eHarmony not in harmony with homosexual agenda

Stupid lawsuit.

I'm a Pepsi drinker.

97% of establishments serve Coke and not Pepsi.

Am I being discriminated against?

 

If you're drinking Pepsi voluntarily, you're discriminating against yourself plenty...

 

Here's where I'm falling on this issue:

1. Stupid lawsuit. Homosexuals can get this same service elsewhere. It would be difficult to prove discrimination, unless maybe there's tape of the evangelist/owner harping on gays ... that might sway a jury but it's not necessarily right. Why should the company have to possibly fork out extra money to provide services.

2. Religious rights. Where does a gay man's desire for a match service end and a Christian match service's desire not to cater, advertise and promote the gay lifestyle begin?

Zeke's point provoked a lot of thought. Why theoretically can't a restaurant deny service to a black man then? I'm not sure but they can't deny service to a gay man either.

 

This suit might well be silly -- I don't know California law.

I do wonder, how many gay employees does eHarmony have?

 

Folks, the only thing you have to know about this topic is Yawn's reference to "homosexual agenda" on the thread title.

The guy is a homophobic idiot.

Ignore him.

 

Given how many conservative Christians are in the closet, I'd say quite a few.

 

Think about whether you would be OK with a restaurant not serving gay men or woman, based on their sexual preference. That would probably be the claim they make in court.

eHarmony chose not to offer a service to a group of people based on sexual preference, so there's probably a case to be had here. Imagine eHarmony excluded blacks or Hispanics or Jews, would you feel the same way?

 

Here's where you're wrong: eHarmony isn't refusing service to anyone. They just don't have on the menu what this particular group of people want. If it's not on the menu go to another diner.

Thank you and good night. ;D

 

But that isn't exactly right.

They offer interent dating services.

They don't offer men seeking men or women seeking women.

Is that not offering a certain service, or is that not offering the same service to a certain group of people?

 

You don't go into a sushi restaurant asking for soul food. Both offer food.

 

So you're contending that internet dating services are radically different when offered to gays than when they are offered to straight people?

Wouldn't all the web hosting and infrastructure be the same? Wouldn't the product, in essence, be the exact same thing?

 

Say eHarmony would exclude blacks. Would you say, "eHarmony isn't refusing service to anyone. They just don't have on the menu what this particular group of people want," here? Because blacks would still be able to use eHarmony ... they just wouldn't like the menu, right?

Seems to me this lawsuit has legs.