A California woman is suing the online dating service eHarmony, alleging it discriminates against gays, lesbians and bisexuals. The company claims its research was developed to match opposite-sex couples and that matching same-sex couples is "not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted."
Reason magazine's "Hit & Run" blog points out that this explanation may be dubious, since it has been widely reported that eHarmony's founder is an evangelical Christian who once had close ties to James Dobson's Focus on the Family. Still, blogger Katherine Mangu-Ward takes note of:
a rival site launched Friday catering exclusively to gay men. (It's called myPartnerPerfect.com, and offers its males-only service for just $37.95 a month, or $204 for a year).
Is eHarmony's exclusion of same-sex couples discriminatory, and if so isn't myParnterPerfect.com also guilty? Or do anti-discrimination cases of this sort go far astray from challenging egregious exclusion and end up engaging in tort for tort sake (a view expressed over at overlawyered.com) and serve mostly as a means to take umbrage over an evangelical-tinged group that doesn't want to invite us to their party?
50 Comments for “Dis-Harmony”
posted by Lori Heine on
This seems, to me, to be a frivolous lawsuit. The fact of the matter is that businesspeople have the right to be bigots if they want to be. The sort of people who want a heteros-only dating service will probably be attracted to eHarmony’s stance. Those who don’t like it will not be.
Seriously now, why would a lesbian want to spend megabucks to join a dating service that offered virtually zero chance of her meeting Ms. Right? If I were inclined to do such things, I would go to a service that specializes in same-sex pairings. I doubt I’d even waste my money on one that simply “included” gays and lesbians, because the pool to choose from probably wouldn’t be large enough to bother with.
If a straight person sued a same-sex dating service for discriminating against him or her, it would be immediately obvious how silly it was.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m tempted to ask if the woman filing the lawsuit is cute, and if she’s interested in a lady from Arizona.
But if I so much as looked at her crosseyed, she’d probably sue me.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
Lori is correct. Usually the only basis on which you can sue a business for sexual-preference discrimination when it uses public funds to do business in a jurisdiction with an anti-discrimination law in effect. eHarmony, meanwhile, is getting razzed by a competitor for its tendency to reject certain customers, and Steve notes above the existence of a service catering to gay men. As to this issue, we’re all better off letting market forces do their thing.
posted by TomChicago on
As much as I loathe the origins of eHarmony and the implicit bigotry in their marketing, I think the lawsuit is not such a good idea. On the other hand, the veils are lifted on those smiley eHarmony faces and the founder’s bias.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I have to agree that this lawsuit is pointless.
But it reveals more than the bigotry of eHarmony, but the intellectual dishonesty about gay couples and their hopes and abilities.
BTW, eHarmony also discriminates against straight allies of gay folks.
When I turned in my profile, I was turned down because I wanted a mate that was gay friendly and supportive. I have many, many gay and lesbian friends. And I am a very involved activist.
And I was given the rejection speech too.
So the prejudice has a long reach. Imagine the gay children of these matches.
Can you just imagine?
posted by ETJB on
Is it discrimination? Yes. Is it illegal? That would probably depend on the state where the company is located.
I seen ads on tv for a similar web site that takes jabs at E harmony with gay and straight men and women.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
It never fails to amaze me how some gays and their straight allies will accept discriminiation against gays when if a business like this were “whites only” I can’t imagine any of these same people being willing to let it pass. As I understand the law, if an anti-discrimnation law is in effect that includes gays then e-harmony is most definitely violating the law and the lawsuit will succeed – you don’t see any more “whites only” signs, do you?
Good for this woman and her law-suit I expect it to succeed.
posted by Randi on
Randi, I think you’ve hit upon an excellent point. I often ask myself “If this were an issue of race/gender/disability, would this question/concern/complaint be asked?” No one would date suggest “You should just find somewhere else” to a racial minority. GLBT Americans deserve nothing less.
posted by Brian Miller on
When I first read this story, I thought “how can I put what I think of this suit (and it’s progenitor) in delicate terms?”
Then I realized, oh hell, I cannot.
So I’ll just say it straight up (pardon the pun) — this lawsuit is idiotic, and its progenitor, even more so.
First, let’s examine the tactical result. Suppose e-Harmony loses this lawsuit and is forced to “support” same-sex relationships as well. Do you want someone who doesn’t know anything about lesbians, who is resentful towards you, and whose research has not an iota of application in the LGBTQ community to become a matchmaker for you?
If you do, you’re an idiot.
Secondly, this lawsuit is a perfect example of why “nondiscrimination” law is a bad idea. Proponents of these laws cite people being fired from their jobs or evicted from their homes for being gay, yet that very rarely (in fact, statistically speaking, almost NEVER) happens. Instead, the laws are used to try and create a “right to use e-Harmony” or a “right for men to use a woman’s bathroom,” etc., etc., etc.
And finally, on the most important front, the moron who filed this lawsuit is getting the government involved in determining which characteristics are acceptable when determining who you’re going to enter into a relationship with!
The people who have claimed that other web sites “don’t discriminate” have not a bloody clue.
I’ve got news for all of you utopians out there: dating is about discrimination. It’s about finding what you — and only you — like in another person and hoping that other person likes a lot of stuff about you. And it’s not rational, or fair, or “progressive” — not even for the nauseatingly rhetorical amongst us.
There are dating sites only for Jews, only for women, only for black people, only for Muslims, only for gays, only for Christians, etc., etc., etc. And that’s a good thing, since it delivers choice and allows us to find what we want in a partner.
What this lawsuit really stands for is an attempt to make fundamental choices about our relationships as individuals “illegal.”
If the thinking behind this lawsuit succeeds, people will have to eliminate gender preferences from their online profiles (after all, that’s discrimination based on gender). They’ll have to remove age preferences (age discrimination). They’ll have to remove religious preferences (religious discrimination!) They’ll have to remove, in many states, political orientation (say goodbye to the numerous profiles found online that say “if you’re a Republican, please don’t contact me.”) With pending laws being considered right now, they’ll have to eliminate height and weight requirements as well.
I’ve watched “progressives” make horse’s asses out of themselves accusing other people of being “bigots” for not dating people who don’t fit various things that person finds attractive — heightwise, weightwise, etc. (Of course, the “progressive” is content to date a white wealthy gym-build guy and have a secret profile online that “illegally” and “intolerantly” excludes black people, Asian people, short people, people who are overweight, and Republicans.)
In short, all those stupid, irrational things that make a person attractive to you, individually, will be illegal.
This is serious bullshit on the part of the left to get the government into our relationships and determining the validity and legality of the most basic decisions that we make in our most intimate lives.
And finally, it’s not like this woman is starving for choice. The lesbian community has over 30 dating sites in the Bay Area (I did a quick Google). e-Harmony is nowhere near the largest or most important site. She’s just decided to abuse “non discrimination laws” to go after someone she doesn’t like.
Hopefully her case gets smacked down, she’s handed e-Harmony’s legal bills, and the rest of us get to preserve ALL of our choices — in the dating sites we use AND the criteria that we use in choosing a partner.
It never fails to amaze me how some gays and their straight allies will accept discriminiation against gays when if a business like this were “whites only”
This is hardly “discrimination.” Oh, the nasty fundy who knows nothing of gays won’t matchmake me! My rights are violated!
Incidentally, there are white-only, black-only, Jewish-only, Christian-only and various other web sites for matchmaking, and on the largest “inclusive” ones, participants can screen based on race, age, body type, and income.
One of my more amused discoveries was how many of my oh-so-progressive acquaintances (who are no doubt cheering on this moronic lawsuit) have screened for African Americans, Hispanic people, Asian people and lower income groups/education levels in their own Internet profiles on sites like Match.com.
Hypocrisy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Given that no lawsuits demanding equal treatment for white people have been filed against Ebony magazine, or dating services that focus primarily on African-Americans and other racial/ethnic groups, preferential treatment based on race in business doesn’t seem to be much of a concern to most.
Furthermore, since no one has seen fit to object to this, I don’t think discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is that big of a deal either.
But again, Steve Miller is correct; this is more about the revenge fantasies of the “LGBT community” than it is anything practical.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Sigh, hyperlink.
posted by kittynboi on
I don’t think this lawsuit is important.
posted by Lori Heine on
The worst thing about the lawsuit is that once again, a single gay individual has given the anti-gay crowd ammunition to use against all of us.
Many of us (perhaps even most) think the suit was frivolous. We think this woman is a publicity-hound, an attention-whore and a money-grabbing opportunist. But you can bet that the spin from the homophobes on the far Right will lump all of us together as being behind it, or as at least supposedly rooting it on.
There’s really nothing the rest of us can do about that. Quite a number of us will protest that she doesn’t speak for us and that we think the suit is silly, but that will be conveniently ignored by those who wish to demonize us.
I generally find myself on the side of those in our community who do stand up against this sort of thing. But I understand the frustration of other gays and lesbians who wonder why we bother when we’re only going to be ignored.
It’s the right thing to do, I know. Still, the frustration continues…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Which is why, Lori, we must double our efforts to ensure that, if people want to ignore those who are protesting, they’ll have to ignore an enormous amount of people.
posted by Roy on
I’m confused as to what theory this suit is being brought under. An interactive internet business is subject to personal jurisdiction in any state it purposely solicits business, but will such a business be subject to its public accomodations law? Many states and municipalities have public accomodations laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating based on sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. Businesses covered include restaurants, theaters, department stores, shopping malls, hotels and motels, public golf courses, public health clubs, etc. etc. etc.
So, Lori, not all businesses can discriminate, or they will run afoul of the state or municipality’s public accomodations law. Anyway, if an internet business can be considered the same as a brick and mortar business as a matter of law, this case may survive a motion to dismiss.
posted by Lori Heine on
“So Lori, not all businesses can discriminate.”
If a particular company has contracted to perform a service that is essential to life (one, for example, that provides medical care), then the government should indeed forbid it from discriminating.
This sounds a lot more like “no shirt, no shoes, no service.”
It’s a bad, bad thing when we start letting government push around private business. If businessowners cannot determine who they will or will not conduct business with, then our right to private property is gone.
It can’t survive on a personal basis if it doesn’t survive on a commercial basis.
When it comes to making advancements in society’s accessibility to gays, moreover, the private sector has been much more hospitable to us than has the State.
We should concentrate on protecting our rights under the law. Businesses are already discovering — through their experiences in the free market — that discrimination is, in the long run, an unprofitable policy.
posted by Timothy on
OK, for all you armchair lawyers out there who “know” this case is frivolous, let me remind you that the suit is in California between a California woman and a California-based internet business. And the law in California (to belabor the point) is that a business with publically offers services cannot do so in California while refusing service based on sexual orientation.
Y’all don’t have to like that. And you can think that this is sad or foolhardy or money-grubbing or whatever you like, but the case isn’t frivolous.
Incidentally, this falls under the Unruh Civil Rights act of 1958 as amended in 2005. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1400_cfa_20050414_085936_asm_floor.html
posted by Timothy on
I wonder if I’m the only one who found it more than a little coincidental that myParnterPerfect.com opened within a few days of the lawsuit.
There are dating sites only for Jews, only for women, only for black people, only for Muslims, only for gays, only for Christians, etc., etc., etc.
Not in California, there aren’t.
Take, for example, JDate a site designed with Jews in mind. Yet JDate does not discriminate against non-Jews and I know some who are members.
The point is not that a business target markets. Many businesses do that, and I think we are all better for it. The point is when a business disallows a person access to the services provided. As a white guy who has lived in neighborhoods where I was the only white guy for blocks, I would have been SOL if the local businesses had refused me service because of the color of my skin (none did – though sometimes I did get some good-natured teasing).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But what you assume, Timothy, is that the reason these businesses didn’t is because they were afraid of running afoul of the law.
I say that it was because they cared more about the color of the cash than they did of the hand that was holding it.
posted by Brian Miller on
this falls under the Unruh Civil Rights act of 1958 as amended in 2005
Precisely my point.
Those laws weren’t passed to “protect” gay people from “unfair discrimination” from fundamentalist Christian internet dating services. They were presented as “protecting gay people from being kicked out of restaurants or losing their jobs.”
But the reality is that gay people aren’t in danger of losing their jobs or kicked out of restaurants — society doesn’t tolerate that and no law is needed.
Thus, the ONLY application for these laws is in patently absurd areas like “that fundamentalist Christian organization won’t match me with another woman.”
In short, there’s no better argument for the libertarian position on civil rights issues than this absurd lawsuit.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well stated, Mr. Miller.
posted by Roy on
OK, for all you armchair lawyers out there who “know” this case is frivolous, let me remind you that the suit is in California between a California woman and a California-based internet business. And the law in California (to belabor the point) is that a business with publically offers services cannot do so in California while refusing service based on sexual orientation.
Timothy, that was my point. Although, as a human being, I think the suit is totally silly, my point was that this suit may not be considered “frivolous” by a judge. (Thanks for pointing out that it is also a California company – I didn’t know that.)
California company. California plaintiff. Business open to the public (I’m assuming internet businesses count?). Sexual orientation a protected class under California’s public accomodations law.
There may be a case. (I’m not saying whether this is good or bad – I’m simply saying that the case has a chance of not being thrown out.)
posted by Roy on
Cal.Civ.Code § 51(b)
“All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
Wow, this is pretty broad.
posted by Timothy on
But the reality is that gay people aren’t in danger of losing their jobs or kicked out of restaurants — society doesn’t tolerate that and no law is needed.
I can understand the libertarian notion that people ought to be able to fire you for orientation or skin color or religion. That is a ideological position and there are legitimate arguments in its favor.
But as regarding the facts, unfortunately you are mistaken. In states where it is legal, gay people regularly are refused services and are fired. Society has impacted a change, and it isn’t to the extent that it once was, but it does still happen.
I am not an attorney, however, as for this lawsuit, I think it hinges on two ideas – 1) is it discrimination against gay persons to restrict their options to the opposite sex or can one make the “of course I let gay people join, they just have to date the opposite sex” or 2) are there businesses that are inherently hetero such that there is no issue of discrimination.
I don’t think the first point will fly. eHarmony will probably make the argument that there is not adequate information on same-sex couples to allow them to match them and so therefore they cannot be expected to provide a service which is not possible for them to provide.
I doubt that will work either.
posted by Timothy on
Ex-gay gadfly Stephen Bennett is about as credible as WorldNetDaily, but he quotes Dr. Neil Clark Warren as telling him the following:
Listen sir, I don?t know who you are, but I?ve been a Christian for a long, long time and eHarmony would never, ever offer a homosexual matchmaking service!
If that is true, then I think eHarmony has pretty much lost their case. That goes to intent to discriminate.
posted by Timothy on
sorry… link is at
http://www.igroops.com/igroops/sbm/blog/VIEW+00000002
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Brian Miller, show us the dating sites that are ” white-only, black-only, Jewish-only, Christian-only”. Even Northdallass wasn’t willing to make that kind of statement, he instead referred to businesses which cater primarily to blacks like Ebony for example. I’m sure that’s what you’ll find with these sites as well – although they target a particular client by law they cannot be ‘white only, black only, christian only, etc.’.
And your suggestion that clients of dating services won’t be able to specify the gender, ethnicity, age, etc. of those they wish to date is bullshit. The anti-discrimination law applies to businesses, not to individuals who are clients of the business. Once again, you don’t see any “whites only” signs on any business anywhere in Canada or the U.S.
posted by Roy on
Timothy, check out the eHarmony patent – yes, these folks have a patent for their matching system – go to the USPTO site (www.uspto.gov) and search for patent # 6,735,568. Then ctrl+F for “sexual orientation.” Here’s the excerpt:
“The survey and/or the registration process can also request information to define people that would be candidates for the user. For instance, whether the user is seeking individuals of a specific religious group, ethnic background or sexual orientation.”
Of course, when you apply for a patent, you try to gain the broadest amount of protection, but this shows that a possible match by sexual orientation was at least contemplated. Perhaps this could be used as evidence that Neil Clark Warren at least thought about it, but has not done research on it yet.
Again, I’m not picking or choosing sides. I’m just throwing this out there objectively.
posted by dalea on
Actually Brian, I have been thrown out of restaurants when a group of gay guys came in together. Many small places had a policy of no same gender couples in the evening. Some still try to enforce it surrepititiously. This does go on, so your statement is false. Try traveling in the rural south and see what you find.
posted by Timothy on
Roy,
yes… but it appears that they use that “information to define people” as a criterion to deny services. I guess we’ll see as the lawsuit progresses whether that patent wording worked for or against them.
posted by Craig2 on
Actually, these situations rarely arise in jurisdictions that have anti-discrimination laws. If eHarmony is a fundie- oriented dating site, then it should clearly advertise itself as such eg:
“Born again bottom spanking believer (113) seeks similarly aged female dweller in Southern US trailer park. Must oppose same-sex marriage, purple Teletubbies and intersexed sponges.”
Most of the time, fundies and LGBTs inhabit more or less wholly separate social spheres anyway, so . Although, in New Zealand’s case, the fundamentalist sphere is looking
decidedly deflated these days…
Craig2
Wellington
New Zealand
posted by Brian Miller on
show us the dating sites that are ” white-only
Voila.
black-only
Here you are.
Jewish-only
Jewish-only matches…
Christian-only”.
You were saying?
All of those web sites, under your draconian vision, would be shut down or forced to be all things to all people.
these situations rarely arise in jurisdictions that have anti-discrimination laws
You’re quite mistaken. This lawsuit is arising only because of a “nondiscrimination law” — California’s Unruh Act.
Brian, I have been thrown out of restaurants when a group of gay guys came in together. Many small places had a policy of no same gender couples in the evening.
That’s unfortunate for those restaurants. Then again, I wouldn’t want to force an anti-gay establishment to take me and my friends — especially when they’re serving us food. Who knows what’s in that food?
Some still try to enforce it surrepititiously. This does go on, so your statement is false.
Actually, if it still goes on surreptitiously, regardless of anti-discrimination law, it underscores my statement even further.
Not only is the law not helping its intended “assisted,” but it’s being abused in ways it wasn’t intended to be.
Try traveling in the rural south and see what you find.
I don’t travel in the rural south — I only go to places that interest me and that want my business.
I simply don’t happen to believe that LGBTQ people can gain “acceptance” in places like the rural south by forcing bigots to serve them under the law. You’ll just get a different form of bigotry (or clandestinely enforced bigotry exploiting loopholes in the law, as you yourself noted).
The best way to banish bigotry is to exclude it from your own life by not doing business with (or interacting with) bigoted people. The best way to ensure bigotry thrives is to use the law to enforce your own views on other people who disagree.
Simple, really.
posted by Brian Miller on
they use that “information to define people” as a criterion to deny services
Of course, the question that remains unanswered by all the cheerleaders for this lawsuit is what sort of “services” a fundamentalist Christian organization could offer a lesbian seeking a partnership.
The reality is not that the lesbian in question actually *wants* their services — rather, she’s abusing the Unruh Act to punish people she doesn’t like.
It’s no different from anti-gay people using marriage discrimination laws to attack gay people that they don’t like. We cannot complain about Christian right-wingers using the law (and a majority) to undermine our own rights as gay people if many of us have a willingness to do the same thing to Christian right-wing fundamentalists.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Brian Miller said “”show us the dating sites that are “white-only””
Voila.
black-only
Here you are.
Jewish-only
Jewish-only matches…
Christian-only”.
You were saying?”.
Just as I said before Brian, sites can target clients that are black, white, christian, etc. but they can’t restrict there services only to those groups. The supposedly “white only” site you listed doesn’t say anything about being whites only. The link to the site you said is supposedly “Jewish only” didn’t work, the site you said is “black only” says clearly in its terms of service that the only eligibility requirements are that you be 18, single, and seperated from your spouse – it doesn’t say anything about being black. The site you said was Christian only doesn’t say anything about you having to be a Christian to join. You’re full of it – these sites only target specific audiences, they don’t prevent others from joining.
Your suggestion that anti-gay bigotry in the rural south isn’t a concern because you don’t travel there is bizarre. Lots of gays do live and travel there and deserve protection from discrimination. That it doesn’t concern you is just profoundly self-centered and inconsiderate.
Brian Miller said “Of course, the question that remains unanswered by all the cheerleaders for this lawsuit is what sort of “services” a fundamentalist Christian organization could offer a lesbian seeking a partnership.”.
Wake up and smell the coffee Brian, this is a very large dating service, once they start allowing LGBTS inevitably a lot are going to join and find lots of potential mates. By your logic E-harmony never should have opened in the first place because at first they didn’t have any people to offer as matches to anyone who might join.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Brian Miller said “The best way to banish bigotry is to exclude it from your own life by not doing business with (or interacting with) bigoted people. The best way to ensure bigotry thrives is to use the law to enforce your own views on other people who disagree.
Simple, really.”.
How profoundly naive. If blacks during the time of Jim Crow had been given that advice they would have had no place to go to get goods and services whatsoever. There would never have been an end to blatent discriminiation. In bigotted small towns and the rural south its the same thing, if you don’t deal with the bigots you simply don’t deal. Not every gay has a choice and the opportunity to deal with businesses that except them.
posted by Mark on
“No one would date suggest “You should just find somewhere else” to a racial minority.”
I would.
posted by Mark on
“If blacks during the time of Jim Crow had been given that advice they would have had no place to go to get goods and services whatsoever.”
But you realize Jim Crow consisted of laws that ~mandated~ racial discrimination. This was the state enforcing bigotry, not a free market.
posted by ETJB on
Well, if you believe America had free elections then the racial discrimination was the free market; consumers (voters) chose what products (polices) they wanted…
Again, their is a difference between how an online dating service treats you, when many other viable alternatives exist, and how you are treated by your boss or landlord, etc.
posted by Timothy on
The solution that Mark and Brian bring to us is quite simple:
Don’t be born and raised in the South. Don’t work for a national company that may transfer you there. Don’t visit family that lives there.
Simply, really. Especially that part about “don’t be born there”. Ya know, if Scottie Joe Weaver had just had the good common sense not to be born in Alabama he’d probably be alive today.
posted by dalea on
Actually the Jim Crow laws expressed the will of the voters, as limited government conservatives endorse. They were very popular laws among people permitted to vote. It is sobering for me to realize how readily and easily businesses adapted to them. And how easily capitalism matches whatever popular prejudices abound.
For decades the pro-segregationists and limited government conservatives were basically the same people.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Which is why an Alabama jury took exactly twenty minutes to convict the person who killed him of doing it.
All without a “hate crimes” law, no less.
posted by Brian Miller on
If blacks during the time of Jim Crow had been given that advice they would have had no place to go to get goods and services whatsoever
This is one of the reasons that gay politics has become so fraught with danger for non-gay politicians.
You have moronic comparisons where Jim Crow (which was GOVERNMENT discrimination against people based on race) is compared to the refusal of a fundamentalist web site to matchmake a lesbian.
Purely idiotic.
The solution that Mark and Brian bring to us is quite simple:
Don’t be born and raised in the South. Don’t work for a national company that may transfer you there. Don’t visit family that lives there.
That’s an absurd and ridiculous distortion of my position (and as such, is a manifestly adequate talking point for your position — right in character!)
There are many places in the South that are quite lovely for gay people — Atlanta, Memphis, New Orleans, Dallas (which actually ranked as one of the top 10 cities for gay people in the country).
Of course, travelling through the rural south, at night, all alone, isn’t suggested. Of course, it’s the same for black Americans as well.
Simply, really. Especially that part about “don’t be born there”. Ya know, if Scottie Joe Weaver had just had the good common sense not to be born in Alabama he’d probably be alive today.
Once again, you’re confusing government-led oppression with individuals making decisions that favor their own lives (and once again mischaracterizing my argument in a four-sentence talking point — good job!)
The reality of the situation is that some places aren’t very nice for gay people. I grew up in one of those places, so I don’t need the condescending lectures of Los Angelenos or Washingtonians to “explain” to me how condititons are.
I also know that violating the rights of other people — even bigots — won’t lead to better lives for gay people in those places.
If all the coastal big-city acolytes actually took some time to live in those “horrible” places they keep ripping on, by the way, they might find they’re not quite as horrible as they say.
Now, far be it from me to temper your anti-Southern bigotry that paints every resident of the Southern United States as an undereducated, straw-chewing bigot. . . but it’s interesting to note that I’ve never been attacked for being gay in Asheville, NC or Savannah, GA — I have been attacked for being gay in the Bay Area and Boston, however.
I’ve never been verbally harrassed for being gay in Atlanta or New Orleans — but it happens regularly in San Francisco (with its requisite “protections”) and Philadelphia. And in the Southern USA, I’ve never heard gay leaders refer to each other as “old nasty faggots” or “bitchy queens” when there’s a disagreement, but that sort of homophobic language is a default part-and-parcel of the dialogue on the coasts — the irony being that if some straight idiot used the same language against the same person, the gay “leaders” using it would be screaming “hate crime.”
Further, the over-the-top comparisons between the government’s mandated discrimination in Jim Crow to “civil rights” violations like a bigot in a couple of selected restaurants not welcoming gays or *especially* complaints that a fundamentalist web site won’t match gays completely drains the gay movement of valuable political capital.
LGBTQ “leaders” taking this tack are (quite rightly) seen as whiners whose complaints shouldn’t be addressed when they’re willing to violate the rights of others (including bigots) over such inconsequential things — and put them at the top of the agenda. Meanwhile, on real issues of fundamental equality — real rights as defined in the Bill of Rights — we’re sold down the river by the two parties that the most vocal “gay rights” supporters continue to support.
It’s all bass-ackwards. And it’s draining the gay movement of a lot of mainstream gay participants (including in the regions being lambasted in this thread) — not to mention the support of straight allies.
posted by Brian Miller on
Which is why an Alabama jury took exactly twenty minutes to convict the person who killed him of doing it.
All without a “hate crimes” law, no less.
But didn’t you hear? Matthew Shepard’s killers are running free, and Gwen Arujo wasn’t killed thanks to California’s hate crime laws.
Bigotry against gays is restricted solely to Alabama, Mississippi and other horrible backwards places that need our enlightened, open-minded touch!
posted by Brian Miller on
sites can target clients that are black, white, christian, etc. but they can’t restrict there services only to those groups
Au contraire. Most of the sites I listed only permit membership by people who meet their criteria. For instance, the Jewish dating site is for a traditional Jewish wedding — which requires people to fit the religious law (usually by being Jews).
Apparently, you’re happy with government coming in and telling Jews that they cannot run their own religion under their own tenets — which gives fuel to the fundy right-wing argument that gay marriage is about “redefining religious beliefs” and not eliminating unconstitutional discrimination in government certification.
That’s pretty stupid and manifestly self-defeating.
posted by Timothy on
(and as such, is a manifestly adequate talking point for your position — right in character!)
Ya know, the participants on this site really seems to have very little interest in conversation or civilized debate. Intellectual interest takes a back seat to bombing each other with accusations and character assasinations.
Basically no one here is interested in growing, learning, or even sharing facts and ideas. You would all rather attack each other than teach each other.
You’d rather “win” your argument (but destroying everyone and everything in your sight) than concede that your point may not be right.
Fine. Have at it. I give up.
posted by Brian Miller on
the participants on this site really seems to have very little interest in conversation or civilized debate.
This, from someone who posted that my position was, and I quote, “The solution that Mark and Brian bring to us is quite simple: Don’t be born and raised in the South. Don’t work for a national company that may transfer you there. Don’t visit family that lives there.”
no one here is interested in growing, learning, or even sharing facts and ideas
Sorry, but I posted several paragraphs of ideas in response to your cheap mischaracterizing of my perspective. If there’s any effort to “destroy” anyone’s argument, it would appear to be by your cheap and lazy dismissal (and refusal to address any of my ideas) — not my lack of a good-faith effort to engage you even as you mischaracterize my every argument.
If that’s going to be your sole technique for debating these crucial issues — and taking your ball and going home when someone calls you out on it — I cannot see how the debate is impoverished by you doing so.
posted by Brian Miller on
concede that your point may not be right
Incidentally, I find that people who demand this the most *do it* the least.
posted by Bill from FL on
The thing that bugs me about this whole thing is, it seems like the suit is more about “I wanna come along too you better make a place JUST for me” rather than discrimination. Nothing on eharmony prevents gays from using the service, it’s just not what we want. Maybe I could be a gay man seeking a woman, you never know! Just seems like the state telling coke that they have to put Pepsi in their machines, or telling people what they MUST offer or else!
What does everyone else think?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Brian Miller said “”sites can target clients that are black, white, christian, etc. but they can’t restrict there services only to those groups”
Au contraire. Most of the sites I listed only permit membership by people who meet their criteria. For instance, the Jewish dating site is for a traditional Jewish wedding — which requires people to fit the religious law (usually by being Jews).”.
Double au contraire, no where on any of those sites did it say it only permits membership to people who are white, black, or Christian – you lie. As I pointed out the site catering to blacks said clearly in its terms of service that the only requirements to join are that you be 18 and seperated from your partner. The link you gave to the Jewish site didn’t work but there is little doubt its the same deal there – you can target whatever audience you want, but you can’t discriminate on the basis of race or religion, and sometimes sexual orientation.
Brian Miller said “Apparently, you’re happy with government coming in and telling Jews that they cannot run their own religion under their own tenets — which gives fuel to the fundy right-wing argument that gay marriage is about “redefining religious beliefs” and not eliminating unconstitutional discrimination in government certification.”.
Nonsense, this has nothing to do with equal mariage for same sex couples, private individuals are allowed to follow whatever religious practices they like, its just businesses that are required to avoid discrimination on the basis of race and religion – and that was in place before anything to do with gays ever came up, so don’t try to blame those restrictions on gays.
posted by Brian Miller on
Double au contraire, no where on any of those sites did it say it only permits membership to people who are white, black, or Christian – you lie.
You haven’t bothered poking around — but it’s obvious you have no intention of doing so. You simply intend to scream boring leftist clich