Posted on 03/27/2006 9:45:07 AM PST by iPod Shuffle
Posted on Mon, Mar. 27, 2006
Married man is suing for date
EHARMONY REFUSES HIM UNTIL DIVORCE
Mercury News
John Claassen wants a date so badly he's suing for one.
He's taking eHarmony.com to court, because the popular online matchmaker refused to find him the perfect mate.
Why? Because he is married.
Technically, Claassen says, he is legally separated. But that's not good enough for eHarmony, which says it is in the business of matching singles ``free of relationship commitments.'' That puts him in cyber-dating limbo.
``Most people don't file a suit to get a date,'' Claassen said Friday after filing a civil rights suit last week in Alameda County Superior Court. ``If I had my druthers, I'd be divorced by now. I'm emotionally in a different state than I am legally,'' the 36-year-old Emeryville lawyer said.
Claassen alleges eHarmony is discriminating against him on the basis of his marital status. He and his wife of eight years separated last May, and he expects the divorce to be final within two months. When he reached marital status on eHarmony's online compatibility profile, he responded truthfully: ``legally separated.''
But eHarmony says its policy is clear: No marrieds need apply.
Citing California civil code, section 51, Claassen alleges eHarmony, based in Pasadena, is breaking state law because it is denying him access to its matching service based on marital status. He seeks $12,000 in civil penalties.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
How does a public accomodation law apply to a private business that merely told him to wait 2 more months?
Just keep your hands to yourself.
Actually, that could be modified into a very fun tagline...
Do you mean "bare hands"?
Here we all are. One happy disfunctional family. :)
Look at us go.
Well, we do function on a certain level...
Well ok, if I live the US, the Dems would prob take my hands from me!!
It could?
A very bizarre level, sometimes.
I suppose.. under certain circumstances...
Exactly.
But bizarre can be sooo much fun (sometimes).
What Part of No
by Lorrie Morgan
Sir if you don't mind I'd rather be alone
From the moment I walked in tonight
You've been coming on
If I've told you once I've told you twice
I'm just here to unwind
I'm not interested in romance or
What you have in mind
What part of no don't you understand
To put it plain and simple
I'm not into one night stands
I'll be glad to explain it
If it's too hard to comprehend
So tell me what part of no
Don't you understand
I appreciate the drink and the
Rose was nice of you
I don't mean to be so mean
But I don't think I'm getting through
No I don't need no company
No I don't wanna dance
So what part of no don't you understand
What part of no don't you understand
To put it plain and simple
I'm not into one night stands
I'll be glad to explain it
If it's too hard to comprehend
So tell me what part of no
Don't you understand
Hell's bells - what an idiot.
Oh wait, he's a lawyer. Nevermind.
Please don't get into an argument with me - I don't agree with the law. That's just what the law is.
Same way it applies to a private business telling a black guy they can't sit at a lunch counter, duh.
"I'm not into one night stands"
Neither am I.
No, I'm not arguing either. Just wondering. Is that local law, or a federally protected status? I've read articles about landlords refusing to rent to non-married couples and (with my faulty memory) I seem to remember that in some locales they have to rent regardless, but not in all.
Hi Max!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.