eHarmony not in harmony with homosexual agenda

Thanks, W-b.

Good to hear.

 

I believe in gay rights but my first impression was that this is a private company and they should be able to serve who they want ... I also agree with what Cadet said ... there are other options out there that will be happy to serve gays and lesbians ... but your juxtaposition with the civil rights issue was interesting ...

 

I'm not one hundred percent convinced they should HAVE to offer gay personals, either.

Think of the ramifications for sites like J-Date, etc.

But the "A private business can offer service to whomever it pleases" just isn't enough.

 

Clever change, and I admit it provoked a little thought, but really not the same at all.

There's no unlawful discrimination preventing the gay community from having equal access to online dating/matchmaking opportunities. There are countless sites out there that specialize in providing those services specifically for the homosexual, black, asian, or whatever community. And if someone believes there's not enough and wants to create an exclusively homosexual dating site he can do so any time he wants, and if it fills a market niche he might just make some nice money off it. So if someone wants to create a dating site that specializes in the straight christian community, why shouldn't they have an equal right to do what they want with their private enterprise?

If you disagree with it, you can boycott or protest the product, that's fine, but suing them by claiming they're doing something illegal when you have no protest whatsoever over sites catering exclusively to the homosexual community is bullshit. I'm definately no conservative, but I'm a huge fan of the 1st Amendment, and this strikes me as nothing but a frivolous, hypocritical, and vindictive suit by people wanting to hurt this site soley because of its christian conservative affiliation. I hope it gets tossed out of court in a hurry.

 

Yeah, I think the lawsuit is crap too.

 

That depends.

If California has a state law that says you cannot discriminate baced on race, creed, gender or sexual orientation, they certainly have a case.

 

Are they really discriminating? Do you walk into Starbucks and ask for a Whopper? They don't offer that service ...

 

I think the law of economics would dictate the penalty if there is one.

In other words, if the ahem, open-minded straights are offended then they should go somewhere else. If there's enough pressure on the company to change, they will.

If not, then leave them the hell alone and go find another court case to fight - like another state to marry in. My gosh, there's plenty to do there, ain't there libs?

 

Amen.

 

Yawn, this is actually a really good discussion and I'm still trying to decide where I stand because I can see both sides ... I'll pay more attention to your points if you turn the BS off. Stop goading people.

 

Dude, if ANY court interprets that law to allow this kind of lawsuit it will open up an UNBELIEVABLE Pandora's box of endless litigation. Just think about the thousands of sites offering similar services out there. Any that don't have a specific "Women Seeking Women" option, you're sued; any of the homosexual community sites that don't have options specifically for "Men Seeking Women", you're sued; hey, that site only shows straight porn, you're sued; that site doesn't include any Asian porn, you're sued. Hey, where's the porn for catholics? It'd be ridiculous.

But I'm sure there are many bloodthirsty California trial attorneys just licking their chops at the idea of a Circuit Court judge actually interpreting it that way.

 

In case you didn't read my previous post, I'll say it again:

YOUR BEHAVIOR IS A LARGE PART OF THE REASON DISCUSSION THREADS GO SOUTH SO QUICKLY.