AMERICAblog: Someone needs to ask CNN's TJ Holmes how he feels about "whites-only" dating services
dad
· 1 year ago
turd.
wmforr
· 1 year ago
Well, that is certainly a clear and insightful analysis.
Houdentenor
· 1 year ago
Is this about E-hamorny? I think this is a non-issue. Will gay.com have to expand for straight people? I think niche marketing is okay. There are other sites happy to take our money and that are designed to work for gay people. There are dating sites for Jews, Christians, and other groups. I just didn't think this was a problem. Sorry. There are people facing real discrimination. This was a waste of time.
pdxprobert
· 1 year ago
I agree... niche marketing is ok with me too.. can somebody out there tell me why niche marketing is not ok?
sukabi1
· 1 year ago
that's not what eHarmony claimed to be providing... they didn't say they were a hetero only dating service.
nicho
· 1 year ago
Actually, gay.com doesn't ask you what your sexual orientation is. It just asks you what you're looking for.
So, if a guy wants to go on there looking for a woman, he's free to do it. It's probably not a good use of his time, as I'm guessing most, if not all, of the women there are looking for other women.
It's spelled out exactly what it is. E-harmony didn't do that, they just said it was a DATING SERVICE.. it didn't happen to mention that it was only for hets.
slappymagoo
· 1 year ago
But if it were specified that it was a straights-only dating site, would that be discriminatory? And if so, does that mean, for example, j-date is discriminatory?
jcgraham77
· 1 year ago
"Niche" is the key word to this entire debacle. N
Greensburg
· 1 year ago
Agree Houdentenor.
anonymous
· 1 year ago
People forget that eharmony didn't say it was for straights only. They just said it was a dating service. They took people's money then kicked them out or denied them without saying the reason. eharmony had pathetic lawyers and didn't think ahead to spell out their policy they only accepted hetero applicants.
There are gay dating services often advertised on tv such as the bravo network. Since they spell out that they are unlikely to be sued and if sued will win.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Government did not force this down eHarmony's throat. This was a business decision by eHarmony. They will make more money by being more incvlusive and avoid costly litigation. A win win if you will.
As for other sites, yes they are and have been open to these types of suits. If a private litigant sues them then they will have to decide whether they want to pay the fees and fight or come to a compromise solution.
Rest assured, the Mormon church, Bob Jones University, Liberty University and other nonprofits will fund a litigation contest against black only or gay only dating sites.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
actually eHarmony fought very hard against this suit and others like it. but you're right that the fight was probably not based on business considerations.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
The fight was not based on business decisions, yes, but the settlment was based on business decisions.
Robert
· 1 year ago
I love your blog and totally agree with most of your opinions on gender and sexual preference politics, as well as other spheres.
That said, I disagree with you here. I think this lawsuit is frivolous. Maybe I am ignoring some angle to it, but to me it is very like someone suing a restaurant because it won't offer them a vegetarian option (or the other way around - whatever).
While I strongly disagree with some of the opinions I have read the founders of eharmony to hold, I respect as an American, their right to hold whatever views they want so long as actual violence is not encouraged or something. If a community is truly upset by these people's views, boycotts etc. are the more appropriate action (your free speech right turned against them). However, disallowing niche marketing or business targeting a particular consumer is insane. This seems like one of the few places I have ever agreed with the slippery slope view of a legal decision.
If you have a rational and logical argument to convince me, I am very open to hearing it (for this specific case or the general principle involved). As I said above, I generally agree with your views, and drop by your blog almost every day because I also specifically like your individual takes on things.
John Aravosis
· 1 year ago
Here's my logical argument. How do you feel about whites-only dating services? And if they're different, then how are they different? How about dating services that welcome everyone but Jews because they don't like Jews?
jcgraham77
· 1 year ago
I think it should be legal to have whites only dating services. Blacks only. Hindu only. Chicken eaters only. Whatever. And I am gay--probably doesn't matter...just saying.
Houdentenor
· 1 year ago
This is a product. It's not for everyone. There are other products. I agree with the last poster. It's like complaining that they aren't serving Thai food at an Italian restaurant.
Do you really want to join eHarmony? Your interests aren't better served by using another dating service?
Seriously there are gay people all over the country (and even more severely around the world) facing REAL discrimination. Focusing on these sorts of frivolous suits dilutes the real issue.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
While I might not agree with the views of the owners of a whites only or Jewish only dating service, if some private individual or entity (not receiving taxpayer dollars) decides they can make money at a whites only site or a Jewish dating service then let'er rip. What about Christian only dating services?
pdxprobert
· 1 year ago
Whats wrong with a whites only or blacks only or asian only or gay only or lesbian only as long as they are private organizations, not taking govt $$$? ..in that type of environment wouldnt and couldnt there be services that are all inclusive also..... why cant there be both inclusive and exclusive options?
hn^3
· 1 year ago
It's a non-government service. They can restrict membership if they want (like men only private clubs). I also don't care if there are some whites-only dating services or no Jews private services. There is no difference in marketing to a niche.
This settlement is simply a business decision. It is good that eHarmony will now provide their service for same-sex clients, but the claim in the lawsuit that it violated California's statutes is quite a stretch (since eHarmony would only need to show that there are many other private services that also limit their membership), but the bad press they would have gotten out of it would have decreased their monetary flow.
jcgraham77
· 1 year ago
Another point of discussion would be the actual "search" options you use on these sites. If we go with the logic that they can't exclude based on race/sexual orientation then no site should offer any kind of filter when searching--you should have to choose from the lot--all as equals. You as an individual should not be able to discriminate when searching based on sex/orientation/race/religion etc. So, John, if you were to ever use one of these sites, you should have to consider a black lesbian wiccan as an acceptable match (not that there is anything wrong with a black lesbian wiccan--I would just assume this wouldn't be your ideal mate).
Robert
· 1 year ago
Thanks for taking the time to respond, and for taking my question seriously. I do find the idea of whites-only dating services slimy, but I think most potential clients would as well. Such a site would not gain a broad degree of usage these days, for good reason. Additionally, I think this is a different situation.
Discriminating within a sexual preference niche seems different to me than separating two communities looking for completely different things. If I were gay, I would go to a site that seems specialized to meet my needs, not one trying to branch out into territory it considers unfamiliar. If eharmony was occupying some finite space resource or something, I would think that there would be equality issues involved. But when nothing prevents a same sex focused business from developing (I know you are aware that many already exist) and existing on a totally equal playing field, I don't see that problem existing. In fact, if I was gay, I would want the business serving my needs to be certain it valued me and others like me, rather than be an add on to a company primarily focused on serving heterosexuals. If a company could do both equally well, then that would be great too, but I don't see it as necessary.
I feel like the many more glaring instances of inequality towards the gay community are far more worth legal challenges and coordinated response than niche marketing.
Maybe my views will evolve as I read more about this and consider other angles, but I currently remain far more worried about other equality issues facing the gay community.
wmforr
· 1 year ago
I too must reluctantly disagree with John. Chemistry dot come has evidently been making money by saying they DO match gays and giving the raspberry to eharmony in their ads.
Fact is, I think the e-harmony gay site will be a bust. The court offered them the alternative of simply stating that they did not match same-sex couples up front. That seems equitable to me.
Now if they were the only matching service available, I might feel differently.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
why are you trying to turn back the clock on decades of civil rights progress? this is settled law. businesses can't exclude classes of people based on their identity (except for sexual orientation in a dwindling number of states). this is not about eating meat or preferring 4 doors on your car. this is an identity issue. the only way to keep gays from finding each other on eHarmony is to specifically exclude customers who say they are gay. sorry, not legal in NJ. we fought long and hard for that. you are not going to erase our progress.
PS:if you read the responses to John's comment below, you'll see there is still a huge amount of ignorance about anti-Jim Crow laws. it's almost as if we have to re-educate every new generation about the insidiousness of publicly operated businesses that exclude minorities.
sukabi1
· 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure the issue with eHarmony was that they didn't give a reason upfront about a person's "rejection" from the site, just rejected them. It was then up to the person to figure out why.
If they had been open and upfront about only "specializing in traditional hetero relationships" there wouldn't have been a problem.
tlsintx
· 1 year ago
niche marketing this was not. once niche marketing gets into excluding certain groups for no good reason or for unfair reasons...the game changes.
people who have never experienced (or have internalized) exclusion, ostracism, discrimination etc. will not get the difference..
hn^3
· 1 year ago
According to eHarmony's founder, the exclusion was because they simply did not have the statistical information necessary to accurately create matching gay couples. I have no idea if this is true or not. But it is a business conclusion and saying it is arbitrary would require intimate knowledge of eHarmony's algorithms. They weren't just being exclusive because of 'teh gay'.
I'm mexican who moved to the not-quite rural (I guess exburb is now the buzzword) US when I was 8. You bet I was ostracized and discriminated against growing up. Definitely not as much as gay and lesbians have been, but "exclusion, ostracism, discrimination" are not unique to the LGBT community.
tlsintx
· 1 year ago
it wasn't clear from what i wrote but I meant that TJ Holmes probably hasn't experienced discrimination...
and i wonder, why did eharmony settle if there's nothing wrong with what they did. i know i know there are lots of good business/legal reasons for avoiding further litigation, but still...they could've stuck to their guns...
jcgraham77
· 1 year ago
i have experienced all of the above and think you are wrong. see my comment to john below.
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
Regarding "niche" markets or "specialized" markets, I wonder whether marketing to the majority (i.e. hetro) could be considered "niche" marketing. In my mind difficult to call it a "specialized" market.
Liza
· 1 year ago
You do realize that TJ Holmes is half white? I know this because I have a secret crush on him and have been following him for a while. He was also involved with a white gal for awhile so I doubt that he would have a problem with white folks.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
I don't think the statement was meant meaning he wouldn't like a site where there were only white choices... it was meant to say, how would he feel if he were rejected because he isn't white.
that's already illegal, on a federal level.
Butch1
· 1 year ago
I'm thinking of Sen. Craig at the moment. He has no problem with gays in the stalls of public bathrooms but votes a completely different way in the Senate. I don't know whether Holmes has a problem or not but many blacks consider ( rightly so ) that they were discriminated upon because of their color as a minority yet, can not see the same bigoted problem against a gay minority.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
I think most of his arguements are crap... except one.
there already ARE gay dating services, can straight people sue for joining gay.com or outpersonals and not finding any straight people?
granted, this is a service with a contract (eharmony that is)... gay.com and outpersonals don't charge you anything to sign up.
Older_Wiser
· 1 year ago
I've never used a dating service and never will. Others can do as they please, marry, cohabitate. I'm too much of a gadfly to suit anyone anyway. ; )
Besides, I'd never be a member of an organization that would have me (Thanks, Groucho).
Older_Wiser
· 1 year ago
Obama on right now, announcing his economic team, for what it's worth. (Sigh)
ObamaLover
· 1 year ago
Maybe we should force this guy off the air. Bigotry is not appropriate for a news anchor to promulgate.
Uhaul
· 1 year ago
Thats the most asinine comparison I have ever heard.."Whites" only??Stop being so dramatic you queen.Did you even read the whole artice and how would you respond??Should someone be able to sue a vegetarian restaurant because they dont cater to meat eaters?Can I sue a gays only dating service who wont find me a straight woman??How about Jewish only dating services?Cry me a fucking river...You just pissed because the PEOPLE dont approve of your lifestyle..You dont like E-Harmony then go to the 8 million other webistes that cater to you..How about protesting a black church since they overwhelmingly hate you or ar you too scared you'll get your ass kicked by about 61% of the people there who hate your guts because your gay??Now that would be a sight.......If I was e-harmony I would have closed shop then being told I have to cater to a lifestyle I dont approve of..What has this country become???
Robert
· 1 year ago
Interesting that this commenter accused John of being "dramatic." Projection?
Monitor_One
· 1 year ago
I left the following comment to TJ Holmes. It's waiting for moderation. "How about we do this: Only gays can go to Magic Mountain, and hetros can only go to Disneyland. Or, how about only heteros are allowed to buy PCs and gays buy Apple. Does it make business sense? No. So, if it’s not a business decision, it is based on bigotry. It really is that simple."
Blueflash
· 1 year ago
I'm gay and don't agree with this lawsuit at all. If e-harmony somehow had the market for dating services cornered that would be one thing but it doesn't. Next to we hear a straight ranting about how we're shoving our sexuality down other people's throats maybe we should consider that he has this sort of nonsense in mind.
Robert
· 1 year ago
I agree with the first part of this statement. There is not a finite resource being parceled out.
Additionally, separate but equal facilities are not very appropriate comparisons. There is nothing different about a white and a black man's need for water at a water fountain, and nothing different about the best possible fountain to serve either man. There is also nothing that can be automatically assumed to be different about what a black and white man (of the same sexual preference) are looking for in a mate. However, a heterosexual and a gay man are looking for different things in a mate. (No, I am not saying their love needs are different, just that one wants to find a man, another wants to find a woman). This seems like it has some practical implications.
frank
· 1 year ago
the pc police are staining snow white
Discovery
· 1 year ago
The lawsuit didn't fight for eHarmony membership, which would be sexual exclusion, it filled for man-to-man matching, which is a service. Gays can join eHarmony - but the service it provides is for male-to-female long-term matching, it doesn't provide matching for married people looking for affairs (already sued for), doesn't provide multiple partner or short term sexual relationships, doesn't provide man-to-man matching. Those are niche services also provided by other companies. I can join JDate - but I am not going to find Hindu Matching.
Without niche services in large markets, Curves Fitness is just another gym, Gay.com and eHarmony are just another dating website, and BET is just another television station. But you aren't going to get male workout service at Curves, matched for long-term male to female matching at Gay.com, nor white entertainment at BET - or a pizza at McDonalds.
This is a dangerous precedent for all businesses.
Robert
· 1 year ago
agreed
scooter in brooklyn
· 1 year ago
all tj needs is a ball gag. he's awfully pretty.
Daniel_in_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
I say we defer to the court that ruled on the facts and arguments of the parties rather than opining on what sounds just. TJ is a joke to presume that he might know more than the courts simply to indulge his prejudice that gays receive special rights through any accommodation.
nicho
· 1 year ago
The point everyone is missing is that the people in the eHarmony ads are just so geeky and disgustingly giddy. If I want giddy geeks, I can pretty much find them anywhere.
Coming Undone
· 1 year ago
I think this all thing makes no sense because I see so many dating services that cater to just gay men or women, or blacks. I have not seen the all white only yet but, I tend to agree with TJ Holmes, if I go into a vegetarian restaurant and I want only steak can I sue them? Can I sue John because he blogs about gay issues and politics and I want to discuss raising a 12month old baby? There are too many places out there for people of all types to go to meet their specific dating needs( even the illegal).
slappymagoo
· 1 year ago
There's at least one whites-only dating service: Hannidate. /snark
Steven
· 1 year ago
I'm a gay guy, and I think this ruling was stupid. Leave eHarmony alone, just like I hope you'll leave gay.com and manhunt.com alone. They are a private business that set up heterosexuals with likeminded heterosexuals. How is that discriminatory? Like someone else said, if they were the ONLY outlet for online dating, it would be different. But they're not; gay folks like me have plenty of places to look for love. I mean, imagine a straight guy suing because he can't get on gay.com to find a female partner? Please.
slappymagoo
· 1 year ago
Imagine? I'd suspect those floodgates are now open.
Elbaba
· 1 year ago
hmmmm... well, then I guess if a restaurant opens that refuses to sell food to black people, because you.. know .. it's a private business and maybe those people want to offer their services to other whites only.
You want to know what is the achilles heel for the gay community? Apathy and gays who practice it freely, much like yourself, who couldn't possibly try to view anything from a different perspective other than your own.
Robert
· 1 year ago
your comparison to a discriminatory restaurant does not work logically. This is not someone suing for access to the same service (the same food selection at a diner), it is someone suing to get new and additional separate services offered, that are outside the entire scope of the business' original target services (not only to get more offered on the menu, but a whole other type of cuisine, when there are stores that offer that cuisine literally next door, in net terms).
Robert
· 1 year ago
Your argument makes sense only if a internet communications service provider (Comcast or Time Warner or something) refused to host a gay dating site. I would join you in fighting that. But the more I think about this, the more strongly I disagree with the lawsuit.
Steven
· 1 year ago
Elbaba, eHarmony offers a service that I simply cannot use, because of my orientation. Just as a straight man wouldn't use a gay dating service to find a woman. A restaurant, to cite your example, offers a service that ALL of us can use, and to deny certain people would indeed be discriminatory.
As far as my being apathetic, I have to disagree with you there. I just don't think that every act that is geared toward heterosexuals is inherently anti-gay. Some of my best friends are heterosexual.
David in NYC
· 1 year ago
gays who practice it freely, much like yourself, who couldn't possibly try to view anything from a different perspective other than your own.
Speak for yourself, John Alden. And then explain EXACTLY how gays are negatively impacted by eHarmony's policies.
If I go to my local Toyota dealer and they refuse to sell me a Merecedes, should I sue them? Would you?
JES
· 1 year ago
I am a liberal gay man who VEHEMENTLY disagrees with this ruling. Dating sites should be allowed to target - or not target- any consumer/user they choose. We should all be outraged by this.
Indigo
· 1 year ago
The very few dating services I've signed into had categories like gay or str8t or pansexual and racial preferences as well, check as many as apply. I don't understand how come there's a problem. As a gay man, I'm not likely to be compatible with a KKK woman seeking self-affirming lifestyle so I won't knock on that door. That's cool. Isn't it?
WDemDem
· 1 year ago
I have written to CNN on several occasions about TJ. He's a racist bigot. I can't stand him.
jcgraham77
· 1 year ago
Is this ruling about them not being upfront about it being straight only(and thus fleecing you for dues) or is it about not including gays---someone please elaborate.
J.T. Burciaga
· 1 year ago
Well, well, here we go again...separate but equal. Where's Plessey vs. Ferguson when you need it?
JamesR
· 1 year ago
Rick Sanchez is a dick. And I mean that in the phallusphobic sense, no offense intended to the rest, including my own. [He used to be our local newscaster here in Florida, the only good thing I've seen him do is get tased.] This is the level of the discourse about this issue, a knee-jerk response that pits a minority against common sense with the "eew" factor thrown in. Thanks Rick.
Nowhere are links to a good legal analysis, or a real explanation of the issues anybody who would want to understand this would want to explore. This is journalism at CNN? Thanks.
Even more galling is that if I were to simplify my own opinions from what I can glean from the details, I would seem to agree with him. Truly painful.
Rick Warren looks to me like a FoF snake selling it's own oil. I wouldn't participate in any scheme he's involved in nor ould any 'ideal mate' of mine, ever. I don't see why any gay or lesbian bisexual or transgendered would either. I think it would be about as enjoyable and productive as if Rick Warren finding his true love on Manhunt.net. And thanks to the reasoning behind this suit he has standing to make a similar complaint.
The difference I would hope is that Manhunt might have the balls to force the suit into court and get a real ruling instead of a settlement. They probably wouldn't but we know eHarmony doesn't. They / he aren't standing up for their touted "Christian" values, they aren't standing up for their rights as a business, they aren't demonstrating any principles, 'scientific' or otherwise which begs the question why anyone of any stripe would want to patronize it as a business.
eHarmony started as 'values based' Christian-like 'faith based' but it isn't. Or it says it isn't. (I think they are liars but will never know for sure.) They operate a proprietary system of matching, how does that work? Does it "discriminate?" Really? How would anyone know? Will it be subject to a suit to crack it's secrets and make them public in order to make sure? Where would this end?? Why - really - would anyone really want to be doing this?
Civil Rights protections are for the rights of people we don't like, doing things we find disgusting, are they not? Otherwise they would not need protecting. eHarmony is loathsome and disgusting but I think it has a right to be so, as I have a right to be the same in their eyes. People are voluntarily becoming members of a weird cult. Out of state. This isn't a bus or a water fountain or a restaurant or mortgage or a job OR a marriage per-se. Since matching men and men and men and women IS different the term "separate but equal" really does apply in this case. There are differences between the gay civil rights struggle and the black one. Few, relatively insignificant, but there are some and this is one of them.
They don't officially 'discriminate' yet they deliberately do not provide a service to the group they say they are not discriminating against - they are religious and yet they are not, they have no membership religious requirements - they are a business and yet they fought the complaints against them on religious / moral bases - they settled their values qualms in order to hide their 29 levels of hocus pocus. Secretive, passive aggressive, conflicted - would you want your matchmaker to be such a bitch? I can see why they anger so many but now Public Accommodation laws have been brought into this ugly mess? Please.
And CNN and Rick Sanchez just contributed to the reduction of all these issues by evoking revulsion at pushy gay folk. Thanks.
RIPWAMU
· 1 year ago
Rick didn't do this story, TJ Holmes did.
JamesR
· 1 year ago
You are right. I realized after I posted that the object of the link was a "journalist" other than Rick Sanchez, but it's on "Rick Sanchez's blog" - it looks like - and I kinda hold anything on someone's blog the responsibility of the person on the masthead, plus CNN. I don't really know who T J Holmes is, or who his manufactured personality is he's paid for by CNN to display, but it's really all the same. Right?
Yet I did make an error and thanks for pointing it out, really. - I realized just after but just couldn't revisit it as after delving into all the eHarmony crap, I just could not go back to CNN corporate newsspeak crap too or my head would explode and I need it still.
RIPWAMU
· 1 year ago
:-) I understand
I listen to CNN on XM most days and I did hear Rick Sanchez last week say that he was going on vacation starting last Thursday and I heard T.J. say he himself started the discussion on Friday.
You made good points about Rick, and I certainly don't think he is great. Just because he didn't do this story doesn't mean that he had no part of it's introduction.
Discovery
· 1 year ago
Elbaba - Your analogy about a black person being refused business at a restaurant isn't correct.
To correct your analogy - the black person went into the restaurant and ordered something that isn't on the menu. McDonalds doesn't sell tacos. A lesbian dating service is not going to match a male-with-a-male. A straight dating website is not going to provide male-to-male service.
eHarmony didn't refuse membership to they gay person - they refused to provide a service they don't offer - matching a man with a man. The lawsuit didn't sue for entry into eHarmony, they sued for a new service. It seems like a no brainer that an atheist service doesn't match Hindu's - a lesbain website doesn't match men - so why the problem with a straight website that doesn't match men with men?
Robert
· 1 year ago
I have been thinking about this a lot today, trying to see if I am missing some angle that would change my mind. I called 6 of my gay friends to ask them if they held a different view (that eharmony was wrong to offer only hetero dating services). One had not heard of it and said he had no real opinion. The other 5 all said they strongly disagreed with this lawsuit and thought that it actually hurts gay rights efforts by not even making logical sense. One did resent that the owners of eharmony are not necessarily gay-friendly, but he strongly felt that the lawsuit to make them offer the services was wrongheaded. All expressed some form of the argument that they thought it was as asinine as if a heterosexual person fought to get manhunt to make money-losing efforts and expenditures to offer hetero services.
Thank you again, John, for taking the time to respond to my earlier question, and to avoid flaming me as "discriminatory" or something. I remain totally unconvinced (along with most of the gay people in my immediate friends and family), but I am fully willing to change my mind if evidence/logic make me realize that I am mistaken.
Either way, I'm inclined to focus on the gay rights struggles that are so crystal clear that they represent low-hanging and immediately available fruit - prop 8, DADT, etc. This eharmony one obviously doesn't even unite the gay community to any real degree.
cory
· 1 year ago
All discrimination is worth fighting. Not only that which is "clear" to you, or easy, or low-hanging fruit. As well, it does not have to "unite" anyone. That which is wrong should be opposed.
Yvonne
· 1 year ago
I'm straight. Should I sue gay.com because they won't provide a dating service for me to meet a straight guy? I fully support gay rights, including marriage. But I don't think this fits the case. What if straight people started insisting on admission to gay travel clubs, etc.?
RIPWAMU
· 1 year ago
I was just thinking the same thing. I think the frustration may come from them not being clear until after someone completes that hour personality profile that they only match hetero couples. They should have noted prior to the process that they are a hetero matching service and no harm no foul.
Mason
· 1 year ago
But in fact you can, as a straight person, go on gay.com and create a profile saying who you are and what you are looking for. The website does not discriminate against you and block you from trying like eHarmony does to gays. You may not find anyone interested in you because you're straight and just about everyone else on there is gay, but that's not because the site has discriminated against you, it's because you've chosen to go looking in a pool of people where you're unlikely to find a match. If gay.com explicitly said "no straights allowed" (or no blacks or no mormons or no whatever...) then they would be running afoul of anti-discrimination laws just like eHarmony has done.
Yvonne
· 1 year ago
Mason, I think a gay person can join eHarmony but they won't be matched up with a gay person because that service is not provided by eHarmony. Should eHarmony be forced to provide an additional service simply to satisfy this guy? I don't think that's fair. Manhunt should not be forced to recruit straight men to date me. They are set up to find guy 2 guy hook-ups. That's fine by me. If I want shoes, I don't go to an ice cream shop and demand they start filling their display case with Jimmy Choos!
Mason
· 1 year ago
But if you want shoes, you're certainly entitled to go into an ice cream shop and look around to see if you find any for sale. The ice cream shop isn't required to stock shoes, just like manhunt isn't required to "stock" people seeking straight hookups. The problem is when public businesses outright bar customers at the door (or the virtual door) because of who they are. How far are you wiling to let a company like eHarmony go? You're gay? You can't sign up for eHarmony because we're for straights. You're Jewish? You can't sign up for eHarmony because we're based on Christian principles. You're black? You can't sign up for eHarmony because our founder did his relationship research only among whites. You're an immigrant? You can't sign up for eHarmony because our matching principles are only tested among native-born Americans. Assuming you disagree with the discrimination in the last three scenarios, what makes them different from the discrimination you espouse in the first scenario?
Yvonne
· 1 year ago
I think you can sign up for eHarmony even if you're gay but you won't find anyone to date through their service. Then what? You'll be honked off because you've paid your regisration fee to a company that is incapable of providing a service for you! eHarmony would be committing fraud if they took money from people without any reasonable ability to provide the service.
I can go into Baskin Robbins and look around but if I want shoes, should Baskin Robbins be forced to take my money then be obligated to find a selection of shoes to offer? No! If you're looking for shoes, go to a shoe store or at least a department store. If you're looking a gay connection, go to a place that provides that services rather than trying to force one to add that service to its business roster!
ZennButtKicker (tlhwraith)
· 1 year ago
I hate to say it, but Holmes has a point. It seems to me that everyone that is yelling "seperate but equal" or discrimination is missing a subtle but important difference. The real issue is whether or not a gay person has the same opportunities to partake of a dating site as a straight person, and I haven't heard a single person say that isn't the case. Sure, every company that has targeted dating sites (gender, religion, color, etc) doesn't offer a site for every conceivable group, I don't think that's a reasonable standard. If I wanted to set up a dating site specifically for say, aboriginis, should I be expected to be sued by non-aboriginals?
If anything, when I read about the case my only thought is that eHarmony is missing out on a potential goldmine of revenue, but in this case, that's their perogative. We need to be real careful when yelling discrimination because although technically eHarmony did discriminate against gay people, the larger issues are:
1) Should they be expected to provide sites for everyone? I say no. 2) Do gay people become burdened somehow by one company not offering gay themed dating sites? I say no. 3) Are dating sites a fundamental right that should be protected by law? I say no 4) Are there tons of other sites perfectly willing to take gay peoples money to hook them up? sure
Now, not knowing a whole lot about the gay dating site scene, if there is a lack of quality sites please let me know and I'd be more than willing to take gay peoples money to provide a site ;-).
Boycottutah
· 1 year ago
Eharmony sucks as far as I am concerned. Time to dump Mormon stock.We need to communicate to those who support marriage equality the need to boycott those who fund discrimination. I should not give money to those who will take that money and use it to take away my rights. Mormon Stock Index http://www.mormonstockindex.com/ is a great source of information regarding the sources that fund our oppression. Dumping Mormon stock, while boycotting Mormon corporations will limit the funds available used to wage war on our basic civil rights.
The religious right has used boycotts to effectively wage war on the LGBT community. They initiated the use of boycotts, and we have no choice but to use this powerful economic force to protect our homes, families, and futures.
Given this horrible economic disaster we are in, isn't it fitting that those who support taking the rights of others should get slapped hard economically?!
JamesR
· 1 year ago
As laudable or not boycotting Mormon businesses might be, perhaps a topic of other threads, as far as I can tell Neil Clark Warren is affiliated with evangelical Baptists, not Mormons.
It is interesting to delve into who runs what, why, and how much interest and control each of the religions of the heads of the businesses has in their corporate decisions. But as touted by the site linked to made by proud Mormons, a business just having a Mormon CEO doesn't mean the entire business carries out the dictates of that church. To just assume so would be presumptuous and arbitrarily discriminatory. More analysis is required I think.
You raise a great point but any economic action needs to be thought out and applied fairly as it is purportedly in the cause of justice eh? Owning stock gives leverage - Churches are notoriously non-responsive to lay groups but corporations have to listen to shareholders.
AND - I take issue with your assertion that the religious right has used boycotts effectively against anybody - they have used the THREATS of boycotts plenty but when their bluff has been called they do not really deliver. Believe me, if someone is afraid of the dollar, the gay dollar is a mighty threat to withhold and it has never been used to bluff yet. Piss it off enough and we will see.
All Comments
So, if a guy wants to go on there looking for a woman, he's free to do it. It's probably not a good use of his time, as I'm guessing most, if not all, of the women there are looking for other women.
It's spelled out exactly what it is. E-harmony didn't do that, they just said it was a DATING SERVICE.. it didn't happen to mention that it was only for hets.
There are gay dating services often advertised on tv such as the bravo network. Since they spell out that they are unlikely to be sued and if sued will win.
As for other sites, yes they are and have been open to these types of suits. If a private litigant sues them then they will have to decide whether they want to pay the fees and fight or come to a compromise solution.
Rest assured, the Mormon church, Bob Jones University, Liberty University and other nonprofits will fund a litigation contest against black only or gay only dating sites.
That said, I disagree with you here. I think this lawsuit is frivolous. Maybe I am ignoring some angle to it, but to me it is very like someone suing a restaurant because it won't offer them a vegetarian option (or the other way around - whatever).
While I strongly disagree with some of the opinions I have read the founders of eharmony to hold, I respect as an American, their right to hold whatever views they want so long as actual violence is not encouraged or something. If a community is truly upset by these people's views, boycotts etc. are the more appropriate action (your free speech right turned against them). However, disallowing niche marketing or business targeting a particular consumer is insane. This seems like one of the few places I have ever agreed with the slippery slope view of a legal decision.
If you have a rational and logical argument to convince me, I am very open to hearing it (for this specific case or the general principle involved). As I said above, I generally agree with your views, and drop by your blog almost every day because I also specifically like your individual takes on things.
Do you really want to join eHarmony? Your interests aren't better served by using another dating service?
Seriously there are gay people all over the country (and even more severely around the world) facing REAL discrimination. Focusing on these sorts of frivolous suits dilutes the real issue.
This settlement is simply a business decision. It is good that eHarmony will now provide their service for same-sex clients, but the claim in the lawsuit that it violated California's statutes is quite a stretch (since eHarmony would only need to show that there are many other private services that also limit their membership), but the bad press they would have gotten out of it would have decreased their monetary flow.
I do find the idea of whites-only dating services slimy, but I think most potential clients would as well. Such a site would not gain a broad degree of usage these days, for good reason. Additionally, I think this is a different situation.
Discriminating within a sexual preference niche seems different to me than separating two communities looking for completely different things. If I were gay, I would go to a site that seems specialized to meet my needs, not one trying to branch out into territory it considers unfamiliar. If eharmony was occupying some finite space resource or something, I would think that there would be equality issues involved. But when nothing prevents a same sex focused business from developing (I know you are aware that many already exist) and existing on a totally equal playing field, I don't see that problem existing. In fact, if I was gay, I would want the business serving my needs to be certain it valued me and others like me, rather than be an add on to a company primarily focused on serving heterosexuals. If a company could do both equally well, then that would be great too, but I don't see it as necessary.
I feel like the many more glaring instances of inequality towards the gay community are far more worth legal challenges and coordinated response than niche marketing.
Maybe my views will evolve as I read more about this and consider other angles, but I currently remain far more worried about other equality issues facing the gay community.
Fact is, I think the e-harmony gay site will be a bust. The court offered them the alternative of simply stating that they did not match same-sex couples up front. That seems equitable to me.
Now if they were the only matching service available, I might feel differently.
PS:if you read the responses to John's comment below, you'll see there is still a huge amount of ignorance about anti-Jim Crow laws. it's almost as if we have to re-educate every new generation about the insidiousness of publicly operated businesses that exclude minorities.
If they had been open and upfront about only "specializing in traditional hetero relationships" there wouldn't have been a problem.
people who have never experienced (or have internalized) exclusion, ostracism, discrimination etc. will not get the difference..
I'm mexican who moved to the not-quite rural (I guess exburb is now the buzzword) US when I was 8. You bet I was ostracized and discriminated against growing up. Definitely not as much as gay and lesbians have been, but "exclusion, ostracism, discrimination" are not unique to the LGBT community.
and i wonder, why did eharmony settle if there's nothing wrong with what they did. i know i know there are lots of good business/legal reasons for avoiding further litigation, but still...they could've stuck to their guns...
that's already illegal, on a federal level.
there already ARE gay dating services, can straight people sue for joining gay.com or outpersonals and not finding any straight people?
granted, this is a service with a contract (eharmony that is)... gay.com and outpersonals don't charge you anything to sign up.
Besides, I'd never be a member of an organization that would have me (Thanks, Groucho).
"How about we do this:
Only gays can go to Magic Mountain, and hetros can only go to Disneyland. Or, how about only heteros are allowed to buy PCs and gays buy Apple. Does it make business sense? No.
So, if it’s not a business decision, it is based on bigotry. It really is that simple."
Additionally, separate but equal facilities are not very appropriate comparisons. There is nothing different about a white and a black man's need for water at a water fountain, and nothing different about the best possible fountain to serve either man. There is also nothing that can be automatically assumed to be different about what a black and white man (of the same sexual preference) are looking for in a mate. However, a heterosexual and a gay man are looking for different things in a mate. (No, I am not saying their love needs are different, just that one wants to find a man, another wants to find a woman). This seems like it has some practical implications.
Without niche services in large markets, Curves Fitness is just another gym, Gay.com and eHarmony are just another dating website, and BET is just another television station. But you aren't going to get male workout service at Curves, matched for long-term male to female matching at Gay.com, nor white entertainment at BET - or a pizza at McDonalds.
This is a dangerous precedent for all businesses.
You want to know what is the achilles heel for the gay community? Apathy and gays who practice it freely, much like yourself, who couldn't possibly try to view anything from a different perspective other than your own.
As far as my being apathetic, I have to disagree with you there. I just don't think that every act that is geared toward heterosexuals is inherently anti-gay. Some of my best friends are heterosexual.
Speak for yourself, John Alden. And then explain EXACTLY how gays are negatively impacted by eHarmony's policies.
If I go to my local Toyota dealer and they refuse to sell me a Merecedes, should I sue them? Would you?
Nowhere are links to a good legal analysis, or a real explanation of the issues anybody who would want to understand this would want to explore. This is journalism at CNN? Thanks.
Even more galling is that if I were to simplify my own opinions from what I can glean from the details, I would seem to agree with him. Truly painful.
I found a good summary here oddly from AP: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/123008...
and some background here: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-18-... and better here: http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=entertai... The "settlement agreement" here: http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases08/pr20081119...
Rick Warren looks to me like a FoF snake selling it's own oil. I wouldn't participate in any scheme he's involved in nor ould any 'ideal mate' of mine, ever. I don't see why any gay or lesbian bisexual or transgendered would either. I think it would be about as enjoyable and productive as if Rick Warren finding his true love on Manhunt.net. And thanks to the reasoning behind this suit he has standing to make a similar complaint.
The difference I would hope is that Manhunt might have the balls to force the suit into court and get a real ruling instead of a settlement. They probably wouldn't but we know eHarmony doesn't. They / he aren't standing up for their touted "Christian" values, they aren't standing up for their rights as a business, they aren't demonstrating any principles, 'scientific' or otherwise which begs the question why anyone of any stripe would want to patronize it as a business.
eHarmony started as 'values based' Christian-like 'faith based' but it isn't. Or it says it isn't. (I think they are liars but will never know for sure.) They operate a proprietary system of matching, how does that work? Does it "discriminate?" Really? How would anyone know? Will it be subject to a suit to crack it's secrets and make them public in order to make sure? Where would this end?? Why - really - would anyone really want to be doing this?
Civil Rights protections are for the rights of people we don't like, doing things we find disgusting, are they not? Otherwise they would not need protecting. eHarmony is loathsome and disgusting but I think it has a right to be so, as I have a right to be the same in their eyes. People are voluntarily becoming members of a weird cult. Out of state. This isn't a bus or a water fountain or a restaurant or mortgage or a job OR a marriage per-se. Since matching men and men and men and women IS different the term "separate but equal" really does apply in this case. There are differences between the gay civil rights struggle and the black one. Few, relatively insignificant, but there are some and this is one of them.
They don't officially 'discriminate' yet they deliberately do not provide a service to the group they say they are not discriminating against - they are religious and yet they are not, they have no membership religious requirements - they are a business and yet they fought the complaints against them on religious / moral bases - they settled their values qualms in order to hide their 29 levels of hocus pocus. Secretive, passive aggressive, conflicted - would you want your matchmaker to be such a bitch? I can see why they anger so many but now Public Accommodation laws have been brought into this ugly mess? Please.
And CNN and Rick Sanchez just contributed to the reduction of all these issues by evoking revulsion at pushy gay folk. Thanks.
Yet I did make an error and thanks for pointing it out, really. - I realized just after but just couldn't revisit it as after delving into all the eHarmony crap, I just could not go back to CNN corporate newsspeak crap too or my head would explode and I need it still.
I listen to CNN on XM most days and I did hear Rick Sanchez last week say that he was going on vacation starting last Thursday and I heard T.J. say he himself started the discussion on Friday.
You made good points about Rick, and I certainly don't think he is great. Just because he didn't do this story doesn't mean that he had no part of it's introduction.
To correct your analogy - the black person went into the restaurant and ordered something that isn't on the menu. McDonalds doesn't sell tacos. A lesbian dating service is not going to match a male-with-a-male. A straight dating website is not going to provide male-to-male service.
eHarmony didn't refuse membership to they gay person - they refused to provide a service they don't offer - matching a man with a man. The lawsuit didn't sue for entry into eHarmony, they sued for a new service. It seems like a no brainer that an atheist service doesn't match Hindu's - a lesbain website doesn't match men - so why the problem with a straight website that doesn't match men with men?
Thank you again, John, for taking the time to respond to my earlier question, and to avoid flaming me as "discriminatory" or something. I remain totally unconvinced (along with most of the gay people in my immediate friends and family), but I am fully willing to change my mind if evidence/logic make me realize that I am mistaken.
Either way, I'm inclined to focus on the gay rights struggles that are so crystal clear that they represent low-hanging and immediately available fruit - prop 8, DADT, etc. This eharmony one obviously doesn't even unite the gay community to any real degree.
I can go into Baskin Robbins and look around but if I want shoes, should Baskin Robbins be forced to take my money then be obligated to find a selection of shoes to offer? No! If you're looking for shoes, go to a shoe store or at least a department store. If you're looking a gay connection, go to a place that provides that services rather than trying to force one to add that service to its business roster!
If anything, when I read about the case my only thought is that eHarmony is missing out on a potential goldmine of revenue, but in this case, that's their perogative. We need to be real careful when yelling discrimination because although technically eHarmony did discriminate against gay people, the larger issues are:
1) Should they be expected to provide sites for everyone? I say no.
2) Do gay people become burdened somehow by one company not offering gay themed dating sites? I say no.
3) Are dating sites a fundamental right that should be protected by law? I say no
4) Are there tons of other sites perfectly willing to take gay peoples money to hook them up? sure
Now, not knowing a whole lot about the gay dating site scene, if there is a lack of quality sites please let me know and I'd be more than willing to take gay peoples money to provide a site ;-).
The religious right has used boycotts to effectively wage war on the LGBT community. They initiated the use of boycotts, and we have no choice but to use this powerful economic force to protect our homes, families, and futures.
Given this horrible economic disaster we are in, isn't it fitting that those who support taking the rights of others should get slapped hard economically?!
It is interesting to delve into who runs what, why, and how much interest and control each of the religions of the heads of the businesses has in their corporate decisions. But as touted by the site linked to made by proud Mormons, a business just having a Mormon CEO doesn't mean the entire business carries out the dictates of that church. To just assume so would be presumptuous and arbitrarily discriminatory. More analysis is required I think.
You raise a great point but any economic action needs to be thought out and applied fairly as it is purportedly in the cause of justice eh? Owning stock gives leverage - Churches are notoriously non-responsive to lay groups but corporations have to listen to shareholders.
AND - I take issue with your assertion that the religious right has used boycotts effectively against anybody - they have used the THREATS of boycotts plenty but when their bluff has been called they do not really deliver. Believe me, if someone is afraid of the dollar, the gay dollar is a mighty threat to withhold and it has never been used to bluff yet. Piss it off enough and we will see.