PDA

View Full Version : QUEERLY BELOVED:eHarmony.com to match 'gays' (I can't wait to see the tv commercials!



megimoo
11-19-2008, 06:47 PM
eHarmony.com to match 'gays'

Dating site promoted by James Dobson bows to lawsuit, creates special service

Internet dating service eHarmony has officially agreed to begin matching homosexual couples, beginning next year.


The popular California-based service has been known for focusing on long-term relationships, especially marriage, which has been said to align with founder Clark Warren's early work with Focus on the Family's evangelical Christian base and perspective.

Warren, a psychologist with a divinity degree, has had three of his 10 books on love and dating published by Focus on the Family. It was an appearance on James Dobson's radio program, in 2001, that triggered a response of 90,000 new referrals to the website, starting a climb of registered participants on the site from 4,000 to today's 20 million clients.

As WND reported, the company originally said it was " based on the Christian principles of Focus on the Family author Dr. Neil Clark Warren." It stood firm on its decision to reject homosexuals from its profiling and matching services. Its entire compatibility system is based on research of married heterosexual couples.

In 2005, Warren told USA Today the company's goal is marriage and that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states.

"We don't really want to participate in something that's illegal," he said.

But now the company has been compelled to changed its nationwide policy as part of a New Jersey lawsuit settlement.

On March 14, 2005, Eric McKinley filed a lawsuit against eHarmony, claiming the company discriminated against him when it refused to accept his advertisement for a "gay" partner.

McKinley's complaint triggered a state investigation into the dating service.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81446

Odysseus
11-19-2008, 07:07 PM
eHarmony.com to match 'gays'

Dating site promoted by James Dobson bows to lawsuit, creates special service

Internet dating service eHarmony has officially agreed to begin matching homosexual couples, beginning next year.


The popular California-based service has been known for focusing on long-term relationships, especially marriage, which has been said to align with founder Clark Warren's early work with Focus on the Family's evangelical Christian base and perspective.

Warren, a psychologist with a divinity degree, has had three of his 10 books on love and dating published by Focus on the Family. It was an appearance on James Dobson's radio program, in 2001, that triggered a response of 90,000 new referrals to the website, starting a climb of registered participants on the site from 4,000 to today's 20 million clients.

As WND reported, the company originally said it was " based on the Christian principles of Focus on the Family author Dr. Neil Clark Warren." It stood firm on its decision to reject homosexuals from its profiling and matching services. Its entire compatibility system is based on research of married heterosexual couples.

In 2005, Warren told USA Today the company's goal is marriage and that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states.

"We don't really want to participate in something that's illegal," he said.

But now the company has been compelled to changed its nationwide policy as part of a New Jersey lawsuit settlement.

On March 14, 2005, Eric McKinley filed a lawsuit against eHarmony, claiming the company discriminated against him when it refused to accept his advertisement for a "gay" partner.

McKinley's complaint triggered a state investigation into the dating service.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81446

And yet, gay marriage wasn't supposed to change anything for anyone else. Churches wouldn't be forced to conduct gay ceremonies, dating services wouldn't be forced to provide gay hookups, etc. So much for that line.

jinxmchue
11-19-2008, 07:11 PM
New eHarmony ad:

"Are you a 'top' in search of a 'bottom's' bottom? Are you a bear-lover? Are you searching for that special someone who will poke your pooper? Then sign up for eHarmony today!"

Speedy
11-19-2008, 07:18 PM
I would put in software that made for some absolutely horrible matchups. And the ads I would portray them as the biggest and most offensive stereotypes possible. Complete with the silk scarf and carrying of ridiculously small dogs.

BSR
11-19-2008, 07:50 PM
"Queerly Beloved" made me laugh.. :D

wilbur
11-19-2008, 10:42 PM
I can't believe they didn't provide the service already. Someone in their biz dev dept needs to be fired. Leaving fist fulls of cash on the table.

megimoo
11-19-2008, 11:01 PM
I can't believe they didn't provide the service already. Someone in their biz dev dept needs to be fired. Leaving fist fulls of cash on the table.You should sign up for one of the Disneys Love Boat Gay Cruises.Wall to wall queers and there you are the only straight (At least I assume so ) on board and nowhere to hide for a week !

wilbur
11-19-2008, 11:05 PM
You should sign up for one of the Disneys Love Boat Gay Cruises.Wall to wall queers and there you are the only straight (At least I assume so ) on board and nowhere to hide for a week !

It's no secret that your best chance at finding women to meet on a weekend night is at the gay bar, where they feel safe, secure and don't feel like prey. I bet the cruise would be even better.

megimoo
11-19-2008, 11:22 PM
It's no secret that your best chance at finding women to meet on a weekend night is at the gay bar, where they feel safe, secure and don't feel like prey. I bet the cruise would be even better.
Yes the woman would feel safe from the gays but how about you ?Most woman who hang with gays are very ugly and are called 'fag hags' !As for gay cruises Disney recently was involved in a law suit from a man who booked his family aboard and unknown to him it was also booked by several large and raunchy gay clubs .
The cruse was an total abomination for he and his young family.Can you imagine an entire cruise liner loaded with drunk and stoned gays some nude sun baithing on deck and in the kiddie pool playing grabAss while young kids are around ?

wilbur
11-19-2008, 11:33 PM
Yes the woman would feel safe from the gays but how about you ?Most woman who hang with gays are very ugly and are called 'fag hags'!


uh huh..... whatever you say



As for gay cruises Disney recently was involved in a law suit from a man who booked his family aboard and unknown to him it was also booked by several large and raunchy gay clubs .
The cruse was an total abomination for he and his young family.Can you imagine an entire cruise liner loaded with drunk and stoned gays some nude sun baithing on deck and in the kiddie pool playing grabAss while young kids are around ?

Now that is funny!

Celtic Rose
11-19-2008, 11:50 PM
I can't believe they didn't provide the service already. Someone in their biz dev dept needs to be fired. Leaving fist fulls of cash on the table.

For some people, personal morality trumps money-making.

As a private company, eHarmony should have every right to offer their services as they see fit. It is disgraceful that a court would require a private company to offer services that they consider against their morals. There are Homosexual oriented dating sites out there, why is it necessary that they use this one?

wilbur
11-20-2008, 12:00 AM
For some people, personal morality trumps money-making.

As a private company, eHarmony should have every right to offer their services as they see fit. It is disgraceful that a court would require a private company to offer services that they consider against their morals. There are Homosexual oriented dating sites out there, why is it necessary that they use this one?

Read the article... the court didn't require it. They chose not to fight the case, and settle.

Not to mention, the online dating business is notoriously slimy and unethical...eHarmony doesn't exactly have a clean reputation in this regard, even though they are probably better than match.com.

PoliCon
11-20-2008, 12:46 AM
I can't believe they didn't provide the service already. Someone in their biz dev dept needs to be fired. Leaving fist fulls of cash on the table.here's the thing though - in a free country they should be allowed to leave those fists full of dollars on the table if they want. What is evil is that they are being FORCED to do something they find morally objectionable by people who claim to be TOLERANT. :rolleyes:

FlaGator
11-20-2008, 06:41 AM
In in a ironic twist the people who started and run E Harmony are Mormans I believe.

wilbur
11-20-2008, 08:05 AM
here's the thing though - in a free country they should be allowed to leave those fists full of dollars on the table if they want. What is evil is that they are being FORCED to do something they find morally objectionable by people who claim to be TOLERANT. :rolleyes:

I agree... its their right to make dumb business decisions and the lawsuit was.... stupid.

But they settled... no courts forced them to do anything.

Celtic Rose
11-20-2008, 08:27 AM
I agree... its their right to make dumb business decisions and the lawsuit was.... stupid.

But they settled... no courts forced them to do anything.

Which shows a fault in our legal system. The case should have been thrown out before there was any sort of financial threat to the company. There should be no need to settle to avoid court and attorney fees for stupid lawsuits. :cool:

wilbur
11-20-2008, 08:56 AM
Which shows a fault in our legal system. The case should have been thrown out before there was any sort of financial threat to the company. There should be no need to settle to avoid court and attorney fees for stupid lawsuits. :cool:

You can sue for any stupid reason you want to, if you can get a lawyer to represent you, but that doesn't mean the courts will even hear the case. The case didnt even get put before a judge to determine if it was legit or not.

I think they probably just weighed cost of their moral values vs the cost fighting a battle against people who were suing them in order to buy their services.

Odysseus
11-20-2008, 11:15 AM
I can't believe they didn't provide the service already. Someone in their biz dev dept needs to be fired. Leaving fist fulls of cash on the table.
Yeah, and the Catholic Church is missing out on a fortune in weddings, christenings and the like. Go figure.

For some people, personal morality trumps money-making.

As a private company, eHarmony should have every right to offer their services as they see fit. It is disgraceful that a court would require a private company to offer services that they consider against their morals. There are Homosexual oriented dating sites out there, why is it necessary that they use this one?
It isn't about having their own service, it's about forcing everyone else to accomodate them.

You can sue for any stupid reason you want to, if you can get a lawyer to represent you, but that doesn't mean the courts will even hear the case. The case didnt even get put before a judge to determine if it was legit or not.

I think they probably just weighed cost of their moral values vs the cost fighting a battle against people who were suing them in order to buy their services.
It never had to go before a court. From the rest of the article:


But now the company has been compelled to changed its nationwide policy as part of a New Jersey lawsuit settlement.

On March 14, 2005, Eric McKinley filed a lawsuit against eHarmony, claiming the company discriminated against him when it refused to accept his advertisement for a "gay" partner.

McKinley's complaint triggered a state investigation into the dating service.

Last week, eHarmony agreed to begin providing an eHarmony-affiliated "Compatible Partners" service to gays and lesbians, with listings labeled "male seeking male" and "female seeking female" by March 31, 2009.

For complying, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights has dismissed the complaint against eHarmony, and Warren is considered "absolved of liability." Also, the dating site has been ordered to pay the division $50,000 for investigation-related administrative costs and give McKinley $5,000. It has agreed to provide a free one-year membership to its "gay" service to McKinley, plus free six-month memberships to "the first 10,000 users registering for same-sex matching within one year of the initiation on the same-sex matching service," according to the settlement.

See, the court case was just the trigger for the Division on Civil Rights investigation. The price for simply complying was $50 grand, plus $5 grand to the plaintiff, all for not taking his ad. Imagine what New Jersey would have fined them if they'd fought back. Now, multiply that threat by every state that's inclined to pursue similar complaints (Massachussetts, Hawaii, New York, California, etc.,) and you begin to see why they knuckled under. E-Harmony might have won the lawsuit, but they couldn't fight dozens of them, plus star chamber investigations by state agencies that have no constraints on their ability to "find" violations of rights that didn't exist previously. They didn't simply sell out their moral values in the face of one tiny lawsuit, they knuckled under to a massive, legalized extortion that would have put them out of business.

Welcome to the future. Leave your rights at the door, and don't worry, we'll invent new ones so that you don't miss the ones that you've lost.

wilbur
11-20-2008, 12:30 PM
Yeah, and the Catholic Church is missing out on a fortune in weddings, christenings and the like. Go figure.

It isn't about having their own service, it's about forcing everyone else to accomodate them.

It never had to go before a court. From the rest of the article:


See, the court case was just the trigger for the Division on Civil Rights investigation. The price for simply complying was $50 grand, plus $5 grand to the plaintiff, all for not taking his ad. Imagine what New Jersey would have fined them if they'd fought back. Now, multiply that threat by every state that's inclined to pursue similar complaints (Massachussetts, Hawaii, New York, California, etc.,) and you begin to see why they knuckled under. E-Harmony might have won the lawsuit, but they couldn't fight dozens of them, plus star chamber investigations by state agencies that have no constraints on their ability to "find" violations of rights that didn't exist previously. They didn't simply sell out their moral values in the face of one tiny lawsuit, they knuckled under to a massive, legalized extortion that would have put them out of business.

Welcome to the future. Leave your rights at the door, and don't worry, we'll invent new ones so that you don't miss the ones that you've lost.

I doubt they would have to fight dozens of them if they simply chose to fight the first one and won.

And the 50k was part of the settlement if I understand that right... It doesnt seem like its something they would have to pay if they had gone to court and won.

Odysseus
11-20-2008, 12:47 PM
I doubt they would have to fight dozens of them if they simply chose to fight the first one and won.
Right. Because, as we've seen, gay activists wouldn't have tried again in another venue, as they take defeat so graciously. :rolleyes:

And the 50k was part of the settlement if I understand that right... It doesnt seem like its something they would have to pay if they had gone to court and won.

The $50K was the "settlement" imposed by the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, to cover the cost of investigating them. It's sort of like when China executes a dissident and sends his family a bill for the cost of the bullet. It was as much as "settlement" as any fine imposed by a state agency. Even if they had gone to court and won, it would have only ended the civil suit. The state investigation would have continued, since the one had no bearing on the other, and the NJDCR could have imposed any fines that it wanted to.

Regardless of your position on the issues themselves, even you have to see that this was extortion, rather than justice.

ralph wiggum
11-20-2008, 12:51 PM
For some people, personal morality trumps money-making.

As a private company, eHarmony should have every right to offer their services as they see fit.

There are Homosexual oriented dating sites out there, why is it necessary that they use this one?

Completely agree, CR.

Speedy
11-20-2008, 01:19 PM
I can't believe they didn't provide the service already. Someone in their biz dev dept needs to be fired. Leaving fist fulls of cash on the table.


Why? They are making plenty of money NOT serving gays and lesbians and I am sure a good chunk of those who do use it used it because it DID NOT cater to gays and lesbians. It was the CEO's business model and he has (or should have) the right to do business with whoever he wants.

I used to own a gas station and I can tell you right now that I would not have hired an openly gay applicant to work for me and the reason for it (though not on paper) would have been because he was gay. If he had been qualified in every other way, being gay would have disqualified him. It would have been that reason alone why he could not work for me.

Odysseus
11-20-2008, 02:30 PM
I used to own a gas station and I can tell you right now that I would not have hired an openly gay applicant to work for me and the reason for it (though not on paper) would have been because he was gay. If he had been qualified in every other way, being gay would have disqualified him. It would have been that reason alone why he could not work for me.

I don't know about that. He'd certainly know how to work the pumps. :D

PoliCon
11-20-2008, 02:36 PM
I agree... its their right to make dumb business decisions and the lawsuit was.... stupid.

But they settled... no courts forced them to do anything.people settle because it's cheaper and easier in the long run to give in - which is often the reason why people bring such suits in the first place.

PoliCon
11-20-2008, 02:41 PM
I doubt they would have to fight dozens of them if they simply chose to fight the first one and won. bullshit. They would continue to throw shit at e-hrmony until something stuck. It's the standard operating procedure of the left. Look at Gay Marriage. They have lost time and again and they still keep coming back and beating themselves senseless to get their way.


And the 50k was part of the settlement if I understand that right... It doesnt seem like its something they would have to pay if they had gone to court and won.no they would have instead have had to have paid MILLIONS in legal fees over a span of years.