Forums | MacLife

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Could someone sue me to make me offer Bird Friendly coffee?  Isn't that my choice?

Not the same thing here. In your case no person(s) are being discriminated against.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Demanding equal rights.

The worst thing gay people can do.

Dammit, homos, stop gettin' uppity!

See - but here's the thing.
Many churches do wedding for people who call them out of the phone book, couples who are not members and often not even religious.

Will this "equal rights" require them legally to do it for homosexual couples as well?

That's what a lot of churches are afraid of, and things happening like this incident only confirm their fear.
Confirm their fear, and you bet your ass they are going to try to keep gay marriage illegal - because they know once it is legal, it is only a matter of time before these kinds of lawsuits happen against churches that do not want to perform gay marriage.

This person was not denied eHarmony because he was gay.
eHarmony just did not offer the particular service he was looking for.

This is no different than me filing lawsuit against a vegan restaurant because they won't cook me a slab of ribs.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Do pastors and so forth have to marry people now? Don't they presently have a choice of who they do and don't marry? Or are they basically just marriage machines, with no choice but to marry whoever comes along?

They have a choice - but if that criteria is based upon hetero or homo, it would fall under the realm of discrimination by the definition of "equal rights" being spouted here.

Maybe that's what people here want, but that's also the very thing that mobilizes the churches to support things like Prop 8.

Although I think that the religious argument against homosexuality is absurd, and I see no difference between its justification and the justification used by many hate groups, given that the cost of entry to the online dating market is so small(A commercial site can be put up for <$5 per month), I think a reasonable argument could be made that eHarmony shouldn't be required to offer same-sex matching.

It is feasible that hundreds of thousands of gay dating sites could be launched for minimal monetary investment. eHarmony is not a monopoly and although they would not be offering services to gay people, they would not be denying gay people the ability to use similar services(whereas a restaurant that did not serve gay people would be denying gay people in that area the ability to eat at some more progressive restaurant that might occupy the same site).

Unlike space in a town or city in the physical world, "space" on the internet is infinite, and resources are plentiful and almost free.

resedit wrote:

This is bull smurf.

Did you even bother to read the article?

This is the result of a settlement.  No court ordered this.  If you're so outraged, call eHarmony and ask them why they made a deal.

resedit wrote:

They have a choice - but if that criteria is based upon hetero or homo, it would fall under the realm of discrimination by the definition of "equal rights" being spouted here.

Oh right, right.  Are churches allowed to discriminate based on religious 'orientation?'  What about on the basis of gender? They are, yes? 



Let's engage our brains a moment before getting too hysterical.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

This is bull smurf.

Did you even bother to read the article?

This is the result of a settlement.  No court ordered this.  If you're so outraged, call eHarmony and ask them why they made a deal.

The article said why.
The states AG forced them to or face expensive litigation where they had to gamble on the outcome.
Basic ambulance chaser 101.

...and I don't understand the point about religion being brought into this.

I can't comment on New Jersey law, but I don't think that it's necessary or appropriate to require an online dating service to cater to homosexuals.  However, let's remember that eHarmony is a business, not a religious entity.

Farmerkev wrote:

Forced is exactly what I meant to imply.

So the business didn't have the option of having the case decided on the merits?

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

This is bull smurf.

Did you even bother to read the article?

This is the result of a settlement.  No court ordered this.  If you're so outraged, call eHarmony and ask them why they made a deal.

Yes I read the article.

It is a settlement for a very strategic reason.
As a settlement - it's not legally binding, which gives them room to stop the service at a later date after they have done more legal research - quite possibly by demonstrating it is non profitable.

The article clearly states they don't want to do it.
By sending a very clear message that they really don't want to do it, many gays aren't going to want to give them a dead dime.
It may be easier for them to argue closing it down as a non profitable venture than it is for them to just say they don't want to do it.

Had they not settled, New Jersey may have found against them which would make shutting it down in the future a direct violation of a court order.

They clearly don't want to do it.

bratboy wrote:

...and I don't understand the point about religion being brought into this.

I can't comment on New Jersey law, but I don't think that it's necessary or appropriate to require an online dating service to cater to homosexuals.  However, let's remember that eHarmony is a business, not a religious entity.

And when a church marries two people who call them out of a phone book and have no affiliation with the church, is it really religious?
A lot of pastors pick up some extra cash that way.

mo' ron wrote:

radarman wrote:

For a dating website, they may very well have to plow a lot of research into 'gay relationships', or risk creating a bad, money-losing service, in addition to creating or modifying large portions of the website. If the service is a money pit, they are legally required to keep it anyway - for fear of being accused of discrimination. It's not unlike some of the crap that the Big 3 are dealing with.

That, to me, is an unreasonable expense where there really isn't a necessity. Simply don't use the service. Use a service that DOES cater to you. It's not like bread or milk, or any other necessity of life.

What if they DIDN'T have to do this, and the limitation was not algorithmic, but artificial, would it still be an injustice?

Forcing people to do anything proactively for anyone else is a violation of a persons rights IMO. Laws prohibiting certain behavior are (usually) fine, since that involves one person abridging another persons rights. Thus, even if it was "free" for eHarmony, I would still disagree with forcing them to create a site against their desires.

However, I also think applying anti-discrimination laws to any fully private business is wrong. I can see arguments for certain types of businesses, such as utilities and other businesses that enjoy the largess of the state, being force to comply with certain anti-discrimination laws, but beyond that, I think it is sticking the government nose where it doesn't belong.

I see most anti-discrimination laws applied outside of the civil arena as an abridgment, not an extension, of civil rights. It infringes the rights of some to create "new" rights for others.

Note, I don't think this is right, or moral, only that it should be legally permissible. It is not (or shouldn't be) the governments business to determine who you do business with. Let the community decide if your discrimination is acceptable or not. If enough people get tired of your crap, and stop patronizing your business, you will fold up. If not, well the community has made their choice.