NEWS: Lesbian Sues eHarmony for eHomophobia

POLITICS: Lesbian Sues eHarmony for eHomophobia

Everyone meets their boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other/orgy partner/drummer on the Internet. It’s ubiquitous. Hell, I met my special ladyfriend on this very Web site. And let’s be honest, if ‘Brosa’s doing it, that means it’s officially hip. Or something.

And what’s the nation's most visible online dating service? Why it’s uber-Christian powersite eHarmony.com! I mean, who doesn’t love their oh-so-descriptive commercials?

Yes, my friends! Get matched based on who you really are. And who you really are is totally NOT an eLesbian. Trust eUs. We know because eHarmony does not allow customers to use its service if they do not meet certain pre-existing eCriteria. If you don’t, you’re eShit out of eLuck.

Apparently, some uppity Bay Area homosexuals aren’t feeling the eLove.

God, why do the gays always have to ruin everyone else’s fun? Just because a bunch of good, straight, Christian folks want to get together in a pure, untainted space on the intertubes and talk amongst themselves about not having sex until Jesus says they can doesn’t mean that anything wrong has happened, right? It’s not like there’s any law against discriminating against the queers, is there?

Oh. Well then. Curse California for going the extra mile to attempt to ensure that their citizens are treated fairly!

Anyway, eHarmony’s not having any of this ghey “Unruh” stuff and is relying in part upon the power of limited resources to safeguard them against possible liability.

Yeah, we’ll see the man-on-man eHarmony commercials when eMonkeys fly out of my eKiester. Besides, the fact that eHarmony may at some point add same-sex matching in no way excludes them from Unruh requirements. That argument is the rough equivalent of a whites-only lunch counter asserting that because it’s theoretically possible for them to serve blacks, they shouldn’t have to comply with the Civil Rights Act. It's not a winner.

We shall see where this suit leads, but eHarmony could be eFucked.

Subrosa’s father met his current fiancé on eHarmony. True fact.

So...what I don't get is why she didn't just go try out another website.
DId she really have to take it this far?

Theres a bunch of websites out there she could have went to, to meet new people.

You call it going the extra mile...I call it going a little too far.

Come on, now...you're comparing an internet dating site's omission of m4m & w4w to Jim Crow laws?!

Hasn't eHarmony already been called out for categorizing atheists as "undatable"?

No. What you quoted was Subrosa's response to this:

I'm really not sure how anyone could call that law "going too far." It seems reasonable to me. You can't refuse to serve someone because they're gay, or black, or Muslim, or in a wheelchair.

Homosexuals can do the exact same thing as anyone else on eHarmony. They're not being barred from using it. They're simply not being offered the particular service they want. I think yr analogy is misleading, Brosa; it's more like saying SuicideGirls discriminates against gay men because it doesn't publish pictures of guys.

No. What I was referencing was Subrosa's comment made here:

Shut. Up.

i see this attitude a lot, but i dont understand it.

And that's an argument that eHarmony is sure to make and is a stronger position than the one quoted in the article. When I made that analogy, I was referring to the line of reasoning of that particular argument.

No, no. Seriously. He'd run out of chicks to get engaged to on BigChurch.com, so he went mainstream.

Odd that you quoted something totally different then.

And what he says is 100% correct. The argument that eHarmony is making: that they "could provide the service" is total bullshit.

Have we met the lucky lady yet? Is she truly eHarmonious?

I don't know about the christian thing...I took part in the great social experiment for a couple of months and got laid by an equal opportunity athiest.

Where Subrosa said:

My response was:

I also saw that he wrote:

Though I did not directly quote that portion in my response...I did reply with:

I fail to see what's "odd" here.

She's eHappy to be marrying my Dad, so that's a plus. And yeah, I met her once before he told me (via response to an evite I'd sent him) that they were engaged. My dad's an... interesting guy.

I think they're getting married in an evangelical megachurch. I'm stoked.

Nope. Stick to SG for helping your find 'The One'

What a lot of people are forgetting is that there are a lot of websites out there that cater specifically to the homosxual community. I am al for equality, but it pisses me off when people kick up a stink because sites like eHarmony don't offer a service to homosexuals yet sites like Gaydar are perfectly at liberty to say "Tough shit, you're straight!" See if I had been Linda Carlson, rather than run to my lawyer like a petulant child screaming "Mommy, mommy, they won't let me play" I would have realised this presents a valid and obviously in demand business idea. Of course, expecting a little initiative from someone in a minority group as opposed to expecting them to use it as yet another opportunity for them to whine and complain about how hard life is because they're different is like waiting for Bush to grow a brain cell. And for the record, I am bi, before you all go "Oooooh you homophobic asshole!"

Really? Are you an atheist too? Did you have to pretend to be a Godly man to get on the site?

Also, how was the sex? Was it "better than everything you've ever dreamed of"? Was it eMindblowing?

Consider my interest piqued.

Well, I wasn't going to call you a homophobe or an asshole, but then you posted this:

And I'll just settle on "asshole". Seriously? No one in "minority group(s)" have any initiative?

It must just be so hard to be living as a white man in Americ... er, Britain. All the lazy minority groups whining about shit all the time.

I think the idea behind that thought is that you don't go to KFC for a Big Mac.

But yeah, there's totally a difference between going to KFC but not getting a Big Mac because they don't offer that service and going to McDonald's but not getting Big Mac because they don't offer that service if you're too gay.

What's the point of coming to the CE board if yr just going to concede the point?

Um... eHarmony is an optional experience. How exactly do they plan on winning this lawsuit? If people were being forced to join, or it was the only option for online dating or something, sure, I could see it being an issue. As is, you can choose not to enroll. Personally, I think eHarmony needs to tone down their Christian themes, but that's their schtick. It's also a site that's about MATCHING FOR LIFE, i.e. MARRIAGE, so if you're not a person who's into that scene, you won't get much out of it. Does that mean we swingers and non-traditional gender role types should sue as well? No, it means you need to find a different dating site that better matches your "type."

Besides, if it's about "scientifically matching" people, they should start their own--ch-CHING!

This was my initial thought too.

I was turned away from a gay website because I am bi.
It was very much 'it's good that you like girls, but boys too? Freak. I don't think so'.