Dating Service

[Cole Parker]

From today's (11/21/08) LA Times:

LOS ANGELES

Gays' eHarmony suit a class action

People seeking same-sex relationships on eHarmony can sue as a class action case against the online matchmaking website, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday.

Judge Victoria Chaney granted class certification for the lawsuit filed on behalf of gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the state who were unable to seek same-sex matches on eHarmony.

The online dating service, based in Pasadena, calls itself the "#1 Trusted Relationship Site" and boasts that it has kindled romance for "millions of people of all ages, ethnicities, national origins and religious and political beliefs." However, eHarmony serves only users looking for heterosexual partners. When signing up for a match, users must choose whether they are a "Man seeking a woman" or a "Woman seeking a man."

"eHarmony is not providing a service to people who are seeking a same-sex match, and that is really a violation of California law," said Joshua Konecky, an attorney representing the plaintiffs.

A trial is set for October 2009 to determine whether eHarmony is in violation of state law, Konecky said.

[Drewbie]

From today's (11/21/08) LA Times:

LOS ANGELES

Gays' eHarmony suit a class action

People seeking same-sex relationships on eHarmony can sue as a class action case against the online matchmaking website, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday.

Judge Victoria Chaney granted class certification for the lawsuit filed on behalf of gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the state who were unable to seek same-sex matches on eHarmony.

The online dating service, based in Pasadena, calls itself the "#1 Trusted Relationship Site" and boasts that it has kindled romance for "millions of people of all ages, ethnicities, national origins and religious and political beliefs." However, eHarmony serves only users looking for heterosexual partners. When signing up for a match, users must choose whether they are a "Man seeking a woman" or a "Woman seeking a man."

"eHarmony is not providing a service to people who are seeking a same-sex match, and that is really a violation of California law," said Joshua Konecky, an attorney representing the plaintiffs.

A trial is set for October 2009 to determine whether eHarmony is in violation of state law, Konecky said.

Is it mostly a Christan dating site?

Rather of trying to sue them go to a gay friendly site.

[Tanuki Racoon]

Is it mostly a Christan dating site?

Rather of trying to sue them go to a gay friendly site.

No, it's multi-religion. The the owner is very religious, yes, but he doesn't care what religion you are (or none).

However, I would support eHarmony. They do not advertise themselves in any way except a M<-->F dating site. It's their target market. I hope the suit fails. Sorry but it's just stupid. Get over it And do as Drewbie says: find a site that wants you.

Not sure WHY eHarmony cares? The matches are all the same except checking the gender of the partner. It should be easy to do.

[Graeme]

I can't see that this court case is going to succeed. Why should a private business have to cater for everyone? Aren't they allowed to cater for a niche market? Australia has a female only gym chain. The idea is that women would be more comfortable in a gym where they aren't be intimidated by over-competitive males. If this court case succeeds, that sort of place would be illegal in California on the basis that it doesn't cater for males.

I hope this case fails. Private businesses should not be forced to cater for markets that they don't want to address. There are exceptions (eg. hospitals and pharmacies where a person's health is at stake), but as a general rule, business should be allowed to choose their customers, just like customers can choose the business they want to use.

[Trab]

I can see both sides. The fact is that there are other options, and people should just go there. If an organization is such that there may not be options, such as Boy Scouts, then it is a different matter. Let's just hope nobody starts some kind of affirmative action shit that would force gay forums to have 90% heterosexual content, as the percentage of gays is estimated at 10%. (Said to point out how stupid some seemingly logical actions can be, not to start a fight.)

[Cole Parker]

As I'm not planning to use a dating service anytime soon, I don't really have a stake in the issue. However, saying businesses shouldn't have to cater to any client?le they want to exclude is very much the reason our civil rights legislation was enacted.

Restaurants and hotels, businesses set up to service the public's needs, were excluding blacks. It isn't only emergency businesses that have to accept everyone now, it's anyone dealing with the public. Rooming houses, car dealerships, bath houses, gyms, beauty salons, schools, ice skating rinks--they all have to allow blacks and other minorities to have the same quality of life as everyone else. Which means, in practical terms, equal accommodation.

Instead of asking why eHarmony should have gay access, isn't it better to ask why not? It is good for them as it gives them more business, and it's good for the gay community as it makes finding a partner easier. Sure, there are others in the same business, but there are other restaurants, too. In small towns fifty years ago, often there were only a couple of restaurants, and if they excluded blacks, how was this fair? It was opening these public places to blacks that helped make the profound change in racial acceptance we'd enjoyed.

I want fairness and equality. And I don't see how forcing eHarmony to add rosters of men seeking men and women seeking women is much of a change at all for them.

Cole

[Trab]

Good point, Cole. Maybe it should be looked at with my previously mentioned substitution system. How would it go if they were only allowing white men with black women, or Asians with blacks. There would be riots on the streets.

[Graeme]

As I'm not planning to use a dating service anytime soon, I don't really have a stake in the issue. However, saying businesses shouldn't have to cater to any client?le they want to exclude is very much the reason our civil rights legislation was enacted.

Restaurants and hotels, businesses set up to service the public's needs, were excluding blacks. It isn't only emergency businesses that have to accept everyone now, it's anyone dealing with the public. Rooming houses, car dealerships, bath houses, gyms, beauty salons, schools, ice skating rinks--they all have to allow blacks and other minorities to have the same quality of life as everyone else. Which means, in practical terms, equal accommodation.

The difference is whether they are offering the same service to some and not to others. That's discrimination. Not offering a service at all is not discrimination.

Is the service they are offering is finding someone of the opposite sex, or finding a partner (regardless of gender)? Is it discrimination that they don't offer finding someone of the same sex? I'll concede it's arguable, but I personally don't think it's discrimination.

Instead of asking why eHarmony should have gay access, isn't it better to ask why not? It is good for them as it gives them more business, and it's good for the gay community as it makes finding a partner easier. Sure, there are others in the same business, but there are other restaurants, too. In small towns fifty years ago, often there were only a couple of restaurants, and if they excluded blacks, how was this fair? It was opening these public places to blacks that helped make the profound change in racial acceptance we'd enjoyed.

I want fairness and equality. And I don't see how forcing eHarmony to add rosters of men seeking men and women seeking women is much of a change at all for them.

Cole

Without knowing more detail of their business, I can't say for sure, but if the market for same-sex couples if only 10% and the costs are the same as for heterosexual couples, then that means the profit (revenue - cost) to the business is a lot higher and hence is not as worthwhile for them to do. I'm not saying that's the case, but pointing out that it may be a part of the market that doesn't bring in enough income for them to consider worthwhile doing.

[colinian]

Without knowing more detail of their business, I can't say for sure, but if the market for same-sex couples if only 10% and the costs are the same as for heterosexual couples, then that means the profit (revenue - cost) to the business is a lot higher and hence is not as worthwhile for them to do. I'm not saying that's the case, but pointing out that it may be a part of the market that doesn't bring in enough income for them to consider worthwhile doing.

I'd think that their cost would be the same after the one-time cost of modifying their software to accommodate same-sex clients. There are other online dating services that accept same-sex clients. eHarmony is locking themselves out of an additional 10% of the market.

Colin

[Tanuki Racoon]

I'd think that their cost would be the same after the one-time cost of modifying their software to accommodate same-sex clients. There are other online dating services that accept same-sex clients. eHarmony is locking themselves out of an additional 10% of the market.

If they want to be stupid, it is their choice.

[Richard Norway]

eHarmony is locking themselves out of an additional 10% of the market.

Colin

David and I laugh at their commercials when they show an African America and a Caucasian couple getting together to show how inclusive they are.

[DesDownunder]

WARNING: Satirical cynical comments:

Obviously, a gay boycott of eHarmony is not going to have much of an effect.

The thin edge of the wedge is that sooner or later, someone is going to make it compulsory to have equal relationships in our private lives. So that means if you had a boyfriend last relationship, then you must have a girl friend for your next one.

Of course this implies that if you are in an open relationship, then you should have an equal number of partners of both sexes, not to mention the appropriate equal mix of ethnicity.

Factual stories:

When affirmative action first came on the scene, a female actor sued a theatre company because she was more experienced than the male actor who got the lead male role in a play. The director cancelled the production rather than be placed in a position of opposite gender role playing.

When I tried to form a local all male theatre company, I was told it would breech the equal opportunity laws. When I asked about forming a gay male theatre company, I was told I could probably receive a grant to set it up.

I think I wouldn't worry about eHarmony, because they will succumb to market pressure or to some bright spark who sees the opportunity to set up a dating service for anyone.

After-all a vegetarian restaurant doesn't serve meat, which really means that non-vegetarian customers are not being catered for.

I hate to think of the number of times I have sat not eating anything in a restaurant because it had no vegetarian dishes. Time and demand, eventually had sway and now vegetarian alternatives are everywhere.

I agree with Wibby; let them be stupid.

[TalonRider]

A few years back, I gave them a try. After spending a lot of time answering all the questions, of which there was a lot of them, I got the message that they didn't offer alternate life styles matching. There was nothing at the beginning to tell you this.

I heard about it on the news this week and I think I heard that they are going to open a separate website.

[colinian]

A few years back, I gave them a try. After spending a lot of time answering all the questions, of which there was a lot of them, I got the message that they didn't offer alternate life styles matching. There was nothing at the beginning to tell you this.

I heard about it on the news this week and I think I heard that they are going to open a separate website.

I guess they don't want to expose their heterosexual couples to deviant lifestyles by having same-sex couples in the same website.

Colin

[Richard Norway]

I guess they don't want to expose their heterosexual couples to deviant lifestyles by having same-sex couples in the same website.

Colin

Deviant? You don't really believe that, do you?

[Trab]

Of course he doesn't, although maybe we should make an effort to encourage the use of 'divergent' or 'parallel'?

[DesDownunder]

I think Colin had his tongue (it was your tongue wasn't it?) firmly planted in his cheek.

[colinian]

I think Colin had his tongue (it was your tongue wasn't it?) firmly planted in his cheek.

You are, as usual, oh so right-on, Des.

And Doug and I will never tell anything about whatever it was that was planted whereever.

Colin