When I heard that someone was suing eHarmony for its refusal to provide dating services for same-sex couples, I winced.
It's not that I approve of their policy (I don't). It's not even that I think that their policy, while wrongheaded, is in fact legal (I'll leave that question to those who know California anti-discrimination law).
It's that the last thing the gay-rights movement needs is a frivolous lawsuit.
Some background: eHarmony is an online matching service founded by psychologist Neil Clark Warren (he's the smiling white-haired guy on the commercials). Users of the site must qualify for membership by taking a patented personality test, which creates a profile based on Dr. Warren's "29 areas of compatibility." But first they must indicate whether they are a "man seeking a woman" or a "woman seeking a man."
That last part troubled California resident Linda Carlson, who contacted the company to request a "woman seeking woman" option. They refused, and Carlson sued. Her lawyers are seeking to make this a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all prospective gay and lesbian clients.
Although eHarmony's founder is an evangelical Christian with ties to Focus on the Family, the company claims to have no objection to gays and lesbians per se: it's just that Dr. Warren's system (which is classified and proprietary) doesn't apply to them.
According to a company statement, eHarmony's research "has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages….Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted."
Let's all acknowledge that this rationale is probably a load of hooey. After all, how different can the needs and interests of same-sex couples be? Are you a smoker or non-smoker? Prefer nights-on-the-town or walks-on-the-beach? Love or hate American Idol? Etc.
(On the other hand, if I were designing a personality test to match same-sex couples, I might add some specialized questions: Madonna or Maria Callas? Volvo or Subaru? Mid-century modern or rococo? You get the idea.)
Whatever the reason, eHarmony offers a limited service, one that Linda Carlson doesn't want: it matches people to opposite-sex partners. Should it be forced by law to match people to same-sex partners?
Before you answer, consider the implications: if eHarmony is forced to offer services to gay couples, should Gay.com be forced to offer services to men seeking women (or vice versa)? Should JDate be forced to offer services to Gentiles? Should kosher delis be forced to serve ham and cheese? Where do we draw the line?
One might argue that eHarmony, unlike JDate or Gay.com, does not advertise itself as a "niche" service. But one doubts that Carlson and her attorneys would be satisfied if eHarmony simply tweaked their marketing to prominently feature the word "heterosexual." After all, they are not suing eHarmony for false advertising; they are suing it for discrimination.
Okay, but what if a company wanted to offer dating services only for whites seeking whites? What if they (unconvincingly) claimed that, while they had nothing against black people, they simply didn't have the research to support matching services for blacks?
This is the hard question, and it deserves serious consideration. There are times when discrimination is so ugly and pervasive that the law ought to step in. Traditional racial discrimination was certainly of that level, as is much discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Keep in mind, however, that we're not talking about discrimination in employment, or housing, or transportation. We're not even talking about the Boy Scouts. We are talking about a DATING SERVICE. There are plenty of such services that Linda Carlson could use (Gay.com, Yahoo.com, and Match.com, to name a few), not to mention better uses of the judicial system and movement resources.
Back to the hard question: if a company wanted to offer a service only for whites seeking whites-or blacks seeking blacks, or Asians seeking Asians, or what have you-I might question their motives. If I found them suspect (which they might not be: after all, there are legitimate niche dating services), I would publicly criticize them. If the situation were bad enough, I might support a boycott on the part of advertisers and prospective clients. But I would not advocate government interference.
Carlson's lawyer Todd Schneider claims the lawsuit is about "making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love." Of course they do. But that doesn't mean that the government should force Neil Clark Warren, or anyone else, to assist them.
24 Comments for “eDisharmony”
posted by John Keenan on
I agree.
There are plenty of gay oriented dating and relationship sites on the internet; I see no good reason why Carlson feels the need to sue EHarmony to force the inclusion of a same-sex option.
The potential backlash from such a suit more than out does any forseeable benefit (and lets be honest here, the only people who REALLY stand to benefit from the suit are Carlson and the lawyers involved). The suit is a waste of energy for everyone involved, and it’s petty at best and damaging at worst.
posted by Brian Miller on
Carlson’s motivation for suing eHarmony is obvious — she’s a member of the gay left who believes that she can use the law to force others to accept her and even endorse her. It’s also quite likely that she has no intent of ever *using* the service — even if it is forced to cater to her — but rather likely enjoys the idea of poking right-wingers in the eye with the law (and getting herself a fat $4,000 check thanks to the Unruh Act’s provisions).
That such actions will result in further right-wing attacks on gays using the same ridiculous laws is of no concern to her, obviously. So much for “looking out for fellow folks.”
posted by Amicus on
Where do we draw the line?
————————–
When it starts to look like it’s arbitrary or based on reasons that we would reject in general?
JDate offers up a listings for gays and lesbians. The couples themselves might *self-select* on their jewishness, so we wouldn’t find restrictions to gentiles onerous.
Several of the gay and lesbian choral groups accept non-gay members. Most of the ‘Gay and Lesbian’ Community Centers do not refuse non-gays admittance (or their donantions…). It could only be a good thing if non-gay people took up posts in the major gay-rights organizations. Non-gays have always been welcome in the post-Stonewall marches.
On the other hand, eHarmony seems to be selling *general services* (it’s not a private club, like Augusta). I checked to see if their website made it plain that they were accepting mostly or only Christians or those interested in certain Christian ideas of dating/marriage, but no: “Millions of people of all ages, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds have used eHarmony’s patented Compatibility Matching System? to find the love of their lives.” (Their “mission statement” is even more broadly put – it’s about ’empowerment’).
Anyone can join Gay.com for free and post a personal ad (so far as I could tell). Of course, if you are non-gay on a website with people who *self-select* as gay, you might not get a lot of interest …
posted by Amicus on
you might not get a lot of interest …
—
oh, unless you are Matt Sanchez. (What, I don’t get one free ‘snark’ a day?)
btw, it appears that if you are a Gentile you can sign up on JDate, under “Willing to convert” or “Will tell you later”. (I know two people who converted).
On the lighter side, the first FAQ on JDate is “What is a flirt?”. *boggle*
posted by Brian Miller on
As I’ve posted a bajillion times, now, eHarmony makes it clear that it ONLY matches heterosexual couples seeking marriage — that’s it. No straight people seeking a quick fling or an LTR outside of marriage, no gay people. It’s indicated in their FAQs, it’s indicated in their web site, and it’s indicated in their terms of service.
It’s also clearly indicated long before one hands them a dime.
Putting aside the serious questions of civil liberties that the persistent lawsuits around this bring up, I find it utterly stupefying that the gay far left has nothing better to lobby for in the midst of real discrimination in marriage and the military.
posted by Brian Miller on
it appears that if you are a Gentile you can sign up on JDate, under “Willing to convert”
Something tells me that if eHarmony offered a similar option for gay people “willing to convert” to heterosexuality, the angry swarm of lefties would not be easily swatted away. 😉
posted by The Gay Species on
According to my news source, this lawsuit is knowingly frivolous. “[Plaintiff] Carlson’s lawyer Todd Schneider said the lawsuit was ‘about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love.'” Yep, that’s a direct quote.
Gay-to-Gay (here): The “landscape” has already changed, fool (we started that change back in the Sixties and Seventies on the shoulders of folk you apparently have no clue about). The preposterous “statement” you and your attorney presume to make only make both of you foolish, and downright desperate. The two of you have nothing better to do than sue one matchmaker who won’t let you play on its turf (it’s the playground bully, right), because you can’t get “hooked” with the thousands of men on the gay sites?
Is it that you can’t find a date (or hook-up) on the thousands (yes, that’s a 1 with three 000s after it times 3) of gay and mixed hook-up sites to occupy your time? Or, is it that no one will hook-up with you, so eHarmony is your dimwitted consolation, the Blameless to Blame? Your discontent and frivolity can’t get you hooked, no wonder! (That’s defying the odds even the problem of induction would question!) No gardening in that desolate backyard of yours, but you’ll sue eHarmony because it won’t let you play in its playground? What a loser! Get a life! Even the Devil’s Advocate realizes a Lost Cause.
posted by Amicus on
It’s indicated in their FAQs, it’s indicated in their web site, and it’s indicated in their terms of service.
I’m not sure that is clear. I skimmed the TOS and I didn’t see what you are referring to, for instance.
In fact, if I were to adopt JC’s viewpoint above that, largely because there are no harms/consequences to eHarmony’s restrictions seeing that ‘gay shoppers’ can go elsewhere to get similar or better services (unlike public transportation, housing, jobs, etc.), we ought to think of them as niche operators, who we might condemn, rather than proverbial ‘lunch counters’ that we ought to fight to integrate, I would say that one of the problems appears to be that eHarmony do not clearly define their niche.
Almost everything they say appears to open the doors to their shop to everyone. They use words like ‘singles’, ‘people’, ‘partners’, etc. They tout phrases like, “eHarmony #1 Trusted Relationship Site – Move Beyond “Traditional” Online Dating.”
Some people seem to be embarrassed by the attention the lawsuit is getting. Well, by way of comparison, look how much attention this issue got,Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse To Transport Alcohol and Dogs, and no one even filed a suit (that I know).
posted by Amicus on
not sure what happened but here is the reference (although, no one filed a suit, so far as I know):
Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol Drugs
posted by Brian Miller on
The problem, of course, is the assumption that I have a “right” to force an evangelical marriage web site to match me to another man (and the assumption that I have a “right” to force a cabbie to transport me).
In the latter argument, there IS an argument that says that since government limits supply of cabs through ridiculous licensing requirements (cabbies must pay through the nose for their medallions), that there’s some legitimacy to the requirement that they transport gay people and people drinking alcohol.
Of course, the real solution to this isn’t more government regulation, but rather getting rid of the government licensing scheme and allowing all people who wish to compete as cabbies to do so. We’d get more service, lower fares, more flexibility, and cabbies with stupid arbitrary rules would go out of business as flexible, customer-centric cabbies steal all their business.
posted by Bobby on
The issue is very simple. The founder of eharmony does not understand same-sex dynamics, that’s what he said in a book.
You can’t offer a gay service if you don’t understand gays. Simple.
There are dating sites just for democrats, they don’t understand republicans and I don’t expect them to let us join, nor would we want to join.
While gay.com is open to everyone, how many straights do you see there? If you want to meet straight people, you don’t go to gay.com! Obvious.
If gays want an e-harmony, let them create their own with that extensive questionare. Frankly, I don’t think it would work.
Gay dating is based primarely on looks. That’s why gay.com and craiglist are so succesful. People put pics, and descriptions like 5’11, 232 pounds, 32 years old, white-hispanic” and that’s enough.
So why can’t we accept that gay culture is different? Why try to join everything under the sun? It’s stupid. The KKK bans gays from joining, should we sue them too?
posted by Brian Miller on
Gay dating may be, for some, based primarily on looks, but that’s far from a universal truth.
The reality is that we’re all different, and while being forced to act and look the same for the benefit of a few whiners (and the jobs of legions of bureaucrats) indeed creates “equality,” it’s not the sort of equality any of us should want.
posted by Bobby on
“Gay dating may be, for some, based primarily on looks, but that’s far from a universal truth.”
—Brian, not just for some, for most. Just research gay online dating and look at the ads. Look at the emphasis of physical descriptions. When women post a personal, at the most they put a head and shoulders picture. Gays will post an erect penis! Or even an orgy scene starring themselves!
Women care about personality because they’re emotional creatures. A woman normally doesn’t just screw a guy just because he’s cute. Otherwise, we would see more women hiring male crackwhores.
Believe me, if Donald Trump was gay, he would not be able to impress other gays with his business skills. A woman may find his success attractive. But for the average gay it takes looks!
posted by Brian Miller on
Bobby, like I’ve said before, you need to realize the gay community goes way beyond the bars.
I know gay couples who have been together for decades, and neither one of them is what I would describe as “attractive” in a physical sense. Obviously something else is keeping them together.
A woman may find his success attractive. But for the average gay it takes looks!
For the average gay? Or for the average HUMAN?
Despite all the talk about how women “don’t care about looks” in men, research has shown that physical appearance is even more important to heterosexual women than it is to straight men — and we both know how appearance-oriented straight guys can be.
Of course, that’s not a universal notion in the straight community, but to insist that shallow physical-attraction-only patterns are unique to queer folk strikes me as a bit unreal. My straight male and female friends bitch every bit as much about the shallowness of the opposite sex as my gay friends bitch about the shallowness of the same sex.
posted by Bobby on
“I know gay couples who have been together for decades, and neither one of them is what I would describe as “attractive” in a physical sense. Obviously something else is keeping them together.”
—Well, that’s the reality of many couples, but when they met I’m sure they found each ohter attractive. And that’s exactly my point, looks matter until you get to know the person as a person, and not as just a hot body.
” research has shown that physical appearance is even more important to heterosexual women than it is to straight men”
—Well, Abercrombie & Finch is affecting how women perceive male beauty, some women are becoming more like men. But they still have a long way to go. For example, magazines like Playgirl had to target gay men because there were not enough women reading that to make a decent profit!
“and we both know how appearance-oriented straight guys can be.”
—Yes, but because they face lots of competition in the market for women, they tend to settle more easily, even lower their standards. I’ve seen sexy guys with ugly girls many times. Either they find those girls attractive or they’re taking whatever they can get.
Gay men on the other hand are more picky because other gay men are cheap and plentiful.
“but to insist that shallow physical-attraction-only patterns are unique to queer folk strikes me as a bit unreal”
—Look, just because some whites play basketball doesn’t mean basketball isn’t mainly a black sport and most of their major athletes are black. By the same token, just because some straights are shallow doesn’t mean gays are just like them.
The gay community is unique in many aspects. As someone who used to be very involved, I noticed how well educated my fellow gays were about sex. While my average straight friends haven’t even been tested for HIV, most gays I’ve met have been tested. While most of my straight friends have never had a threesome, most gays I’ve met have had at least one.
When I go to a gay bar or a gay area, gays there don’t look like straight people. They dress different, lots of tight pants, tight shirts, different haircuts…
Obviously I’m stereotying, but there’s some truths to the stereotype. Just look at one of those RSVP all gay cruises. How many straight cruises do you know with raves featuring wall to wall of people? It’s insane, all those folks dancing together, closed enough to touch each other’s sweat. And you’re telling me many gays aren’t shallow and promiscuous? Come on! There are gay groups that celebrate promiscuity! It’s our freaking culture wether we like it or not.
posted by Brian Miller on
Abercrombie & Finch is affecting how women perceive male beauty
Is it?
Most people I know, male and female alike, view A&F as where twinky guys go to buy clothes and drool over the posters, nothing more.
posted by Brian Miller on
Just look at one of those RSVP all gay cruises. How many straight cruises do you know with raves featuring wall to wall of people?
RSVP cruises are a financial catastrophe which cannot attract enough attendees to turn a profit. It has been losing so much money that it’s threatening to bring its parent company, PlanetOut (who also own the Advocate, OUT Magazine, and gay.com) into bankruptcy.
If anything, the financial meltdown of RSVP would seem to indicate that such a style of partying doesn’t have that much appeal amongst everyday gay folk.
posted by Bobby on
“Most people I know, male and female alike, view A&F as where twinky guys go to buy clothes and drool over the posters, nothing more.”
—I read somewhere that A&F advertising has encouraged women to desire that type of man, and that many men are working towards that ideal.
As for RSVP being a financial catastrophe, they’re still charging an arm and a leg for tickets.
And inside cabin can cost $1000. I’ve seen gays on craightlist selling their RSVP tickets for more.
Of course, we all know there’s straight prices and gay prices, so maybe the success or failure of RSVP is not related to that.
“such a style of partying doesn’t have that much appeal amongst everyday gay folk.”
—Then you haven’t been to the white party in Miami 🙂 Neither have I, that style of partying doesn’t appeal to me, but I’m not like most gay folks.
posted by Brian Miller on
As for RSVP being a financial catastrophe, they’re still charging an arm and a leg for tickets.
But nobody’s buying. Which sorta begs the question — if it’s typical of queer folk, how come family pride days can draw tens of thousands, but circuit parties on ships cannot sell enough tickets to break even?
posted by Phoebe on
1. All this debate about the superficial gays leaves out the lesbians, right?
2. I still agree with the market-forces people here – and if there are gay men who want non-looks-based qualities they still have the option of advertising themselves that way and shopping for others who do, on the many sites available to them. Come to it, if there were not sites available, there would be nothing to stop them creating them. This isn’t like the public bus system.
3. Really we’re ALL niche markets. I’m not everyone’s cup of tea.
4. I found my bf on OkCupid.com, and they serve everyone, and have this extensive questionaire to determine compatibility AND it’s free. Go there, everybody.
posted by cheneygun on
I only read John’s articles because he’s hot. Kidding, I find his articles very stimulating.
posted by Hershel on
“1. All this debate about the superficial gays leaves out the lesbians, right? ”
—Lesbians are different. There’s a struggle between butch lesbians and femme/lipstick lesbians. I’ve seen nasty debates when one lesbian complains about the “fat lesbian” stereotype. So maybe there is some superficiality in lesbians as well.
“2. I still agree with the market-forces people here – and if there are gay men who want non-looks-based qualities they still have the option of advertising themselves that way”
—Absolutely, put an ad on craiglist saying you want a nice person, and you’ll be a breath of fresh air, people will write and tell you that.
“f it’s typical of queer folk, how come family pride days can draw tens of thousands, but circuit parties on ships cannot sell enough tickets to break even?”
—I will have to get back to you on that one. Still, everytime I go to the rsvp website a lot of their cabins have already been sold out. And gays do like cruises, almost every mainstream ship has an FOD (Friend of Dorothy) meeting.
posted by Tristan on
I agree, but I have one concern: Does eHarmony use any *public* funds? If so, then I would find their practices unethical.
posted by Bobby on
They do not, Tristan, private company, private funds. I don’t think the government is involved in online dating at all.