DISQUS

Mau · 1 year ago

So all of the gay dating sites like Silverdaddies are now open to heterosexuals?

This was not a battle that we should have fought.

Mau

cowboyneok · 1 year ago

Yes, there are plenty of "heterosexual" men who use "Silverdaddies." Didn't you know? "Married man on down low wants to experience what my wife experiences when I come home drunk from the bar..." LOL!

Seriously, its a legal question of fairness and equal access.

Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas · 1 year ago

Jesus half our tricks here are silverdaddies married guys while wifey is at church on Sunday morning...horny as hell, hot in bed, and gone by noon.

debrazza · 1 year ago

The company is run by Mormons, so it should be boycotted anyways. So is Jet Blue.

Aman-About-Town.com · 1 year ago

It doesn't seem very useful for gays considering "its compatibility-based matching system was developed from research of married heterosexual couples."

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

even if you would never use eHarmony, this development is important symbolically. it shows that by working towards equality within the states you can have a national impact. progress in NJ works its way into places like oklahoma, where the sane minority is desperate for any help they can get.

cowboyneok · 1 year ago

Amen, Steve! Thanks for your important posts on this subject.

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

lol. i'm used to the views of the garden variety homobigots. but it's interesting that a lot of younger, especially urbanized, gay types don't get why laws are needed in situations like this. i think it's because they have never dealt with wholesale exclusion and discrimination and haven't spent any time understanding the hard-won remedies. they go to work, earn an okay salary and spend the weekend in gay ghettos watching drag shows with like-minded youngish friends. it's the same folks that don't understand why Jack and Ennis didn't just go away to boystown and shack up. lol.

mimart · 1 year ago

Post your good riddance!

http://www.goodriddance.org/

AdmNaismith · 1 year ago

Ha, ha. Right back in the owner's stupid, chritianist face!

therealdeal · 1 year ago

Steve_in_CNJ has it exactly right. This isn't about a victory for one man its a victory for gays all over the country...AKA... ramming the gay and lesbian agenda down everyone's freakin' throats. It has NOTHING to do if the guy actually wanted to use the service or not, its only about harassing, suing, boycotting, intimidating, terrorizing until your squeaky wheel gets greased. This is why prop 8 passed along with similar measures in 40 other states because we (yes that means the heterosexuals) are sick and tired of this kind of activists bullcrap against private businesses, schools, religions, and government.

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

uh no, but nice try. what this is, is the end of jim crow laws against sexual minorities. businesses are public accommodation. either you do business with everybody or you close down. we went thru this in the former confederacy 50 years ago. the racists lost.

so the message is that religious zealots may NOT ram their bigotry down everybody's throat. we live in a civilized country.

jcgraham77 · 1 year ago

I am gay and don't think businesses should have to cater to me at all. And it doesn't sync to compare the jim crow laws with this situation. This is a huge example of government needing to get their nose out.

cowboyneok · 1 year ago

This isn't about being catered to. This is about ALL BUSINESSES treating American taxpayers equally. You want to do business in the United States, then you play by the rules. You treat EVERYONE equally whether they want to be treated like an equal citizen, or want to be treated like crap. It doesn't matter. You run a business and its the responsibility of the business to treat everyone EQUALLY.

Fifi · 1 year ago

Uh ? In which respect do businesses owe a specific duty to taxpayers ?

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

their obligation under the law is to do business with all citizens in good standing, regardless of whether they pay tax.

cowboyneok · 1 year ago

Thanks, Steve. Yea, what STEVE said. LOL

jcgraham77 · 1 year ago

Basically yall don't believe in free anything....nothing left up to individual choice...it all should be mandated by government. Lets make everyone equal. Everyone has to think exactly the same. Your ideologies are as whacked as the right wing's.

cowboyneok · 1 year ago

"Lets make everyone equal." Uh, we ARE equal to you. As soon as you LEARN that then you will be able to join the rest of us in 21st century America. Unfortunately, "yall" are still living in the pre-Civil War South where everyone still isn't equal and you think its that way in the rest of the nation. News: Its not that way outside of the south and its time for "yall" to play catch up.

therealdeal · 1 year ago

Nice try idiot but this is obviously coming from someone who has no idea about small business. THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE which means I can kick anyone out of my place of business for any reason....you know why I can do this?..because I am the one who took out the millions in loans to run my business. I am the one who pays the taxes to the IRS, I am the one who makes my business successful. IT is MINE not yours to dictate what happens there. If I don't want you there you are gone. Thats the rights you have as a small business. I have gays and lesbians in my business all the time and they are the type of client I like but that does not take away my right TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE....period. We don't live in communist CUBA you freakin' idiot

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

in most states you can refuse service based on sexual orientation. but remember, the eHarmony case was settled in NJ where that sort of discrimination is illegal.

cowboyneok · 1 year ago

"we (yes that means the heterosexuals) are sick and tired of this kind of activists bullcrap against private businesses, schools, religions, and government."

Two words, "therealdeal"

TOO BAD

You can be sick and tired of it all you want, but that is TOO BAD. Until we get treated equally or don't have to pay taxes any more then you are just going to have to deal with it. You, and your kind, haven't had the last word on Proposition 8, either. Its far from over.

wmforr · 1 year ago

I'm sure you (the Whites) were sick and tired of Rosa Parks and her ilk harassing, suing, boycotting, intimidating, terrorizing until your squeaky wheel gets greased. People asking for equal treatment under the law is a real bitch, ain't it?

ChrisS · 1 year ago

LOL. Luckily, I'm already spoken for. If I weren't I'm afraid their site would set me up with one of those nice girls us gay guys should find and settle down with.

I haven't personally run across any parents that would actually volunteer their daughter for that little "experiment," (although they're obviously volunteering somebody's daughter). But I guess the power of the Internet might dredge some of them up.

It actually would be funny if the site matched a guy up with a woman even if he said he was looking for a man. LOL.

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

even a liberated site like match.com occasionally messes up and sends you profiles of the wrong sex. it's no more shocking than being matched to a republican. lol.

wmforr · 1 year ago

Why do I think I would much rather be matched with a woman by mistake than with a Republican? Yeah, I'd take Angelina over Chuck Norris any day.

zavlin · 1 year ago

Explain this to me. Should Gay match-making sites be required to accomodate straight people? Please tell me that the complaint made against them was more than just "the site doesnt allow me to look for other gay people, im sueing".

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

i seem to be defending my state tonight. clearly you can't keep straight people out of a gay nightclub even if you want to. and match-making sites that cater primarily to gay customers (or white customers) can't be exclusive of straights (or non-whites). so i'm not sure what you're concerned about? this is settled law since the 60s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

zavlin · 1 year ago

This is different, a site that offers a specific service should be allowed to do so, its like going to a site that sells cars and sueing them because you cant find motorcycles. And good for them that theyr offering a service for others, but they should not be legally required to do so. Its not like we're talking about a bar that turns away gay people; its a site based around a system for heterosexual matchmaking.

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

the motorcycle thing doesn't work. in order to avoid gay matches you have to systematically exclude gay people. otherwise they would find each other, just as in a bar.

in the 60s there were restaurants in mississippi that were based around a sytem for white dining. they are illegal now. it doesn't matter that there are blacks in mississippi who don't mind being treated that way. it's illegal.

zavlin · 1 year ago

There are matchmaking sites that "exclude" people who arent jewish (www.shoshannasmatches.com/) and many other ethnicities and life styles. Anyone can use these sites, they just arent going to be effective unless you are their target market. A site shouldnt be allowed to focus on heterosexuals? Honestly I think e-harmony settled because they thought it wasnt worth the negative publicity and expanding their market to gay people is going to make them money. Taking it all the way to the supreme court they wouldnt have forced a business to change their target audience( to my understanding they arent STOPPING anyone from using their site and services).

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

of course you can target an audience, like a gay cruise line for example. but it's illegal to exclude straights from crusing with the gays if they want to. laws don't use scare quotes like you did in writing "exclude". it's either yes or no. do you exclude non-jews or not? you cannot. and it's irrelevant whether the business is naturally "effective" for a particular minority. the law can't make that decision.

eHarmony fought this for years and did so very publicly. please read the citation. they settled because they were losing. and yes they were effectively STOPPING you from using their site, because they were making you invisible if you tried.

PS: here's a more complete citation:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NJ_EHARM...

zavlin · 1 year ago

Well i certainly dont know the details, if it was a matter of: Person pays them for a guarentee of a match or their money back, site does not find them match, person asks for money back and their response is "no moneyback because youre gay", then i understand the suit. What i wouldnt understand is if a person goes to a matchmaking site, doesnt find a match, and sues the site simply because theres no focus for them. Then, the fact that the law cant make a decision on the effectiveness of the business is exactly the point.

zavlin · 1 year ago

I find this line interesting "In 2005, a San Francisco man filed a similar complaint to McKinley's, but the state determined no discrimination laws were violated." I'm just not convinced this is somthing the law should decide, and i think this victory is eHarmony just admitting they could be making more money this way.

jcgraham77 · 1 year ago

Well, I guess the christianists have their extremists and so do we. Your logic is flawed. What they have is called a Niche business model. Its the same thing that gay.com is. It doesn't matter if the leader is religous or not. Your mindset is as closed as his. We can't all be the same and neither can businesses.

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

your mind is confused. niche building is not illegal. refusing to do business with whole classes of people who are in good standing is illegal. gay.com cannot exclude straight customers either. you seem to have missed the point here.

jcgraham77 · 1 year ago

You hit the nail on the head...

justadood · 1 year ago

I may be straight, but I don't see how 'separate but equal' is progress. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Plessey v Ferguson was *overturned*, no?? Brown v Board of Education---'separate but equal' is inherently unequal.

This decision wasn't progress---it's only further segregation. My Gay friends aren't 'separate but equal'---they're the same Americans as I am, dammit. I don't accept this, and neither should you...

sa2968 · 1 year ago

If I am not mistaken, I believe the reason eHarmony was not willing to provide services to the gay community was due to the founder's religious beliefs. If this is the case, why would any self respecting gay person use this site??

AngelaChanning · 1 year ago

The other aspect of this that irked me was that eHarmony gets you to fill out a long questionnaire and then you find out they are hetero only. They also advertise on a lot of gay friendly programming. I swear I saw an ad on Bravo after Kathy Griffin. So in addition to excluding gays, there is a level of deception in my book. Thank you for listening.

Mark in Florida · 1 year ago

screw them. I would never use their new product anyway.

Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas · 1 year ago

Fuck you eHarmony. Run by a buncha KKKristianist assholes. You only did this because you were forced to. And at least for gay men, I don't know about Lesbians, bear411 or silverdaddies or daddyhunt is way better and more fun. And free of charge. Met my husband and love of my life on bear411. You don't need to buy this shit from this Jeebus freak website owner.

SimplyRed · 1 year ago

>Yeah, the separate-but-equal thing is a bit creepy. But still, it's progress.

No, it is not progress!

coolcatdaddy · 1 year ago

Oh well. Guess I can't start that dating site for Pagans - I'll have to let the Christians in.

Mark · 1 year ago

Like I would want to either:
1. Waste my time on their site
2. GIve the phobes any money (might as well mail it to the Mormons eh?)
3. Build their database

Hey, I want to meet a good queer guy to settle up with, but not thru them.

Mark · 1 year ago

On another note, to register for reddit, above, it says "Submit."

Can't it just say "enter" or "register"? What is it with all this online BDSM?

Chuck · 1 year ago

I don't think this is progress or a good idea AT ALL. Schools and public accomodations are one thing, sexual orientation isn't relevant to their use. A dating service is inherently reliant upon that criteria to work.

Now we've opened the door for them to demand access to Manhunt, Gay.com and all the other gay dating/hookup sites just to mess with us.

If eHarmony feels they have a product that is successful in matching heterosexual couples, let them have it. It doesn't diminish us at all.

Discovery · 1 year ago

What is the difference between eHarmony and Curves Fitness? Both are niche business models targeting a very specific set of knowledge to a population sect. Curves is a gym that caters too women designed specifically around the science and understanding of women. eHarmony is a business model that caters to Christian heterosexual relationships designed specifically on that knowledge set. This isn't advancement - this is an opportunity for unexpected consequences that will force extremely dangerous niche businesses to open up. This is not a result of US or Constitutional law - but a unique class action California Law that would have paid $4000 to ANY proven discrimination. You are quite correct - niche business such as gay.com better check their books and legal fronts - because the door is open.