He ain’t gonna let you on the Ark, either!
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.
eHarmony was founded in 2000 by evangelical Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren and had strong early ties with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family.
“This lawsuit is about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love,” said Carlson lawyer Todd Schneider.
Sounds like a question that will go to class action status, real soon.
They do have a right to meet other people with whom they can fall in love. The question is does eHarmony have to be forced into helping them do it if that is not the business eHarmony wants to be in. People like this are the cause of societal degeneration.
Agreed. Its their business, they should be able to run it the way they see fit. Special interests groups should start their own service. Christians, Gays, Tin Foil Hatters, Klu Klux Klansman, except with those guys, youd never know who your getting.
Typical dyke. And I say that as a gay man. In a free society, eHarmony could pick and chose its customers as it saw fit. Of course there’s always the question of why a “right wing conservative” group would support what amounts to an on-line knocking shop in the first place.
Oh, I forgot they are supposed to be helping people find long term partners. Silly me.
Dave
of course if eharmony was founded by someone other than a white/christian group and centered upon matching people of a certain ethnic/religious other than white/christian it would be okay since you know “it’s just their culture”
DaveW that was hilarious. Not your comment but the fact that the tagging system tagged the phrase ‘gay man’ and put an add for soulmatch.com on it. Considering the context it was freakin hilarious.
They don’t discriminate against gays. Gays are perfectly free to log on to eharmony to find women.
I see the predictable whiners want business to be run along the lines of their favorite private fraternities. Sorry, folks – most states require businesses to conform to equal access regulations. If you wish to do business with the public – that means all the public.
Now, you’re all perfectly welcome to return to your private clubs and practice whatever bigotry brought you there in the first place.
i don’t believe in forcing anyone to serve or even to hire someone….i’ve always said you can’t punish someone just for being an asshole….if a business doesn’t hire someone for ethic or any other reasons people just need to spread the word that the business is run by a prejudice Neanderthal and the rest of us can decide if we want to give them our business….i don’t think a business could survive with that kind of negative press for long….there’s too much control as it is….
According to the report I heard, I believe on the BBC World News/NPR, the founder says his ‘algorithms’ for matching people doesn’t work for gays.
O-kay.
J/P=?
is there a shortage of spots on the internet where gays can meet? I counter sue for lawyer fees and damages.
[Double post. – ed.]
#6. I think thats the problem. It is not letting HER use the site to find women.
“Sorry, folks – most states require businesses to conform to equal access regulations. If you wish to do business with the public – that means all the public.”
Businesses do not have the right to refuse services to someone. Since when? So a business can be sued because it refuses to sell someone spray paint because it has to serve the whole public. And then the business can be sued when a member of the public damages property with spray paint. Yeah, that makes sense.
I have to hand it to you lawyer types though; you do have a way of making this absolutely nonsensical bullshit sound reasonable.
Uh, #13, the public doesn’t need more laws cluttering up the books – which is why this action will be settled via existing mechanisms. Public businesses have to abide by public law. No if’s, and’s or butt’s (sorry, I couldn’t pass that up).
Judicial decisions sorted this out, long ago. Which is why – if you click through to the article – you’ll see the plaintiff notified eHarmony in the first place they were violating state law. The suit + class action can and will start as a state action. It then can proceed to a nationwide class action.
None of this requires rewriting or adding to the body of existing law. eHarmony broke the law – probably for all the reasons advanced by commenters, here, today. Sorry, guys. You’ll just have to wait for more reactionary judges to be appointed to move everything back to the 19th Century.
#14 – perhaps when you graduate high school you’ll understand that public access includes all the public laws. Sorry if you can’t get the juice for your tagging – since it sounds like you live somewhere with laws governing the sale of spray paint. But – once again – you’re missing the point.
Businesses selling to the public have to function within the definitions of public law. If standards are set for restaurant kitchens – you meet them. You can’t ban customers because of skin color – you can ban them if they’re not wearing shoes – if the law so states. Eventually, they get sorted all the way up to the Supremes – if need be.
You don’t like it. Challenge the law! Don’t think you can get away with breaking it just because it doesn’t match up with your unique set of prejudices.
Is this lady being discriminated against? By not having eharmony find her a mate is she not able to have a mate? I think she saw a way to sue someone for her gain and to further legalize the standardization of our culture. All people must be able to do all things reagardless of other options or ability to create different solutions.
If I’m not mistaken, eHarmony also turns down heteros for service as well based upon the results of the initial questionnaire they give.
We don’t ban books because we don’t like what they say, and we shouldn’t ban behaviors and associations just because we don’t like those either. So I’m glad to see that good ol’ Moss loathes the idea that living in a free society means that people are free to choose who they conduct business with. I just wish I could understand how being so anti-freedom qualifies him as being liberal… nevermind, I forgot that the statist, wellfare lovers in this country co-opted that term long ago.
Why can’t I change in the women’s change-room? I’m suing.
In other words, it’s not always discrimination to exclude someone from gender, religious or racial specific groups.
#22, that would be the logical progression, yes.
#23, well, I’m sure once we move to an imposed standard based upon “gender identity” rather than physiology, you will be welcome to sue to your heart’s content. And then maybe someday, it will be a crime to simply hurt somebody’s precious feelings… right about the time we devolve completely into a utopian police state.
Moss, your legal slip is starting to show. You wrote, “the public doesn’t need more laws cluttering up the books ” Right, we need more lawsuits cluttering up our courts.
A civil lawsuit should be filed by someone who has suffered financial damages as a result of another breaking the law. How has Linda Carlson, the plantiff, in this case suffered at the hands of eHarmony?
Carlson’s attorney stated that, “This lawsuit is about changing the landscape and making a statement,”
Thank God. I thought it was just about stealing money from eHarmony.
I was being sarcastic with that example. There’s a big difference between the right to sue and suing based on a breach of law.
There is a physiological disserence between gays and heterosexuals but Most of it you can’t see outright. I have no problem as a guy in changing in mixed company, be it with any sexual preference. That is just me. Another heterosexual might feel very uncomfortable changing in front of a gay/lesbian. Should they be forced to do so?
As a gay man, I believe that if a company does not want my business, I will not expend my time, money, and effort to make them take it. Spend your money were it’s appreciated.
Moss writes, “Public businesses have to abide by public law.” and
“you’ll see the plaintiff notified eHarmony in the first place they were violating state law.”
It is the government’s job to enforce the laws. Why is this woman notifiying the company it is breaking the law and not an agency whose job is law enforcement?
This is what I mean about civil cases. It totally lets the government off the hook. If eHarmony really is breaking the law, then they should be punished by the government not sued. If it is the job of plantiff’s attorneys to enforce the laws, then I want a refund on all my taxes that went to law enforcement officials.
Can I sue McDonalds if I require a gluten free diet? Is McDonalds “refusing my business” because it doesn’t sell what I need?
I don’t think so. I doubt the woman is banned from the site. The site is in business to match up people of the opposite sex with the goal of long term relationships. She is also free to use it for that purpose.
Oh well, I guess if she succeeds in destroying the company and putting all of it’s people out of work we will not have to watch the commercials with that creepy old guy anymore.
Chuckle. Lots of stretching and reaching to come up with some sort of rationale for homophobia. Golly gee, kiddies. Where are the bible-thumping rednecks when you need the courage of your lame convictions?
I’m more afraid of transexuals. I’d hate to be out with a, er, uh, nice looking babe just to find out she’s sporting a tree trunk.
And to all you lesbians out there, thanks for NOTHING!
#31 said it best. She wants something the company doest offer, same sex matching. The owner seems to have tailored his system to meet his customer base and is only offering those services to a set market. And someone else above mentioned she is still allowed to use their services, just not in the manner she might wish. That would be similar to me sueing Toyota because their Prius does off-road to my statisfaction.
As usual, I’m not going to interfere much with the sandbox – but, just a legal note. Civil suits – especially class actions – often end up with dollar penalties. They do not need a dollar injury to begin with.
The first significant class action suit I joined was against the FBI, my local Telcom, the government of the city I lived in at the time and that citiy’s police dept.
We won across the board and the damages awarded to a couple thousand citizens were in the millions. My little piece was 4-figures.
Point being the suit involved government and private companies – none of whom had “stolen” from us anything of immediate physical value. Just our civil liberties.
[edited: comments guide]