Posted on 11/30/2008 11:28:57 PM PST by Oyarsa
My syndicated column today expands on yesterday’s eHarmony post (link). As I note, eHarmony will be forking over $5,000 to the gay plaintiff and $50,000 to New Jersey’s Civil Rights office. Here’s the entire settlement the company agreed to, via onlinedatingmagazine. There’s more on the class-action lawsuit against eHarmony proceeding in California here. And Jacob Sullum weighs in.
*** The eHarmony shakedown by Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate Copyright 2008
Congratulations, tolerance mau-mauers: Your shakedown of a Christian-targeted dating website worked. Homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable “right” to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony. What a landmark triumph for social progress, eh? New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks — heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide.”Men seeking men” has now been enshrined with “I have a dream” as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
How about closing e-Harmony in states where happy “marriages” are legal??
The gay issue with eHarmony is a bit of a red herring. The problem with the company was as I understood it, you plunked down your $50 and took a 45 minute psychographic test. You were told congratulations and now let’s find the person of your dreams. It was only at that point did gays, lesbians and everyone else not looking for a single person of the opposite sex find out that the site would not accomodate them. Then they were told they could not have their money back. I am sure that if this happened regarding the purchase of a hammer at Home Depot by any one of us, that we’d be a little P.O. ed too. Fair is fair. The site should have had a reasonable disclaimer up front and a repatriation of cash for those whom the site ended up not suitable for.
They should have pulled out of NJ instead and tried to let the consumer backlash get them statutory protection.
I absolutely refuse to recommend them now to anyone.
I imagine its hard for a man to comfortably wear a silk thong.
Question 132: Do you like hurting small, fury animals?
A) Yes
B) No
C) Sometimes
It was only at that point did gays, lesbians and everyone else not looking for a single person of the opposite sex find out that the site would not accomodate them. Then they were told they could not have their money back.
Huh. Didn't hear that part of it.
If true, eHarmony was setting itself up to get screwed.
The site should have had a reasonable disclaimer up front and a repatriation of cash for those whom the site ended up not suitable for.
Agreed.
There is no free speech or freedom any longer. When your business can be forced to pay money to the government and to individuals for 100% legal actions, this is no longer a free country.
Interesting how it works only one way. White, normal Christians and Jews are always wrong.
Absolutely.
I’d shutter the site and reopen as something else and tell NJ and Mr/Ms Mckinney to take a hike.
The eHarmony fought this for like 3 years then caves with this ridiculous “settlemnent”.
[What don’t we know here???]
Shut down or do not take business from NJ.
The site should have had a reasonable disclaimer up front and a repatriation of cash for those whom the site ended up not suitable for.
If that is true then I would agree. The response is not, however, to now cater to homosexuals but to refund moneies and add said disclaimer.
e-harmoney should have just said they are not qualified to sort through the various psycological features of a gay relationship. There are many gays out there that are abusive, what happens if one gets matched to someone and they are beaten? If they attempt to sue e-harmoney, they should now say they were forced to do something by the courts.
Actually in the not so far future it will probably be:
Adult seeking child.
After all sexual preference is from birth.
Disgusting.
Ah, but therein lies the conundrum. They are miserable because you do not accept them. Yup. That's what I heard in an interview a few weeks ago. Homosexuals are depressed and unhappy individuals because straight people don't accept them and their lifestyle. "We" are the reason for their depression and we are the reason for their large suicide rate.
“I’d love to go after the gay dating sites if I was single”
Don’t let that stop you. Do you think they can claim not to serve married people? That would be discrimination!
EHarmony should just make their computer program match all the gay guys with lesbians.
There’s nothing that says EHarmony has to be able to provide a useful service. EHarmony should have the right to make their computer match program do whatever they think is right.
If the customers don’t like the service, they can get their money back.
This is like me suing IHOP because I think they should use raspberry instead of blueberry in their pancakes.
I have a sneaking hunch the gay service won’t work so well for gays. As I understand eHarmony, it gives personality tests designed to measure morality and character. It is designed to serve those who have enough character that they at least have a fighting chance at a good marriage.
One thing I did notice about the settlement is that, apparently, eHarmony can use the same software for the gay site, with a disclaimer that the questionnaires have been tested on heterosexuals, and results cannot be guaranteed for homosexuals, or words to that effect.
Something tells me a lot of the homosexuals will be weeded out by the software on morals/character grounds.
When a culture condones or a government promotes homosexuality as a normal alternative to marriage, that culture, that government, is less than sane, and all are endangered by the outcome.
Another point some of the posters are missing is that eHarmony will not be offering the gay service. It will be another service, specifically for homosexuals, and with a different name, but using the same software.
I absolutely agree with you. The government should not be giving its imprimatur — whether you call it “civil unions” or anything else — to deviant sexual activity.
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.