eHarmony Sued In California For Excluding Gays

#16
Dr. Neil Clark Warren, the evangelical christian founder of eHarmony, was on Fresh Air with Terry Gross back in 2005 to disucss online dating.

She asked him about his policies and who they accept.
And then she mentioned that they don't accept gays and lesbians. His response was that they hadn't done enough research for the personality/compatibilty test to be able to proper matches.

Then she mentioned that the site does accept wiccans, which is a decided smaller segment of the population.

He was speechless for a couple of seconds. I had a great chuckle.

Here's a link to the interview.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4803877
 
#18
Umm, they are not protected from a discrimination suit just because they are a private company. Abercrombie was taken to court over "discriminatory" hiring practices. Private companies are on the business end of discrimination suits all the time.
 
#19
nerdphanie said:
Not really. It's like sueing a clothing company that refuses to sell to gay people and forcing them to sell to gay people. Which you could still think is ridiculous, but not as clearly so.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. That's totally different because as long as the clothing company has clothes in that gay person's size and fit, they are discriminating based on sexual orientation if they don't allow them to buy their clothes just for being gay.


On the other hand, it actually takes work to offer a dating service to gay/bisexual people if the company doesnt already- editing the scripts and database the site uses, extra marketing to the gay community for example, which is like people sueing a clothing company for age discrimination if they only sold adult clothing- theyd have to actually design and market clothes for kids.

You might argue that they are fully capable of doing this, but sure, just because someone is capable of doing it doesnt give everyone else the right to force them to do it. I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to become a say, a doctor or a teacher, etc., just because I will be good at it and will benefit people if I do it. If they win this lawsuit, I can so see minorities sueing clothing companies and forcing them to make clothing to match their skin tones or even overweight companies sueing airlines and forcing them to make a section with larger seats, or something else just as absurd.
 
#20
Please correct me if I am wrong. I learned in my last visit to the US that when you sue someone or a company, you do not need to pay the court anything. Is it true? I have heard so many comments that the US is one of the litigious nation in the world. I wonder, what if the court system requires a plaintiff to put up a 10% of the amount that he is suing for as a bond. This is done in my country so as to weed out the frivolous suits or the ones that are just out to get some quick bucks.
 
#21
Fenix said:
Actually, no. That's totally different because as long as the clothing company has clothes in that gay person's size and fit, they are discriminating based on sexual orientation if they don't allow them to buy their clothes just for being gay.


On the other hand, it actually takes work to offer a dating service to gay/bisexual people if the company doesnt already- editing the scripts and database the site uses, extra marketing to the gay community for example, which is like people sueing a clothing company for age discrimination if they only sold adult clothing- theyd have to actually design and market clothes for kids.

You might argue that they are fully capable of doing this, but sure, just because someone is capable of doing it doesnt give everyone else the right to force them to do it. I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to become a say, a doctor or a teacher, etc., just because I will be good at it and will benefit people if I do it. If they win this lawsuit, I can so see minorities sueing clothing companies and forcing them to make clothing to match their skin tones or even overweight companies sueing airlines and forcing them to make a section with larger seats, or something else just as absurd.
Click to expand...

I don't think they'd need to add extra services for LGBT people. I think the problem here is that they aren't making what's currently available to straight people available to LGBT. If LGBT people were suing to have extra services made, I agree, that would be a little absurd. However, that's not what they're asking. eHarrmony is arguing that they would have to do so, but I don't think that's what's being pushed for, and honestly, I think it's kind of an excuse.
 
#22
ArmCandyLuvr said:
Just go to some other dating site. I know that Chemistry.com has been cashing in on this lately. Have you seen those Chemistry.com adds with the woman who was "rejected by eHarmony" for being gay?
Click to expand...

I just caught the end of one of those commercials today. A gay man was looking at a "nudie" magazine (w/women in it) then said something along the lines of, "Nope, still gay!" It was for chemistry.com, and they mentioned eHarmony in the commercial.
 
#23
Aslan said:
Umm, they are not protected from a discrimination suit just because they are a private company. Abercrombie was taken to court over "discriminatory" hiring practices. Private companies are on the business end of discrimination suits all the time.
Click to expand...

There's also a difference in hiring someone and offering a service/product to someone. Aside from that, Hooters also won a case in which a man sued because he wasn't hired to be a server.
To me, if it's a private company, it's their choice who they decide to offer services to. If we, as consumers, have issues with it, we simply won't buy their services/products. Private companies shouldn't be required to offer services to everyone.
 
#25
Charles said:
There's also a difference in hiring someone and offering a service/product to someone.
Click to expand...
Companies are not sued for discriminatory practices only in hiring. Abercrombie was only an example. Denny's was sued for refusing to serve/treating poorly black patrons. Private companies can be sued for discrimination of the basis of sex and race on many fronts, not just hiring.
 
#26
I'm not saying they can't be sued. I'm saying they shouldn't be. They're not treating anyone poorly or refusing to service someone, they're simply not choosing to make a product for a certain segment of people. Just like Victoria's Secret doesn't make men's underwear. Am I going to sue them so they make me a thong in a man's size? They're not saying gay people can't use their service, just that they won't be pleased with the results cause what they offer isn't targeted to them.
Now, I'm not daft enough to really think they don't offer services to gays cause they've not researched that demographic enough. They're an example of a closed minded religious backed company that's refusing to create a product to a demographic for a reason. As bad as that is, I still feel that they should have a right to do that.
 
#27
It is not my posiiton that they should be sued either. I'm just pointing out that they can be sued, and may have to further defend their policies. Your initial and subsequent posts gave me the impression that you were claiming that as a private company, they can only be sued for discriminatory hiring practices, not for refusal of service.
 
#28
Charles said:
I'm not saying they can't be sued. I'm saying they shouldn't be. They're not treating anyone poorly or refusing to service someone, they're simply not choosing to make a product for a certain segment of people. Just like Victoria's Secret doesn't make men's underwear. Am I going to sue them so they make me a thong in a man's size? They're not saying gay people can't use their service, just that they won't be pleased with the results cause what they offer isn't targeted to them.
Now, I'm not daft enough to really think they don't offer services to gays cause they've not researched that demographic enough. They're an example of a closed minded religious backed company that's refusing to create a product to a demographic for a reason. As bad as that is, I still feel that they should have a right to do that.
Click to expand...

They ARE refusing service. I don't think they have to create new services catering to LGBT customers, but they should open up their current ones. If gay customers aren't pleased with the results, then that's their problem. It's not like all people who use eharmony meet their soulmates anyway. I think it's just a matter here of making men looking for men and women looking women into options.
 
#29
How are they refusing to serve them? Has eHarmony ever said gay people can't use their site? They simply don't offer a dating service catering to gay people, and I don't see anything wrong with that. There are services that cater to women, and that's fine too. I'm not going to sue that company cause they aren't offering a male specific service to me. Am I going to sue gay.com cause they don't offer a hetero specific service? No.
This is a private company and they should have the right to offer products/services to whoever they want.
 
#30
ArmCandyLuvr said:
Just go to some other dating site. I know that Chemistry.com has been cashing in on this lately. Have you seen those Chemistry.com adds with the woman who was "rejected by eHarmony" for being gay?
For the record, I am bisexual, and if eHarmony doesn't want my business, I'll take it elsewhere. I always thought their twenty-some "dimensions of compatibility" were bullsh*t anyway. It reminds of the same dumb surveys that all the other dating services do.
Click to expand...


:yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back