EHarmony to offer same-sex matches after New Jersey settlement

[SlightlyCatholic]

The website gives up its heterosexuals-only policy to end a civil rights case.
By David Colker
November 20, 2008

Coming soon to EHarmony: Adam and Steve.

The Pasadena-based dating website, heavily promoted by Christian evangelical leaders when it was founded, has agreed in a civil rights settlement to give up its heterosexuals-only policy and offer same-sex matches.

EHarmony -- known for the mild-mannered television and radio advertisements by its founder, psychologist Neil Clark Warren -- not only must implement the new policy by March 31 but also must give the first 10,000 same-sex registrants a free six-month subscription.

"That was one of the things I asked for," said Eric McKinley, 46, who complained to New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights, part of the state's attorney general's office, after being turned down for a subscription in 2005.

The company said that Warren wasn't giving interviews on the settlement. But attorney Theodore Olson, who issued a statement on EHarmony's behalf, made clear that the company didn't agree to offer gay matches willingly.


"Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business," Olson said, "we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the attorney general since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable."

The settlement, which didn't find that EHarmony broke any laws, called for the company to either offer the gay matches on its current venue or create a new site for them. EHarmony has opted to create a site called Compatible Partners (www.compatiblepartners.net).

Warren had said in past interviews that he didn't want to feature same-sex services on EHarmony -- which matches people based on long questionnaires concerning personality traits, relationship history and interests -- because he felt he didn't know enough about gay relationships.

McKinley, who works at a nonprofit in New Jersey that he declined to identify, said that he had originally heard of EHarmony through its radio ads.

"You hear these wonderful people saying, 'I met my soul mate on EHarmony,' " McKinley said. "I thought I could do that too."

But he couldn't. When he tried to enter the site, the pull-down menus had categories only for a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man. "I felt the whole range of emotions -- anger, that I was a second-class citizen," McKinley said.

The settlement also calls for EHarmony to pay $50,000 to the state for administrative costs and $5,000 to McKinley.

McKinley hasn't found the man of his dreams yet. And though EHarmony has to offer him a year's free subscription on the new service as part of the settlement, McKinley isn't sure he'll take the company up on it.

"They are going to know my name," McKinley said. "They could be watching my membership."

Colker is a Times staff writer.

This is bogus and a prime example of heterosexuals with values being painted as intolerant bigots. There are thousands of gay dating sites that this guy McKinley could have gone to if he wanted to find a partner online. What do you all think about this?

EDIT: I wonder what would happen if a straight guy went to a gay dating site and claimed intolerance? I wonder...

[HairyEyeball]

Is anyone actually surprised at more legislation from the Bench? We've allowed - or at least sat idly by - while the heavy hand of government regulation, either by illicit legislation or judicial fiat, forced itself into 'management' of privately owned businesses.

I suggest you try exactly what you propose, then 'publish' the 'results': Just as the First Amendment's 'freedom of speech' only forbids to the government from silencing 'objectionable' discourse, and has no bearing on the right of, say, a privately owned forum to regulate what may be posted (in theory, although not commonly 'comprehended' by the product of the indoctrination - er, 'education' - establishment), no branch of the government - theoretically - has the legal authority (as opposed to the 'power') to force this type of compliance.

You might have noticed that over the years, 'men's' gymnasia were forced by the courts to admit women members, but there has also been a rash of 'women only' gyms which are seemingly exempt from 'equal opportunity' law.

[SlightlyCatholic]

This is what really infuriates me:

The settlement, which didn't find that EHarmony broke any laws, called for the company to either offer the gay matches on its current venue or create a new site for them.

If they didn't break any laws, then what's the problem? It's a private business and they should be able to do whatever they want in regards to who they take. With a precedent like this, I should be able to sue a vegetarian resturant for not providing a sirloin steak on demand. It's insane...

[HairyEyeball]

Actually no, you shouldn't - nor should any judge be required to hear these bogus 'suits' which are little more than 'legal' harassment of legitimate business, they should be thrown out immediately (the case of the woman too stupid to realize McDummy's hot coffee was hot enough to scald, over which we had a lively discussion on the last iteration of the forum, springs to mind, as does the 'Stella Award' winner who won a suit against a furniture store because she tripped and allegedly injured herself on a child they allowed to run free and unsupervised. Oh, did we mention it was herchild?).

There's also the rash of 'cases' filed against legitimate firearms owners and importers for their 'complicity' in the criminal misuse of their (highly overregulated and non-defective) product, financed by our tax dollars, designed to bankrupt those manufacturers and importers while enriching trial lawyers. Despite the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 'judicial activists' such as New York's Jack Weinstein continue to flout the law - and the Constitution - with impunity.

Given the current political reality, until the Constitution is reinstated as the 'supreme Law of the Land', our best defense is to sit on the juries hearing these harassment cases, which will continue to go forward regardless - and invoke Jury Nullification: Tell the judge and the world that the defendant is not 'guilty' of anything because the law under which he is charged is illegal, illicit, unconstitutional and unenforceable on its face. Enough high-profile verdicts and enough of the populace may be kicked from its lethargy to elect legislators who have actually read and understood the Constitution, and will appoint judges with similar credentials.

[03_SHOOTER]

Originally Posted by HairyEyeball

Given the current political reality, until the Constitution is reinstated as the 'supreme Law of the Land', our best defense is to sit on the juries hearing these harassment cases, which will continue to go forward regardless - and invoke Jury Nullification: Tell the judge and the world that the defendant is not 'guilty' of anything because the law under which he is charged is illegal, illicit, unconstitutional and unenforceable on its face. Enough high-profile verdicts and enough of the populace may be kicked from its lethargy to elect legislators who have actually read and understood the Constitution, and will appoint judges with similar credentials.

Hairy, I would appreciate it, and I'm sure that most, if not all of the membership would find it quite immuminating if you would start a thread in the "Political Forum" explaining exactly what "Jury Nullification" is, how it works, and any ramifications that might arise from invoking it.