An excellent column by Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle takes aim at the lesbian lawsuit against eHarmony.com. Writes Saunders:
[Walter Olson, editor of overlawyered.com] noted that [Linda] Carlson has "a much better chance with existing dating services." But she is suing, Olson noted, because diversity and tolerance have come to mean, "It's not just that you get the choices you want, but also choices you don't approve of have to be taken away."
And: "Diversity in theory is the enemy of diversity in practice."
The very term harmony evokes the sound of differing chords coexisting and making interesting music. As for Carlson's lawsuit, it could result in a world where all dating services must serve the same people. It's one note.
More at overlawyered.com and from Rick Sincere, who writes:
If [Carlson] prevails in her suit-and, given that she filed the suit within the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals geographic reach, she may well do so-then gay-oriented dating and matchmaking services (like gay.com or myPartnerPerfect.com) will have to accept straight clients on an equal basis with gay clients. That will dilute their purpose and make them less safe and inviting for the very people they are intended to serve.
12 Comments for “More ‘Dis e-Harmony’”
posted by Brian Miller on
This is just another consequence of the war between the nut cases of the extreme left and the nut cases of the extreme right. They hate each other so much that they’re willing to use (well-intentioned but stupidly implemented) “non-discrimination” law to attack each other and destroy the rest of our rights in the process.
Fundamentalist Christian web sites won’t match lesbians? Fine, force it to offer gay matches and/or destroy it with a huge law suit!
The Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival won’t welcome anti-gay male preachers? That’s “gender discrimination!” Force it open and destroy the festival!
Local churches won’t marry gay people? Sue them and force them to!
You want gay pride but won’t allow a $4 million float condemning homosexuality and warning of the flames of hell awaiting gays in multimedia? That’s discrimination! Force the float and 2 dozen other anti-gay floats in the pride parade, or get an injunction barring the entire festival!
You don’t want me wearing a g-string and gold-lame half-top to work on Pride Day? That’s discrimination! I’ll sue you!
You don’t want me posting anti-gay Bible quotes on my office wall and refusing to adhere to company policies banning anti-social anti-gay comments to gay coworkers? Religious discrimination! I’ll sue you!
A few more years of this utter NONSENSE, and the corpses of free speech, free association, free expression, and economic freedom will be dotting the smoking battlefield along with the idiotic sloganeering.
posted by dalea on
This law suit seems to aim at doing away with the social division of labor. I can see no reason why people running a company can not simply say that this is outside our area of expertise. And give them a referral to someone who does what they are looking for.
As someone who did metal repairs for a number of years, I got this constantly. No, I really can’t polish a tuba, but so and so can. Almost everybody understands this. And is grateful to be referred to someone who can fix their problem. This sounds really unhinged.
The only problem I see here is that eHarmony may not have been clear on what it does. And does not do, which may be where the problem arrose. But even if they did not clearly specify that they matched straight people only, they are off the hook when they refer you to more competant agencies. This is standard commercial practice. ‘We don’t do this/ carry that brand/ provide this service’.
This is like suing a life insurance company for not insuring cars.
posted by Brian Miller on
eHarmony may not have been clear on what it does
Before I go to spend $40 to $60 a month on a service, I read up on what the company does (and does not) do.
A good place to start for web-based organizations is their FAQ (frequently asked questions) file.
A quick search on their web site for “same gender matches” in the FAQ section takes me to this page, which contains an article from 2005 listing the following:
Warren, 70, really is a grandpa. Born on an Iowa farm, he’s quick with a down-home hug and a smile. His pale blue eyes grow misty when he speaks of his love for his wife of 46 years, Marylyn, the senior vice president at eHarmony.
And he really does want to set you up – but only if you’re emotionally healthy, heterosexual and want to get married.
Hmmm. . . not looking too promising for someone who is looking for a same-sex match. Reading on, we see the following:
Warren started out marketing primarily to Christian sites, touting eHarmony as “based on the Christian principles of Focus on the Family author Dr. Neil Clark Warren.”
Hmmm. One who is gay should be thinking “this probably isn’t the site for me” right about now. And then Warren removes all doubt:
Warren says eHarmony promotes heterosexual marriage, about which he has done extensive research. He says he does not know enough about gay and lesbian relationships to do same-sex matching.
It “calls for some very careful thinking. Very careful research.” He adds that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states. “We don’t really want to participate in something that’s illegal.”
After reading that — which took me less than 30 seconds to find on the eHarmony web site — why would ANY gay man or woman want to get a match through this company, regardless of what the law says about it?
Even if the idiotic lawsuit does force his organization to offer matches, any gay man or woman willing to give this man money for a match is a complete idiot.
In any event, eHarmony made its position clear from the outset, years ago. There’s no bait-n-switch going on.
This is like suing a life insurance company for not insuring cars.
I think it’s like suing a car insurance company for not insuring an exotic car like a 1955 Maserati with the same rates, coverage levels and service levels of your 2007 Mazda6 daily driver.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
Brian Miller | June 10, 2007, 8:43pm: Warren says eHarmony promotes heterosexual marriage, about which he has done extensive research. He says he does not know enough about gay and lesbian relationships to do same-sex matching.
Another poster cleverly pointed out that eHarmony’s patent for its matching system stipulates that: “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.”
This seems to imply that eHarmony is able to accommodate people of various sexual orientations.
So, did they lie in their patent application? Or are they lying now?
posted by dalea on
Whooooha. Forgot about the patent thing. If you lie on a patent application, big troubles. Like suddenly it goes into the public domain.
Good point Thomas. This may not be about the unhinged lesbian. It may be a sophisticated orchestration to show a false and perjurous patent application. As a prelude to snarfing the technology up. Or damaging a competitor. I suspect we need to know more about Ms. Carlson, like who she works for and with.
It is fascinating to watch the machinations of people trying to seize government grants of privilege, like patents.
Patent apps are under oath. To lie is perjury. If you claim your invention can easily do something, then you gotta do it for people willing to pay.
Thank you Thomas. This really is not a question of how do you run your business. It is an issue of do you do what you have claimed under other your product can do. Anybody who claims to do something has to do it for any willing buyer. There is a contract here: between the inventor of a technology and the grantor of monopoly privilege. In return for having a government gauranteed monopoly, you must do what you claim to do. Had they left the same sex claim out of the app, they would be home free. But since they did not, they must give Ms Carlson the services she desires.
posted by dalea on
Before Brian jumps all over me, what has changed my mind is Thomas pointing out that there is a contract involved. Upholding contracts and honoring your word are the foundation of a market system.
In the previous example of the video duplication service, it struck me that all sorts of contracts were being broken when the firm would not duplicate for gay related events. Anyone who handles brand name products gives up that right voluntarily in the contract with the brand name supplier. To break a solemn oath just so you can turn down gay customers does not strike me as admirable.
So, actual the Ms Carlson is acting to uphold the system of contracts that holds up the market system. She is advocating for capitalism; eHarmony is trying a flimflam bamboozelment.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Brian Miller said “The Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival won’t welcome anti-gay male preachers? That’s “gender discrimination!” Force it open and destroy the festival!
You want gay pride but won’t allow a $4 million float condemning homosexuality and warning of the flames of hell awaiting gays in multimedia? That’s discrimination! Force the float and 2 dozen other anti-gay floats in the pride parade, or get an injunction barring the entire festival!”.
Brian the anti-discrimination laws apply to businesses, not private organizations and people. Just like the boy scouts have a right do discriminate so do the organizers of gay pride parades and the Michigan Womyn’s Festival.
Brian said “Local churches won’t marry gay people? Sue them and force them to!”.
Once again, religious organizations are excluded from anti-discrimnation laws and are not a commercial organization in any event.
Brian said “You don’t want me wearing a g-string and gold-lame half-top to work on Pride Day? That’s discrimination! I’ll sue you!
You don’t want me posting anti-gay Bible quotes on my office wall and refusing to adhere to company policies banning anti-social anti-gay comments to gay coworkers? Religious discrimination! I’ll sue you!”.
Businesses have a legal right to demand appropriate dress from employees and to prevent a hostile work environment. These items aren’t affected by anti-discrimination laws.
Calm down Brian – you’re making a big deal out of nothing and you know it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Hmmmm.
For example:
Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival is produced by We Want The Music Company (WWTMC), a for-profit corporation registered in Michigan.
So it is a business.
And a business with very interesting viewpoints, at that, aside from blatantly discriminating on the basis of sex.
Furthermore, since Pride parades like San Francisco’s, for one, receive money from the city government, as well as city support, they technically are not allowed to discriminate, either.
posted by Brian Miller on
Thomas pointing out that there is a contract involved. Upholding contracts and honoring your word are the foundation of a market system.
There’s only a contract involved if there’s consideration. In other words, money or some other form of compensation must change hands.
eHarmony never accepted a payment from the plaintiff for services, nor did it make any promise to attempt to match her with another woman. Rather, she attempted to gain services different from those offered, was refused, and then sued under the Unruh Act.
If she was ripped off — promised a same-sex match after payment and then not delivered the services in question — then a lawsuit for breach of contract would be in order, not an Unruh Act action.
It’s a bit like suing a Baptist Church for refusing to have a same-sex commitment ceremony — all the while knowing that the church isn’t supportive.
religious organizations are excluded from anti-discrimnation laws
Actually, they aren’t in many situations, particularly when they’re providing services. The case law on this has been shrinking the amount of freedom from interference that these organizations have enjoyed as well.
Businesses have a legal right to demand appropriate dress from employees and to prevent a hostile work environment.
I agree with you.
However, the laws that you support ensure that businesses will not be able to do either — my core point. (Incidentally, there’s case law all over the map in both situations).
These items aren’t affected by anti-discrimination laws.
You really need to learn the difference between your wishes/simplistic statements and the actual realities. These items are indeed “affected” by anti-discrimination laws and keep thousands of attorneys well-paid.
So it is a business.
And a business with very interesting viewpoints, at that, aside from blatantly discriminating on the basis of sex.
Furthermore, since Pride parades like San Francisco’s, for one, receive money from the city government, as well as city support, they technically are not allowed to discriminate, either.
Bingo. I am awaiting a lawsuit on the basis of SF Pride’s willingness to exclude anyone who disagrees with their viewpoints on certain issues — it’s only a matter of time before someone does so on “religious freedom” grounds.
This “non-discrimination law” nonsense will transform America into a country of egg-shell-walkers, and enrich trial lawyers to no end while simultaneously destroying cherished freedoms.
The worst part of it is the simple absurdity of the case in question — and the fact there will be many others to come in a similar vein.
It’s frightening to think that, in a world where gays can be put to death by theocratic governments in Iran and similar places, a world where asylum for gay victims of such regimes in America is far from guaranteed, that the most pressing issue for queer “progressives” is forcing right-wing Christians to match-make them.
Perspective cannot come soon enough for those trippy mooncalves!
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Brian, the courts have already ruled that parade organizers can exclude whatever viewpoint they want from a parade. The St. patricks day parade organizers were supported by the courts when they refused to allow gays to march in the parade under their own banner.
posted by Brian Miller on
the courts have already ruled that parade organizers can exclude whatever viewpoint they want from a parade
Only as a general principle. They haven’t been challenged under nondiscrimination laws.
The St. patricks day parade organizers were supported by the courts when they refused to allow gays to march in the parade under their own banner
The last lawsuit over that occurred before there was a nondiscrimination law in New York State. SONDA only passed recently.
In addition, there hadn’t been a huge motivation to use existing “nondiscrimination” laws to crash Gay Pride events — but with the open warfare being fought over this issue, it’s only a matter of time before it happens.
The whole eHarmony thing is a “fuck you” using “nondiscrimination laws” to screw over a fundamentalist company — nobody seriously believes that a lesbian wants a Christian fundamentalist dating service specializing in “promoting traditional marriage” to match her up to another woman. It’s about winning a large settlement and screwing over eHarmony.
The fundamentalist right wing will doubtlessly have well-paid lawyers of their own waiting to retaliate, and this is a fertile area they’ve never fully exploited. Ironically, the passage of SONDA in New York and other recent developments should make their jobs that much simpler.
Bad news for those of us who don’t think government should be forcing fundies to be pro-gay or gays to be pro-fundie.
posted by dalea on
Brian, the contract is between the company and the Federal government. The thing of value is the private monopoly that the government maintains for the firm, thru the patent. In this contract the company maintains its product can match up couples of all gender combinations. If it does not do this, they lied on the patent application. If it can but they won’t, they are in violation of the patent since they must be prepared to present all the results promised in the patent applciation. Since patents are bought and sold on the market, they are items of value.
This is not about personal preferences; it is about how businesses conduct themselves in the free market. One ground rule, that I did not know was controversial, is that patented products must do what the patent app says they do.
Usually, non discrimination laws exempt small business based on the number of direct full time employees and the amount of sales. Looking at the website, I would suspect that the womyn in MI probably do not have many employees that meet this qualification. They may have lots of agents, part timers, independent contractors etc; but few direct full time employees. Most small businesses are like that. Additionally the criteria about womynborn is a fairly widespread Wiccan concept.
And they do not appear to be open to the public in any year round fixed location. Which would exempt them from the laws.