A Sea Of Red

I couldn't make this stuff up.

eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays

By Jill Serjeant Thu May 31, 7:10 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a "men seeking men" or "women seeking women" option.

They were seeking to make it a class action lawsuit on behalf of gays and lesbians excluded from the dating service.

Click Here for Full Story

The crazy things is that in Cali's messed up judicial system the plaintiffs will probably win.

My question is why would they exclude gays?
Wouldn't that make them more money by having more clients in more markets?

If I am not mistaken, eHarmony is run by a Christian.

fumbles is absolutely correct. If you read the article it explains the scenario rather nicely.

ATrain wrote:Wouldn't that make them more money by having more clients in more markets?

Thankfully for some people, life is not always about money. I've heard enough success stories from eHarmony.com to make me think they really have something going for them.

why would they be required to include gays? isn't it a private company and allowed to do whatever it wants?

If you are operating for profit, you come under business operation statutes. And int he State of California, gays are considered a minority that can't be discriminated against. On the Whacko West Coast, unfortunately they might have some legal traction.

wow, i didn't know that. this country is ridiculous. ok, i'm gonna end it here before i go on a rant

This is totally off topic...but I really wonder how the evolutionists and the "its not a choice, we are born that they" crowd explain the obvious dilemma...

...if they are "born that way," then "it" would be embedded in their genetic code...they do not reproduce (unless artificial insemination of the lesbian couple)...so "natural selection" should have dictated that those with the "Genetic predisposition to be homosexual" have died out by now...right?

Just one of those things that make me go, hmmmmm.

So if Eharmony moved to the state of Va, they would be safe from that lawsuit?

Fumblerooskies wrote:This is totally off topic...but I really wonder how the evolutionists and the "its not a choice, we are born that they" crowd explain the obvious dilemma...

...if they are "born that way," then "it" would be embedded in their genetic code...they do not reproduce (unless artificial insemination of the lesbian couple)...so "natural selection" should have dictated that those with the "Genetic predisposition to be homosexual" have died out by now...right?

Just one of those things that make me go, hmmmmm.

Unless its a recessive trait, in which case then it can never be wiped out completely...plus, there is always sperm donation and the ocassional big tight ends who go both ways

its "Dogpile on da wabbit" now.

seeing repeated commercials looping now for something called Chemistry.com (or something similar) who's whole ad strategy appears to be based on mocking Eharmony for turning away "millions of people" and "we don't know why", "come as you are"

maybe "Scumbags and molesters wanted" didn't have a nice ring to it so they opted for a different approach.

4everfsu wrote:So if Eharmony moved to the state of Va, they would be safe from that lawsuit?

I think if eharmony lost this suit, they wouldn't be allowed to do their business in california. I guess the physical company would have to be located outside of it, and I'm guessing they couldn't take money from anybody in Cali. If I were single at my age (not that I'm old, just out of college), I would have definatly signed up for this by the way. I know one married couple that met through these guys and apparently there are a ton.

LUconn wrote:

4everfsu wrote:So if Eharmony moved to the state of Va, they would be safe from that lawsuit?

I think if eharmony lost this suit, they wouldn't be allowed to do their business in california. I guess the physical company would have to be located outside of it, and I'm guessing they couldn't take money from anybody in Cali. If I were single at my age (not that I'm old, just out of college), I would have definatly signed up for this by the way. I know one married couple that met through these guys and apparently there are a ton.

I think they should use the argument that they are looking to help people marry. Since marriage for gays is is not yet legal, it wouldn't be realistic to offer them the service.

I met my wife on e-harmony.com and My Liberty roomate from "Back in the day" followed suit. I was at his wedding last saturday!

http://web.mac.com/thbc/iWeb/The%20Mayo ... 20Met.html

alabama24 wrote:I met my wife on e-harmony.com and My Liberty roomate from "Back in the day" followed suit. I was at his wedding last saturday!

http://web.mac.com/thbc/iWeb/The%20Mayo ... 20Met.html

Hey I think I know you. You look just like a guy who used to live next door to me at Liberty. My myspace page in www.myspace.com/libertybum

I've got a goofy picture of some freaky looking guy as my main picture, but if you click the "pics" tab, you can see some college pictures of me. You have the same last name initial as the guy I knew, but I won't say your last name on the message board in case you don't want people to know you!

I've been VERY hesitant to do the whole "online" dating thing. My sister got married this past fall after doing it, but I just can't get past the whole "stigma" of it. For some reason it screams "desperate" to me (please don't take that the wrong way, I don't feel that way about other people...just myself). I know some really cool marriages in my church have happened because of it, so I don't know why I can't get over that. It looks like it worked out REALLY well for you!

i see less desperate, and more easy. Seriously, a computer does most of the work for you and you will probably wind up picking somebody you like. Sounds like the way to go to me.

LUconn wrote:i see less desperate, and more easy. Seriously, a computer does most of the work for you and you will probably wind up picking somebody you like. Sounds like the way to go to me.

Yeah, I've started to come around to it the past year. My sister married one of the coolest guys I have ever met from an online dating site (although he is a male model/actor, works out like a freak, and dresses like a total metrosexual). I don't know why I felt that stigma to begin with, but you really can't lose (except for the $20 a month or so they charge you) as it takes all the work out of getting the small details from people. Unfortunately I was messing around on relationships.com and got myself banned. I was not a paying member and kept putting clues to my myspace page in my descriptions. I think I have been banned for life now. It pretty much won't let me past the first page, even though I have tried to start accounts under different email addresses. I thought relationships.com was one of the cooler dating websites, I just wouldn't plop down the $10-20 a month memebership fee (can't remember how much is was) when I could get contacts for free. I probably would now, but it is too late and I haven't found another site I like. All the sites I have found recently have some VERY hard to look at women on them.

I've tried eharmony. I'm afraid, at this point in my life, I'm just way to superficial for it too work. I had tons have matches and all seemed like decent Christians. Problem was, 9 times out of 10 either they didn't put a picture on the site, or they weren't attractive--in the least. And I did put my picture on the site, so I expect them to do the same. I think I could have had numerous dates, but as it was, only one met my standards.

kel varson wrote:I've tried eharmony. I'm afraid, at this point in my life, I'm just way to superficial for it too work. I had tons have matches and all seemed like decent Christians. Problem was, 9 times out of 10 either they didn't put a picture on the site, or they weren't attractive--in the least. And I did put my picture on the site, so I expect them to do the same. I think I could have had numerous dates, but as it was, only one met my standards.

Hey man, physical attraction is important and don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise. We beat ourselves up as Christians sometimes for thinking we're being superficial, but attraction in a relationship is a big key. Sure that attraction will be infinitely stronger once you've emotionally bonded with the person, but I just don't believe physical attraction can be discounted as being superficial.

Short version: Don't beat yourself up over it.

I assumed they required pictures. They should. That's kinda stupid. I guess you can just assume they're ugly if they don't post them.

LUconn wrote:I assumed they required pictures. They should. That's kinda stupid. I guess you can just assume they're ugly if they don't post them.

Yeah, I ALWAYS post my picture and never even look at a profile that doesn't post their own. I'm pretty superficial as well. If they don't have a head and body shot, I usually don't give them a look. I'm 6'3" and weigh 170. I don't want to find a women who would make us look like Abbott and Costello as a couple. I get criticized a lot for being so picky, but I just can't get over it.

El Scorcho wrote:

kel varson wrote:I've tried eharmony. I'm afraid, at this point in my life, I'm just way to superficial for it too work. I had tons have matches and all seemed like decent Christians. Problem was, 9 times out of 10 either they didn't put a picture on the site, or they weren't attractive--in the least. And I did put my picture on the site, so I expect them to do the same. I think I could have had numerous dates, but as it was, only one met my standards.

Hey man, physical attraction is important and don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise. We beat ourselves up as Christians sometimes for thinking we're being superficial, but attraction in a relationship is a big key. Sure that attraction will be infinitely stronger once you've emotionally bonded with the person, but I just don't believe physical attraction can be discounted as being superficial.

Short version: Don't beat yourself up over it.

Seinfeld said 5 percent of the population is dateable. He said the reason so many couples get together is "alcohol."

That makes it awfully difficult for someone who is sober.