eHarmony sued for Excluding Gays

[Tony-DarkGrave]

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.

eHarmony was founded in 2000 by evangelical Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren and had strong early ties with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family.

It has more than 12 million registered users, and heavy television advertising has made it one of the nation's biggest Internet dating sites.

The company said the allegations of discrimination against gays were false and reckless.

"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages," it said in a statement.

"Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted," eHarmony added.

According to the lawsuit, Carlson, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area, tried to use the site's dating services in February 2007. When she was denied access, she wrote to eHarmony saying that its anti-gay policy was discriminatory under California law but the company refused to change it.

"Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age," she said.

Carlson's lawyer Todd Schneider said the lawsuit was "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love."

Carlson's lawyers expect a significant number of gays and lesbians to join the class action, which seeks to force eHarmony to end its policy as well as unspecified damages for those denied eHarmony services based on their sexual orientation.

Source

[uhnoesanoob]

They are a private owned service for straight couples. Frankly they can do what they like,

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/1/07 03:36 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: They are a private owned service for straight couples. Frankly they can do what they like,

yes it is and thats true so the lawsuit would be useless

[Elfer]

Whatevs, it's not as though they're actively weeding out gay people, they just don't have the services offered yet. The lawsuit is trying to get them to offer an undeveloped service by changing a whole bunch of code.

It's not discrimination, it's just stupid.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/1/07 04:18 PM, Elfer wrote: Whatevs, it's not as though they're actively weeding out gay people, they just don't have the services offered yet. The lawsuit is trying to get them to offer an undeveloped service by changing a whole bunch of code.

It's not discrimination, it's just stupid.

uh no the guy who made eHarmony is a evangilical christian they dont supply services to the homosexual crowd

[riffraff120000]

So, a bunch of gay people can scream discrimination for not being tolerant of their ideas. But are they not in turn being intolerant to eHamony's ideas? Hmmm... seems a little hipocritical to me.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

your right it is hippocracy its a private service they have the right to decide how the serve consumers

[Altarus]

They have dating sites that cater to certain races, so why not sexual orientation?

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/1/07 04:36 PM, Altarus wrote: They have dating sites that cater to certain races, so why not sexual orientation?

because in californiaq gays think they own the state by the balls

[UWDarDar17]

At 6/1/07 04:29 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: your right it is hippocracy its a private service they have the right to decide how the serve consumers

While it's true that eHarmony is a private company and they have the right to serve customers in whichever way they please, as long as it conforms to the regulations of the law, that is not the issue in this case.

At issue is a matter of false advertising. Did eHarmony advertise that they can match anyone who signs up? Were homosexuals warned that the options they saught after were not available on this website? Did eHarmony sign them up and get their money and then say, "Oh, wait, you're gay- sorry; can't help you," and leave these people in the dust?

If so, then eHarmony basically stole these customers' money without performing their services. That's basically a violation of contract and robbery at its basest. If this is the case, then eHarmony should be sued. If these groups are suing because their choice was not available, then there's little the courts can do.

When I pay money for services, I expect that service to be done, and if it is not done to my satisfaction, I expect a refund and a prompt apology. Why should there be a difference between internet businesses and the plumber who fixes my pipes?

Again, if these people were refunded their money, they likely will not win this case. If they were simply booted, then they, justly, should be reimbursed.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

boo hoo its soo sad

[UWDarDar17]

Wait a minute...didn't you just post a topic not too long ago about how a gay bar banned straight people from patronizing the establishment? And you thought it was ridiculous that the gay bar did that?

Let me see if I understand this...eHarmony basically blocks gays from using their service, and you're okay with that. But a gay bar blocks straights from using their services, and you think it's bullshit?

You sir, are a hypocrite, pure and simple.

[fli]

At 6/1/07 03:36 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: They are a private owned service for straight couples. Frankly they can do what they like,

So is about every other business or club.
That doesn't mean they could exclude certain peoples... unless, it's a business or club cattered exclusively to certain members in society for specific reasons. (battered women's shelter = for women... etc.)

I think it's good that he's willing to put gays in options in the future.
Although, I don't know what kind of "research" he needs to find since... gays are pretty much looking for the same thing like the straight members of that site. (Just... only in the same gender.)

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/1/07 04:55 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote: Wait a minute...didn't you just post a topic not too long ago about how a gay bar banned straight people from patronizing the establishment? And you thought it was ridiculous that the gay bar did that?

Let me see if I understand this...eHarmony basically blocks gays from using their service, and you're okay with that. But a gay bar blocks straights from using their services, and you think it's bullshit?

You sir, are a hypocrite, pure and simple.

ahh but I ddid put in the thread that bar was a private business and they have the right to ask you to leave and I said I never had a problem with it.

also the boo hooo its so sad comment was sarcasm

[riffraff120000]

At 6/1/07 04:48 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote:

At 6/1/07 04:29 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: your right it is hippocracy its a private service they have the right to decide how the serve consumers

.

At issue is a matter of false advertising. Did eHarmony advertise that they can match anyone who signs up? Were homosexuals warned that the options they saught after were not available on this website? Did eHarmony sign them up and get their money and then say, "Oh, wait, you're gay- sorry; can't help you," and leave these people in the dust?

I agree with you fully there. If eHarmony did take their money. I hope they get sued,. Not only that, I hope they get shut down, because you can't do that to someone and expect to maintain a postivie outlook from the public. But if you think about it, they are a heavily Christian founded organization, so I don'tthink they would go around and steal the money. I

As for the question of flase advertising there is no where on the website about that it for heterosexuals only. They do have seperate sections ofr marrigae and jsut for singles. So I don't see anywhere on the site, other then the marrige part, that would state that the site is for heterosexuals only.

[UWDarDar17]

At 6/1/07 05:01 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: ahh but I ddid put in the thread that bar was a private business and they have the right to ask you to leave and I said I never had a problem with it.

also the boo hooo its so sad comment was sarcasm

I quote from your other thread,

i think its stupid there trying to hide all the dykes and buttsecks

It sounds like you have at least some problem with the gay bar banning straights.

Also keep in mind that sarcasm doesn't translate into the written word so well, since it ususally works through inflection of the voice. But I apologize for misreading your comments.

Could you at least enlighten us with your true, unadulterated views on the subjects, and back it up with reason?

[fli]

At 6/1/07 04:55 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote: Wait a minute...didn't you just post a topic not too long ago about how a gay bar banned straight people from patronizing the establishment? And you thought it was ridiculous that the gay bar did that?

What are you talking about?
Gay bars LOVE straight people. I mean, besides the main queer categories... there's that large group of giggly straight women and curious men.

And it's not like you can look at a person and determine if he or she is gay right away (not fore every case, at least.) The bouncer or the owner isn't going to be at the door and look at you and say, "You aint gay." And then kick you out.

More than likely, the straight people whom patronized at that bar came there to cause trouble and they got kicked out.

But then again, where the heck is the news article?

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/1/07 05:06 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote:

At 6/1/07 05:01 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

I quote from your other thread,

i think its stupid there trying to hide all the dykes and buttsecks

It sounds like you have at least some problem with the gay bar banning straights.

ahh thats just me with my shitty sense of humor like the jokes of Wade being gay. I really am working on my bathroom/dirty/adult or whatever you would class it in a catagory of humor

Also keep in mind that sarcasm doesn't translate into the written word so well, since it ususally works through inflection of the voice. But I apologize for misreading your comments.

thats ok I have a hard time reading E-sarcasm to

[UWDarDar17]

At 6/1/07 05:08 PM, fli wrote: But then again, where the heck is the news article?

Thread is here: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=71 0485

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/1/07 05:12 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote:

At 6/1/07 05:08 PM, fli wrote: But then again, where the heck is the news article?

Thread is here: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=71 0485

yup

[Tancrisism]

At 6/1/07 04:40 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/1/07 04:36 PM, Altarus wrote: They have dating sites that cater to certain races, so why not sexual orientation?

because in californiaq gays think they own the state by the balls

Fuck, your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. In California, gays feel (oddly enough, eh?) like they are equal to straights. So piss the fuck off.

And just as the douchebag website has a right to bar gays, the gays have a right to sue.

[Memorize]

Private business. Therefore, they can ban who they wish if it goes against what they "stand for". No one is forcing gays to choose eHarmony.

Sounds more like they're suing for attention.

Kind of like the 1 atheist who went to a WWI burial, saw a cross, then bitched.

[SirLebowski]

At 6/1/07 04:18 PM, Elfer wrote: Whatevs, it's not as though they're actively weeding out gay people, they just don't have the services offered yet. The lawsuit is trying to get them to offer an undeveloped service by changing a whole bunch of code.

It's not discrimination, it's just stupid.

Well first of all, it's not an undeveloped service. The whole "we haven't researched it yet" thing is bullshit, it's a dating site. That being said, it's a privately owned site and their are plenty of other dating services that offer the option of same-sex matchmaking. This is a pointless lawsuit.

[fli]

At 6/2/07 02:14 AM, SirLebowski wrote: Well first of all, it's not an undeveloped service. The whole "we haven't researched it yet" thing is bullshit, it's a dating site. That being said, it's a privately owned site and their are plenty of other dating services that offer the option of same-sex matchmaking. This is a pointless lawsuit.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they're still "researching" on it.
But I have to disagree. Even if a private business is "private"-- it should not descriminate people.

Now, if this was a website that caters exclusively to evangelical straight couples and if it advertised it as much-- there wouldn't be a problem. It's a dating website. I mean, if I went to cruise for gay men at gaycruiser dot com... I'm pretty much going to expect only gay men. Doesn't mean it's descrimination. It wouldn't be descrimination if I couldn't become a member of Curves because it specifically opened business where women could work out comfortably. Because it advertises it as being a club by women for women.

But since this website doesn't specify that it caters only to Christian domination opposite sex couples-- it's fair to say that it's rather expactant of them to include gays in the process since every other dating chat/site/ads include M looking for M, or a F looking for F section.

It has to adhere to the law, and it says we can't conduct business that uses the descrimination of gender, color, religion, etc...

[HighlyIllogical]

At 6/2/07 04:28 AM, fli wrote:

Even if a private business is "private"-- it should not descriminate people.

It still can, though. Not on certain aspects (such as race, religion, etc. as defined in title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act), though...Maybe sexual orientation is applicable these days. It certainly should be included on the list of things you can't discriminate based on.

[Elfer]

At 6/1/07 04:59 PM, fli wrote: Although, I don't know what kind of "research" he needs to find since... gays are pretty much looking for the same thing like the straight members of that site. (Just... only in the same gender.)

So you claim, but maybe it's not the case in reality. Kind of like how people say they're looking for something in a relationship but actually they want something else and maybe don't even know it?

[uhnoesanoob]

Well, if gay bars can keep out straights, then why can't eharmony keep out gays? Just saying....

[LaurenAwesome]

At 6/1/07 04:24 PM, riffraff120000 wrote: So, a bunch of gay people can scream discrimination for not being tolerant of their ideas. But are they not in turn being intolerant to eHamony's ideas? Hmmm... seems a little hipocritical to me.

YOU! The only reason homosexuals and bisexuals sue for stuff like that is because it's done all the time. Gays and bisexuals excluded from tons of things just b/c they do a different sexual act behind a closed door, and because they just love differently. And in this case, the company is refusing them because of orientation, not because they don't provide it. So they ARE discriminating. That's against the law in the US.

And you asked if homosexuals are being intolerant? Times are a-changin! People aren't tolerant of gays and bis because they're different. That would be like them denying someone who was black, or Muslim, or Asian. People just need to learn to accept everyone. Straight people would be pissed if they were denied for something because they were straight. So it's the same thing..... O.o

You just either have a narrow mind and can't look from both sides of the argument or you yourself are just intolerant and don't care for anyone who is different......but that's my opinion from what you said.....

[Altarus]

At 6/2/07 10:54 AM, LaurenAwesome wrote: Straight people would be pissed if they were denied for something because they were straight. So it's the same thing..... O.o

Umm.. there are lots of dating sites that only let gays participate.

BTW, this issue has nothing to do with Constitutional rights or federal law; it's only based on a silly California law written to pander to gays

[Nylo]

They don't have an obligation to render services to everyone; that's called capitalism. They're not a publicly funded company, which means your tax dollars don't go into running it.
eHarmony doesn't "owe" anyone anything, other than the customers it's already taken in.

It's hypocracy. I hope they get counter-sued for wasting the courts' and the business' time.