Here’s some news straight from the US of A, the land of litigation, that raised our eyebrows. Dating portal eHarmony has now agreed to cater to gays and lesbians after a lawsuit by a gay man from New Jersey alleging discrimination because the site did not provide services for users seeking same-sex partners. Fox News reports:
Online dating service eHarmony has agreed to create a new Web site — “Compatible Partners” — for gay and lesbian users, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General announced.Created as part of a settlement with Eric McKinley, a gay man from New Jersey, the Web site will provide services for users seeking same-sex partners by March 31, New Jersey Division on Civil Rights Director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo said.
eHarmony, which was founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren in 2000, said the settlement was triggered by a Law Against Discrimination complaint filed by McKinley against the online service on March 14, 2005. As part of the agreement, eHarmony will pay McKinley $5,000 and will provide him a one-year complimentary membership.
eHarmony — which was not found in violation of the law — also agreed to ensure that same-sex users will be matched using the same or equivalent technology used for its heterosexual clients. It will also post photographs of same-sex couples in its “Diversity” section of its Web site and in advertising materials.
Apparently, this wasn’t the only lawsuit brought against eHarmony alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual discrimination:
Linda Carlson, of California, sued the online dating service in May 2007, alleging it discriminated against gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Carlson said she tried to use the Web site a month earlier to meet a woman, but was refused based on her sexual orientation. When Carlson wrote to eHarmony to complain, the company refused to change its policy, according to the lawsuit filed on her behalf in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The lawsuit claimed that by solely offering to find a compatible match for men seeking women or women seeking men, the company was violating state law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
“Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age,” Carlson said in a statement.
The lawsuit, which is currently being litigated in Los Angeles Superior Court, named Pasadena-based eHarmony.com Inc., Warren and Warren’s wife, Marylyn, the company’s former vice president, as defendants. It seeks class-action status, a jury trial and unspecified damages.
We can’t help but ask — Will gay portals be forced to cater to straight people next? I guess it’s important to note that eHarmony was not found in violation of the law and this looks more like an out-of-court settlement, and yet McKinley managed to get US$5,000 out of it!
We hope such a legal precedent will never be set because the day that happens, gay portals can be forced to admit straight people on the grounds of sexual orientation discrimination, women’s groups can be forced to accept men on the grounds of gender orientation discrimination, all faith-based groups can be forced to elect non-believing members to the board, disability groups can be run by people without disabilities — well, you know what I mean.
All groups need *some* form of exclusivity to maintain their raison d’etre. It’s the only thing that defines them and sets them apart from other groups. Forcing all groups to heterogenise in the name of diversity can only leave us more homogenous (read: less diverse) at the end of the day.
If we ever get the chance to meet this Eric McKinley face-to-face some day, we want to ask him: Dude, are you sure you ran out of gay dating sites to sign up on?
21 Responses
November 24th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
and if he ran out of gay dating sites to sign up on – we know why…
i’m not saying, i’m just saying ;0)
November 26th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Thanks for your slippery slope argument, if you know what I mean. This argument doesn’t stand in the face of real argument. Oh, and WHAT IS WRONG WITH HAVING DIVERSITY IN ALL OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS. As a gay man, I am all for adding a male-female section to any of the gay communities’ dating sites. And, oh by the way, MANY DO.
As per you last comment of groups homogenizing, that will never completely happen. But more importantly, there is nothing wrong with blending groups, it serves to promote TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE and EMPATHY.
You reactionary folk disgust me.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:00 am
What I want to know is WHY e-harmony wasn’t found in violation of discrimination laws. When there is a law, that protects everyone EXCEPT a single group, it is as if someone is saying that they are lesser. That their rights are not as important as those of the majority.
America was founded on the principle of equality. Before any of the groups (disabled, race, gender, etc) that are protected against discrimination were covered, there WAS in fact an issue for that group. Blacks were discriminated against because of their color, someone in a wheelchair was overlooked in favor of someone on 2 legs.
Until there is a consequence for this type of behavior, it isn’t going to stop. People are human and fallible, and all too often ruled by their own prejudices. There is no doubt that there will always be people who feel the need to look down on one group or another, and THAT is why we need these laws. So that everyone can be on even footing. It is the government’s RESPONSIBILTY to protect my right to love whomever I chose. To be myself.
There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with homogenizing these organizations. We need to bring people together. Isn’t there enough hate, prejudice and bigotry in the world? All anyone is asking for is that we have the same rights as other American citizens. They’re not “special rights” if everyone else except the LGBT community benefits from them. They are EQUAL RIGHTS!!
We call America “the melting pot of the world” because it is seen as a place where everyone is given a fair shake. A place where dreams can come true for EVERYONE. How can we call our country a melting pot when we are ignoring 10% of our population?
And what is they big deal? Why does it matter who loves whom? It is noone’s place to pass judgement on my life or how I live it, as long as my actions aren’t infringing on another’s rights.
When you judge someone, you do not define them. You define yourself!
November 28th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
There is no slippery slope here. One out-of-court settlement and one potential court judgment hardly set a precedent that will force someone like gays.com to cater to non-gays.
This debate is really about how the freedoms of speech and association interact with the idea of public accommodation. The First Amendment currently protects the rights of someone like the Boy Scouts to exclude gay troop leaders because of the idea that free speech necessarily include a right to freely associate (and a right to not associate) with whomever you want in order to exercise that right to free speech. On the other hand, public accommodation laws (i.e., laws that make it illegal to have “whites only” businesses) are also constitutional because sometimes society’s interests in guaranteeing equal protection (i.e., preventing discrimination) are more significant than some organization’s right to deny access to women, gays, etc. These rights of free speech and society’s interests in preventing discrimination are often in conflict.
The reason why there is no real danger of the slippery slope is that both rights of speech and protection against discrimination are seen as extremely important and there is no clear winner in the court decisions. That is, sometimes the right to free speech is more important (as in the case where the Boy Scouts of America won the right to discriminate against gay troop leaders) and sometimes the right to equality is more important (as in the case that allows women to be members of the U.S. Jaycees).
This issue is also complicated by the fact that eHarmony.com is a business and not some group simply trying to make a political statement. Commercial speech (that is, the right of some business to say whatever it wants) does generally receive less protection that plain-old political speech (like a pride parade).
The fact that eHarmony is a business as well as the fact that there is no clear court precedent are facts that collude against eHarmony and drove them to settle this out of court. Litigation here could have been particularly costly because the lack of clarity in the law and the lesser protections given to commercial speech.
Besides, as a practical matter–you don’t discriminate against straight people here. Neither do many of the “gay” dating sites. Straights have equal access to almost every one of these venues. eHarmony, on the other hand, didn’t merely cater to straight people (like this site does to gay people); eHarmony took it a step further through actively denying access to their matching technologies for absolutely no good reason that would stand up under the scrutiny of a jury. Evidence strongly suggests that eHarmony wasn’t just target marketing straight people, but that they were actively discriminating against queer people for no legitimate First Amendment or technological purpose.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:21 am
I agree. There is no slippery slope argument. eHarmony, has never made any advertisements that were an example of fraud. They have never broken any employment discrimination laws. They do not receive federal or state funding and are not listed as non-profit. So who can go in and tell them what groups they can and cannot cater to?
The issue of discrimination does not apply here, because there was no damages done. No misuse of public funds, and no fraud. I am glad they were found not guilty, for if they were to have been found guilty, it would be a severe travesty of justice.
In America, if a black man walks into a store and is refused service based on him being black, that is actually legal. As a private business, you are allowed to choose who can use your service. If we take that away from businesses, then we will be starting a snowball that I for one do not want to see crash at the bottom of the mountain.
Why do gay people feel the need to force others to “tolerate” or “accept” them? As a gay man myself, my goal is not tolerance or acceptance, it is simply to be seen not as a gay man, but as Chris, who has lived and worked and earned the respect I have, based not on my orientation, but on my actions, and by who I am, not what I am.
November 29th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
After many lawsuits and total disrespect to the gay population now eharmony wants to extended their circle to gays? Sorry but I would never be apart of eharmony. I will also urge others I know who use match making services to not affiliate themselves with eharmony.
I question the real reason behind why they decide to offer service to the GLBT community, could it be cause of the economic crisis of this country and eharmony is one of the businesses that could be suffering as well.
Eharmony has been allowed to discriminate openly against the GLBT community. We as a community need to stand up to them and just say no to Eharmony and their affiliates.
Does eharmony accept the GLBT community or is eharmony tolerating the GLBT community?
This community is well know for spending money when it comes to companies and businesses that support them. I think eharmony just wants a piece of the pie.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:25 am
any and all minority groups are considered protected class so they have the ability to form groups that provide a “safe haven” to thrive in. This prevents any body from a majority group such as white, male or straight people from requesting entry. But an issue rises in the fact that sexual orientation is not a protected class as yet, so in terms of your argument yes i suppose gay groups could be asked to allow straight membership.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Everytime I get an email from eHarmony I delete it as spam and will continue to do so.
December 6th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
As a gay businessman, I abhor the idea that the courts might require me to provide the same services to promote the success of a white supremicist as I provide for my kindrid spirits. And I hate the idea that one of my dollars might end up in the pocket of an anti-gay activist because I patronized a bigoted business forced into the closet for fear of litigation. Rather than condeming eHarmony for not providing me with their services, I honor the Warrens for their honesty about their beliefs. Even with eHarmony forced into submission, I have no intention to send my money their way.
December 7th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Loved your article. I personaly tried using their website, and was disgusted by the sexual-orintation discrimination they had. Then I herd about the lawsuite; I still won’t be using their website. I Did like what they had to offer, in how the match and pair couples; it seemed rather honest and reasonable. There’s plenty of other sites that cater to just GLBT, as well as sites that cater to both Heterosexual and Homosexual and so on. So no offense Eric, get over it and try using some other sites. Try your fight were it needs to be fought…like equal rights and marraige. Try match.com the cater to all kinds and so on.
As I read more on, it made me think…espiecally the last part. BeCause if a dating site doesn’t care to cater to people like us, then why should we cater to people like them…homophobes. Do get me wrong, I have plenty of straight friends. But thats just a slap in the face.! But when it all comes down to it…discrimination is discrimination.
December 7th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Spred The Word: PROTEST eHARMONY.!!!!! Discrimative Bast***.! My Ma says the sight was founded by some Evengelico Christian…Now that shouldn’t but a barrier on dating services.! That would be mixing religion and state (almost).!?
December 11th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
i think this kind of lawsuit is nonsense. We in the LGBTQ community need to pick our battles and not do things that have the potential to come back and bite us in the butt. So what if eharmony did not cater to our community. Before i came out i was using it to try and date men. It was a failure. When i came out it did not take me long to meet my partner. i think gay portals could be forced to open up to straights and that is NOT good. Sometimes i don’t think people use their brains before embarking on some agenda. If his feelings were hurt and he was unable to meet someone on a gay portal, i am sorry. But don’t f’ing ruin it for the LGBTQ community at large. That is pure selfishness imho.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
i want to many gay as i can coz i love you very much
August 19th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Most gay dating websites do offer ’straight’ status searches. Cause everyone’s gay once and a while.
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Eharmony caters to gays… I took the bait and decided to return to this site, just to see what’s up. At the bottom of their main page, you’ll find a series of links, that Eharmony caters to. I noticed one for Gay and Lesbian Dating. So, being the click happy, curious homo I am, I clicked the link… http://www.compatiblepartners.net/eHarmony/ If we’ve done the gauntlet of those gay dating sites, then perhaps, this one would be our final stop. Most of the popular gay online dating sites, are frequented by the same faces, you find locally. Some boast such things as their own version of a compatibility test but have fallen short. Sometimes, we’re lucky enough to meet someone and start a life together. For those who’ve been striking out (we do have our fair share of online dating sites) and from all the Eharmony ads we’ve witnessed, I’m sure some of us (not all) have wished for the opportunity to use this service, when all the others have failed. We deserve the right to be happy and find that right person. Now that we have the chance to use Eharmony’s Compatible Partner’s, I think for those of us who desire a compatible partner, should at least, give it a chance to see if Eharmony can match us with someone, who is.
July 11th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
really enjoyed reading your blog, think im gonna bookmark it defenitly worth reading
November 21st, 2011 at 5:58 pm
I do believe all of the ideas you have offered in your post. They’re really convincing and will certainly work. Still, the posts are too quick for novices. May just you please extend them a little from next time? Thanks for the post.
December 14th, 2011 at 6:07 am
i get this site anagin via big g! good artical,consider u!
January 16th, 2012 at 9:26 am
Such a great description! No idea how you came up with this article..it’d take me long hours. Well worth it though, I’d assume. Have you considered selling banners on your blog?
January 17th, 2012 at 11:40 am
This will be a terrific website, could you be interested in doing an interview about how you designed it? If so e-mail me!
February 23rd, 2012 at 9:33 am
Usually I don’t read article on blogs, however I would like to say that this write-up very pressured me to check out and do it! Your writing style has been surprised me. Thank you, very nice post.
Leave a Reply