there are six places in the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong," he said. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up. But then he continued: "On the other hand, in the Old Testament if you work on the Sabbath day and you're guilty then you should be shot."

Far from dismissing homosexuality as an aberration, or suggesting that gays are going to hell, Warren brought up his best friend's daughter, a lesbian who has two children with her partner. "She's a dear person to us, and a very strong spiritual person," he said. "And when I start seeing things like that, I think we've got to start to think about that maybe this can work."
It may be that having to face these questions, not just from me but from other reporters, as his company grows out of the conservative community in which it started is forcing Warren to reconsider -- perhaps not his policy but at least his preconceived notions of what gay people are. "I literally would like to at some point put my money where my mouth is and see research done on it," he said. In the meantime, he added, "We have to get real civil with one another."I hardly think the reasons for 'excluding' homosexuals are nefarious here.
The bit about the bible is key, in that he is more or less discrediting it for being used as a tool to denounce homosexuality by pointing out how ridiculous it would be to kill someone for working on a holy day.

The more I think about it, I would have to go back and go on record saying that it is an unjustified lawsuit. I would certainly hope there is an appeal in the works seeing that the possibility of working on a site for homosexuals was, at the very least, in the idea stages in 2005... long before a ruling forcing them to do so came out.

[The Shadow]

And we can have "Gay" Bars and that's okay. Hetero people are certainly welcome in these establishments. I have gone to many gay bars with my homosexual friends, even though I am heterosexual.

But heaven forbid it if I wanted to open my own bar and specifically market and advertise it as a "Straight" Bar, even if any and all sexual orientations are welcome... I would be labeled as prejudiced, or worse some mental deficient would call me "homophobic"

Yes, you probably would. It's accepted as a given that most bars are "straight" by default since straights make up the majority of the population. So by making a point of saying your bar is straight would make most people wonder why you felt it necessary to advertise it as such and might concede you had some sort of issue with homosexuals. Even if people of all sexual orientations were welcome it probably wouldn't matter since it would be forbidden by law to deny them service based on that anyway.

[Sylvia727]

If I marketed my bar as a place for hip young things, and I made sure to hire pretty girls and smokin' guys as my staff, and just generally promoted it as the place to hook up, then at some point the question of my consumer base's sexuality is going to come up. If I decide that I'm going to focus on straight people, that's not any more discriminatory than deciding that I'm going to focus on gay people. Now, advertising the bar as an oasis of heterosexuality might be seen as exclusatory if I used inflammatory language. I don't think most advertising is written down, though. Mostly I've just heard word of mouth, and the efforts of the employees.

[anriana]

The problem I see with this lawsuit is that it legislates (ie - forces) people to be 'fair' or to take everyone into consideration. A person is no longer allowed to think a particular way - so it's just another form of thought policing. The service offered is not a necessity, it is not an essential, and it certainly ins't a monopoly... so who really cares?

Yes, enforcing discrimination laws for businesses hooks up tiny machines to everyone's brains and gives them tiny shocks everytime they think the word "fag."

[powerboy]

I have tried E-Harmony. They did not want me. I forgot why. But also, I have found a site, when I was single called OK Cupid (http://www.okcupid.com). And it caters to everyone and for free. I will never grasp, why pay to look for a date, when it might not even work.

[Arcade Man D]

you're right... the lady did have a legit complaint... however the issue is that she asked for way too much because of it... besides this would have been avoided had she not been stupid and used her cup holder instead of holding it in between her legs :p

Not really. All she asked for was medical bills. The judge determined that punitive damages were in order.

[The Shadow]

I have tried E-Harmony. They did not want me. I forgot why. But also, I have found a site, when I was single called OK Cupid (http://www.okcupid.com). And it caters to everyone and for free. I will never grasp, why pay to look for a date, when it might not even work.

I've started using www.plentyoffish.com I've had mixed results so far, but still better overall then what I got out of the pay sites - almost nothing. The old adage that "you get what you pay for" isn't always true.

[Devilboy]

what I got out of the pay sites - almost nothing.Personally, I find that to be true of most any dating site.

Sure, some people do meet via a dating website and have a great, long-term relationship.
But those are the rare exception.

Most sites I find to be a waste of time. To use eHarmony's own words, these sites are nothing more than "a picture and a paragraph".
And most of the "paragraphs" read something like this:I've never done this kind of thing before, but I'm tired of the bar scene and I figured "what the heck?" and decided to give this a try.

I like sports, music, movies, going out to dinner, hiking, the beach, going to concerts and just hanging out with my friends. I'm really laid back and down to earth. I don't play games and I don't want to be with someone who does. I like to laugh and have a good time. I'm just looking for someone to hang out with that might lead to more.

If this sounds interesting to you, send me a message.People write things like that and wonder why they aren't finding anyone interested in them. Go figure.

[Slytovhand]

But then he continued: "On the other hand, in the Old Testament if you work on the Sabbath day and you're guilty then you should be shot."

Really?? I didn't know they had guns back in the days of the Old Testament...

I literally would like to at some point put my money where my mouth is

Hmm - I did a thread about that... does this mean he likes to eat paper notes and metal coins? Isn't that illegal - destruction of currency or something??

Anriana - no, not literally. But, it is saying "you try and do something that may be discriminatory, and you will be paying for it... literally!". And, not only do you have to pay for having those thoughts (and the associated actions), but you will be forced by the judiciary to change. Freedom of speech may be debatable, but certainly there isn't any freedom of action.

Hey, here's a thought - how about all non-christians bring out a law suit against the Catholic church for refusing the sacrament to non-believers?? (yeah - I know, not a technical truth, but not sure of the right terms :p) But, seriously, how different is this example to the OP?

[anriana]

Anriana - no, not literally. But, it is saying "you try and do something that may be discriminatory, and you will be paying for it... literally!". And, not only do you have to pay for having those thoughts (and the associated actions), but you will be forced by the judiciary to change. Freedom of speech may be debatable, but certainly there isn't any freedom of action.

So you don't believe in anti-discrimination laws?

Hey, here's a thought - how about all non-christians bring out a law suit against the Catholic church for refusing the sacrament to non-believers?? (yeah - I know, not a technical truth, but not sure of the right terms :p) But, seriously, how different is this example to the OP?

Because, just like omnivoreness, non-Catholic is not a protected category in NJ.

[Slytovhand]

I believe in relevant anti-discrimination laws. I see a significant difference between "can't/won't do" and "don't cater for".

I think a lot of anti-discrimination laws are just PC'ness jumping in somewhere. After all, how many lawsuits have been brought about because someone isn't allowed in a bar due to dress codes. Again, is that a significantly different situation to not be called discrimination? I think not.

It's as has been brought up here (and even by you) - some 'discrimination' is ok, others are not... why? As you mentioned - omnivorness and non-catholicness isn't a protected category... ummm - why?

Now, when it comes to say, employment, and you have 2 people of differing <insert appropriate card that can be played>, and they both have the same level of qualifications, training, experience, and fairly similar personalities... who gets the job? Is it a form of discrimination to employ the <insert majority peron> instead of <minority>? Is it any different to choose the other person?? On the other hand, if the <minority> has crap references, barely passed exams, and looks sloppy and has attitude, should the employer be forced to employ them for fear of an anti-discrimination lawsuit?

(though, using said example, yes, it is blatant and should be illegal, to hire the <majority> person who doesn't have the skills, education, attitude etc over the <minority> who does... again - relevance!)

Oh -= and a quick thought. No, omnivorness isn't a protected category.. but aren't restaruants over there required to provide vegetarian options on their menus? I'm pretty sure they are over here...

And hypothetical. How would it go down if someone decided to write a book to say the Crusades didn't happen, or if they did, then they've been badly recorded and nowhere near as bad as has been made out? (I'm comparing this to the anti-holocaust people who have been censored)

[Boozy]

And hypothetical. How would it go down if someone decided to write a book to say the Crusades didn't happen, or if they did, then they've been badly recorded and nowhere near as bad as has been made out? (I'm comparing this to the anti-holocaust people who have been censored)


Slyt, this might be better off with its own thread...
I usually don't mind a bit of drift, but I can't figure out what this has to do with the topic at hand. What have I missed? You see a connection that I don't.

[Slytovhand]

Boozy.. possibly.. it's getting a bit 6 degrees in a way.

Anti-discrimination was the connection, as per Anriana's "So you don't believe in anti-discrimination laws?"

Is it ok to come down harshly on neo-nazi's and those who write books saying the Holocaust didn't happen? Isn't that a form of discrimination? So, by comparison, if someone wrote that what happened during the Crusades (another time of religious persecution) didn't happen, would that also get banned and it's adherents censored to the same extent? I'd presume that they'd just get called an idiot.

But, eHarmony says something that doesn't fit with general PC'ness, and it's sue them cos they're discrimination.

I spose it comes down to a general thread of "What is discrimination, and what's not", while this is one specific type...

New Thread??? :D

[Dark-Star]

This is nonsense. No, this is worse than nonsense, it's a special-interests lobby using the legal system to bully a legitimate business into changing its legitimate business practices Just For Them.

eHarmony is not a public service like a water fountain or restroom. (so stuff the civil rights comparisons) It isn't even a physical building...we're talking about a WEBSITE on the Internet. If you don't like the services a website offers, go to another one or make your own. An even better deal than TV.

[AFPheonix]

Boozy.. possibly.. it's getting a bit 6 degrees in a way.

Anti-discrimination was the connection, as per Anriana's "So you don't believe in anti-discrimination laws?"

Is it ok to come down harshly on neo-nazi's and those who write books saying the Holocaust didn't happen? Isn't that a form of discrimination? So, by comparison, if someone wrote that what happened during the Crusades (another time of religious persecution) didn't happen, would that also get banned and it's adherents censored to the same extent? I'd presume that they'd just get called an idiot.

But, eHarmony says something that doesn't fit with general PC'ness, and it's sue them cos they're discrimination.

I spose it comes down to a general thread of "What is discrimination, and what's not", while this is one specific type...

New Thread??? :D

I guess it's different here than it is in other countries where governments are actually stepping in against these geniuses, but at least here, it's a free speech thing. They're allowed to run their mouths, and others are allowed to call them on their bullshit. Is there actually government censorship involved with these guys in Oz?

This particular case isn't really a case of discrimination. The service isn't being offered to gays because the company hasn't proven to their satisfaction that their method works with that kind of relationship. I find that to be fair, and of course there are other sites that cater to gays and lesbians.
Perhaps EHarmony will eventually develop software to cater to gays too.

[Boozy]

eHarmony is not a public service like a water fountain or restroom. (so stuff the civil rights comparisons) It isn't even a physical building...we're talking about a WEBSITE on the Internet.

Private businesses are subject to anti-discrimination laws. It is a civil rights issue because the law of the United States says that it is.

And why should a law apply to a brick-and-mortar business and not an online one? How is that fair?


Perhaps EHarmony will eventually develop software to cater to gays too.

Actually, they have. It was part of their settlement agreement for this lawwuit. It will be launched on a separate site.

[Devilboy]

Apparently, even some heterosexual men are denied membership on eHarmony (http://networkupload.com/eharmony.jpg)

[Flyndaran]

...
Actually, they have. It was part of their settlement agreement for this lawwuit. It will be launched on a separate site.

That's really sad that a major corporation chooses to give up its rights because of a frivolous lawsuit. If only the U.S. had a way to make sure that the innocent victims in such suits were compensated when after long drawn out cases they won. As it is, it's much cheaper to cave and aquiesce to absurd demands than fight it in court.

[Shards]

That could work, if our government had the money to pay for it.

Quite frankly, I think the civil courts need to really step the fark back, and stop letting joe perceived-injustice shmo sue everyone around him until he wins. 100 years ago, even just 60 years ago, these things would have been dealt with by the individuals, or, in this case, by the individual writing a letter and getting back a pre-written, stamp-signed letter saying that there was reason X why things didn't work that way, but if he was looking for that, here is how to find a different place that will serve you better.

People in general suck for creating a situation where any time they get upset they feel the need to take someone to court.

Hell, if it was up to me we'd go back to honorable duels, they'd tax the system a hell of a lot less, and it would stop people from getting the 'I have to deal with life, but I don't want to, so I'll use the government to force everyone around me to make life easier, ha!' syndrome.However, I'm a conservative with training with blade and firearm, so...:D

[Slytovhand]

Boozy, as you are 'for' on this argument, how would you feel if I brought a lawsuit against a christian bookstore for 'not catering' to my particular non-christian religious beliefs? (I only thought of that today, as I passed said bookstore..)

[Boozy]

Slyt, that's a slightly different situation. Christian bookstores will sell their Christian products to non-Christians. eHarmony refuses to sell its match-making services to non-straight people.

Like I said, if eHarmony could prove that its match-making software simply does not work for same-sex couples, then that's fair. They should not be legally required to offer a new service (although they chose to do so in the settlement). But if their existing service can be used by homosexuals, and they still refuse to serve them, then that's discrimination.

[smileyeagle1021]

Slyt, that's a slightly different situation. Christian bookstores will sell their Christian products to non-Christians. eHarmony refuses to sell its match-making services to non-straight people.


Boozy, eHarmony does offer it's services to gay people... they provide the service of matching a man and a woman and should a gay man decide he for whatever reason that he wants to date a woman eHarmony will be more than happy to assist him with that service. Of course he wouldn't want this service but neither really does the non-Christian want the products at the Christian bookstore. So I think Slyt's analogy does work.

[Flyndaran]

Boozy, eHarmony does offer it's services to gay people... they provide the service of matching a man and a woman and should a gay man decide he for whatever reason that he wants to date a woman eHarmony will be more than happy to assist him with that service. Of course he wouldn't want this service but neither really does the non-Christian want the products at the Christian bookstore. So I think Slyt's analogy does work.

As an atheist, I've got to say amen to that comparison. ;)

[Shards]

As an atheist, I've got to say amen to that comparison. ;)

Seconded. You've said exactly what I was going to, except I'm Agnostic.

[Refkeila]

If eHarmony was the only dating website, I would be behind the guy all the way. (Before the jokes start, I'm a married female :P). However, like everyone has already said... There are other sites out there that will cater to all sexualities or just gays/lesbians.

This sounds like it's purely personal.

(www.lavalife.com was where the husband and I met. You just need to be 18 and can find that special guy or girl (Even if you yourself are a guy or girl)

[vanima]

Really? This suit is like an elderly woman that suffered second and third degree burns to her pubic and leg areas from a product overheated beyond what was legally required and allowed?
I wish people would actually use real frivolous lawsuits in their argurments rather than legitimate ones that were won in court.

yeah she was 79... and I would have backed that lawsuit completely IF she wouldn't have put it between her legs while in her car..

she injured herself and i believe that lawsuit is bullshit... and she shouldn't have gotten shit from it..



the eharmony suit is pretty much as insane as that one.. I mean FFS.. go to one of the sites that are FOR GAY MEN/WOMEN ONLY... more than enough of those...


blah i hate stupid lawsuits...

[Flyndaran]

yeah she was 79... and I would have backed that lawsuit completely IF she wouldn't have put it between her legs while in her car..

she injured herself and i believe that lawsuit is bullshit... and she shouldn't have gotten shit from it..
......

I respectfully disagree. Who doesn't put drinks in their laps while driving? If she sued for spillage, then it would have been a frivolous suit. But she sued for suffering second and THIRD degree burns. No liquid outside of a lab or machine should be capable of causing that kind of injury. If you threw your cup of coffee in someone's face would you even remotely believe that level of injury to be a possibility?
I doubt it. She suffered directly due to wanton recklessness with regards to the company's temperature of their coffee.
I would have voted for her, if I were sitting on that jury.
Coffee is hot is not the issue, though I realize you never wrote that. The issue was that that coffee was illegally superheated to dangerous levels with a false sense of basic warmth from the cup.

[Cat]

Who doesn't put drinks in their laps while driving?


I don't...i use the cup holder.

[smileyeagle1021]

I don't...i use the cup holder.

ditto, especially with hot drinks, because common sense dictates whether or not the hot drink is superheated to the point that it will cause second and third degree burns, hot water will be less than pleasant if it spills in the lap. Yes in the McDonalds case they should not have heated the coffee as hot as they did, but that doesn't change the fact had the lady used common sense and used a cup holder to prevent that type of spill it would have been a moot point.

[Cat]

Well, from what I heard from McDonlads is the reason the java is so hot is people buy it, drive to work, and want it hot whilst at work.

[Boozy]

The first time I had a cup of McDonald's coffee was a few years before this woman's lawsuit.

As with every hot beverage, my first sip was small and cautious. It scalded the skin off the roof of my mouth. Literally removed the skin.

I complained to my mom, who said something like, "Everyone knows McDonald's coffee is ridiculously hot. You have to take the top off and let it sit for 15 minutes."

Well, I didn't know that, and there had to be more than a few others who didn't either. So the day I heard this woman had won (settled? I can't remember) her lawsuit, I was thrilled.

I've spilled hot, fresh coffee all over the front of my shirt before, and it never caused burn injuries like this woman suffered.

[DrT]

I never drunk cofee at McDonald.
One because hot cofee is an aberration, since too hot a temperature will denature all the taste
Two because face it: it's crap.
Three because I have an expresso machine ;)

Sorry for the interruption, do carry on ;p

[linguist]

the stella liebeck case is often brought up as an example of a frivolous lawsuit by people who haven't looked into the actual facts of the case, so here are the actual facts of the case. (http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html)

the biggest misconception is that she was driving with the coffee between her legs. this is not true. from the site (emphasis mine on the cupholder point): 79-year old Stella Liebeck was not driving in a car when she was injured. In fact, she was not driving at all. She had gone with her grandson, Chris, to take her son, Jim, to the airport. On the way home, Chris pulled into a McDonald's drive-thru for breakfast. He parked the car so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Here's what happened next: Because the car had no cup holders and a slanted dash, Stella testified that she put the cup between her knees and removed the lid. As she did so, the slick styrofoam cup flipped backwards, dumping the scalding liquid into her lap and saturated the cotton sweatsuit which she was wearing. Her grandson, Chris, jumped out to help but the near boiling coffee was already searing her skin. By the time Chris was able to bring his grandmother to the emergency room, she had third degree burns across her groin, thighs, genitalia and buttocks.

add to this the fact that most people are unaware that mcdonald's had 700 other claims for coffee scaldings over the previous 10 years and did nothing to warn customers or reduce the temperature, and ms. liebeck had quite a justified case against the company for negligence.

[Greenday]

the biggest misconception is that she was driving with the coffee between her legs. this is not true. from the site (emphasis mine on the cupholder point)

So putting the cup between her knees, now creating a perfect setup for the coffee cup to spin, makes it not her fault she spilled her coffee on herself?

[linguist]

So putting the cup between her knees, now creating a perfect setup for the coffee cup to spin, makes it not her fault she spilled her coffee on herself?

no one ever said she wasn't at least partially to blame; in fact, the courts found her 20% responsible and reduced her damages accordingly. however, the biggest problem still lies in that mcdonald's was knowingly keeping the coffee at an unsafe temperature, as was testified by their quality control manager and another corporate witness who discussed the 700 previous scalding claims filed against the company.

a few degrees cooler would have made the difference between a trip to the dry cleaner and a trip to the hospital, an ordeal that almost killed ms. liebeck.

[Boozy]

So putting the cup between her knees, now creating a perfect setup for the coffee cup to spin, makes it not her fault she spilled her coffee on herself?

The spilled coffee was her fault.

The 3rd degree burns were McDonald's fault.

[Flyndaran]

The spilled coffee was her fault.

The 3rd degree burns were McDonald's fault.

Excellent concise post. I applaud.

[AFPheonix]

You also have to remember that once upon a time, we didn't have 300 cupholders in each vehicle that we have now. Sometimes, that's where you put your cup if it didn't wedge well between the passenger seat and the emergency brake handle.

[Flyndaran]

You also have to remember that once upon a time, we didn't have 300 cupholders in each vehicle that we have now. Sometimes, that's where you put your cup if it didn't wedge well between the passenger seat and the emergency brake handle.

I'm 34 and easily remember cars without such wonderful devices. Is every other poster so much younger as to not have experienced such a "wonder"?
How about such a dinosaurian age as before personal computers, or at least when not every hobo had one?

Do I need to start a, "You know you're getting old when..." thread?

[AFPheonix]

I'm only 28, but that's exactly the kind of car I drove through high school and college. I just think some people posting are forgetting that we didn't have the creature comforts then that we do now, even in very basic models of cars. Sometimes between your legs was the only place to put your cup.

[Flyndaran]

I'm only 28, but that's exactly the kind of car I drove through high school and college. I just think some people posting are forgetting that we didn't have the creature comforts then that we do now, even in very basic models of cars. Sometimes between your legs was the only place to put your cup.

Or that not everyone needs, or even wants, the latest greatest material object when a previous version suits their needs adequately.

I don't want an ipod, HD tv, etc. I don't go anywhere I need portable high tech or able to contain every song I've heard in my life. I don't have high definition eyes, so basic tvs are peachy keen for me... etc.

[Rapscallion]

http://www.newsday.com/business/la-fi-eharmony31-2009mar31,0,5078446.story

Looks like the site is up and running. www.compatiblepartners.net (http://www.compatiblepartners.net)

I tried changing it to M seeking W, and it immediately redirected me to eharmony.

Rapscallion