Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11  
    Senior Member Celtic Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Celtic Rose View Post
    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.
    Last edited by wilbur; 11-20-2008 at 12:07 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,301
    In in a ironic twist the people who started and run E Harmony are Mormans I believe.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member Celtic Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Celtic Rose View Post
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Celtic Rose View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •