Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

EHarmony sued in California for excluding gays

  1. May 31, 2007 #1

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Maybe I'm too dense to understand this. Why should an online dating service be forced to include all possible sexual/religious/whatever oriention dating services?

    I see ads for "Catholics Only" dating services, "gay only" dating services, "married men looking for cute young girls" dating services, yeah that one is advertised on OKCupid. :bugeye:

    I just think this is getting ridiculous. I hate frivlous lawsuits. Am I just not getting it? I mean seriously, if this law suit has any merit, could someone explain to me why?

    LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070531/tc_nm/usa_eharmony_gays_dc

    I don't even like eHarmony.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. May 31, 2007 #2
    Yeah, this didn't make sense to me either. It's amazing what people can sue for these days.

    I'm sure there are many gay dating services out there, and I must wonder why this woman didn't just use one of those. I'm guessing she wanted to use this as a platform for sue for changes in laws towards gays. But my question is: what law does this case pertain to? As you said, there's already precedent for dating services that cater to specific categories of people.
     
  4. May 31, 2007 #3
    gay people have their own dating websites. i dont see why they would go through the trouble of suing eHarmony. either they honestly think this is a serious mark against them as gay people and is offensive or they just want a reason to become fabulously rich very easily.

    does this mean straight people should start suing gay dating services for not allowing straight people to use it?
     
  5. May 31, 2007 #4
    there was a car crash and the passengers of a car involved in the crash were inside of the burning car. a bystander went over and dragged them out of the car by the time the first responders arrived. the victims of the car accident later sued the man who dragged them out of the burning car because they claim they suffered from back pain and other injuries as a result of the forceful way they were dragged from the burning car.

    ridiculous.
     
  6. May 31, 2007 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Perhaps a settlement is in order? He'll pay if they agree to be trapped inside a burning car with no one to rescue them.
     
  7. May 31, 2007 #6
    As I was reading this thread I accidentally spilled boiling-hot coffee on myself. NOWHERE on this thread does it warn me that I could spill coffee on myself.

    I give you one week to consult your best lawyers, because I'm suing your a** off!
     
  8. May 31, 2007 #7
    But yea I think it's ridiculous. Even if e-harmony was run by homophobes, you don't educate people by suing them. No one is perfect. I have friends who are homophobes, and i have gay friends; I have friends who are racists, and I have friends of different races... I even have a friend who's a total anti-semite and I'm a jew! I have no clue how that works for him but whatever... I don't think they're bad people, just misinformed. I won't change their mind by suing them or hating them. And who am I to act holier-than-thou as if I'm a perfect moral being.

    Basically everyone is too sensitive about these things, which leads to overreacting, which leads to them not being taken seriously or ruining any possibility of communication.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2007
  9. May 31, 2007 #8

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    :bugeye: :eek: Rut roh

    We really need some disclaimers. I personally have killed a couple of keyboards by spewing hot coffee or coke all over them while reading.:grumpy:
     
  10. May 31, 2007 #9
    sue them all Evo! you could be rich by now!
     
  11. Jun 1, 2007 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I agree. It's not like catering to one crowd is discrimination against the rest. What's more, they claim to have a unique formula or whatever to make matches. If this wasn't tested for gay relationships, they may have no idea if it applies and would be putting their reputation at risk.

    The next thing you know, they'd be getting sued for making bad matches and ruining people's lives.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2007
  12. Jun 1, 2007 #11

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yanks are such a litiginous society that they don't bear serous consideration. Rampant idiocy in action.
    Is, or is not, eHarmony a privately owned company? If so, it has no obligation to accommodate anyone that it doesn't want to.
    For the record, I am as far removed from being homophobic as a straight guy can be. I also believe very firmly that no one has to pay tribute to people that they don't approve of.
    If the National Jewish Council (or whatever country's equivalent thereof) refused to let a neo-Nazi post, could they be sued?
    If some Jerry Falwell-type site refused to air my views as an atheist, I sure as non-hell wouldn't try to bring suit against them.
     
  13. Jun 1, 2007 #12

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm trying to figure out how a gay person would benefit from using eHarmony anyway if they don't include other gay people on their site. :confused: If they primarily attract heterosexuals to join, who exactly does this person think she's going to be matched with? A matchmaking service, of all things, seems like it's better specialized than not. But, some people will sue for anything. So, even the world was completely backward and she really did win this, what does she gain anyway? The right to pay membership fees for a service that has nobody else on it to match her with?
     
  14. Jun 1, 2007 #13

    G01

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    This seems off. I thought that there were many states, if not most, that have Good Samaritan laws, where you can't be held accountable for anything you did wrong while trying to help in an emergency. Ex. If someone was drowning and you pulled them out and they needed CPR, but there was no one trained to preform it, you could try to preform it without having to worry about the repercussions (i.e. being sued) if you did it wrong and the person died.
     
  15. Jun 1, 2007 #14

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That's the way it is here, with one exception that strikes me as peculiar. I have friends in the fire department. One of the paramedics told me that he's not allowed to assist in such a situation when off duty, because he would be liable if something went wrong. Personally, I'd rather have him help me than an accountant or a plumber.
     
  16. Jun 1, 2007 #15
    Do gay dating services allow straight people to join? Could they be sued if they refused? What if masses of straight people insisted on joining gay dating sites? They wouldn't be gay dating sites any more. All sites would become just... dating sites, catering to no special interests.

    Homogeny is boring. If a privately owned business wishes to cater to a certain demographic then why shouldn't they be allowed to? We should tolerate each other's individuality, but I don't see why everyone has a right to be involved in people's private affairs.
     
  17. Jun 1, 2007 #16
    I've always been astounded by the convenience some people use when dealing with diversity. They like to say, "We have to be inclusive and treat everyone as equals and not focus on what makes us different!" on one hand, and then turn around and want special treatment for being a member of such and such group. They focus so much on what makes their little group different that what they do subtly causes those same divisions they're trying to eradicate.
     
  18. Jun 1, 2007 #17

    JasonRox

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Probably from the US.

    I rarely hear stupid stories like that from here. In fact, I don't even see Canadian lawyers with commercials. Whenever I watch American channels, 1 out of 3 are lawyers promoting the quick way to get rich. Another one is debt consolidation, everyone spending with no money. Another one is all them small colleges. Like damn, commercials are brutal on American channels.
     
  19. Jun 1, 2007 #18

    JasonRox

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P70581.asp

    I'd kick myself in the head if I owed over $8,000 in credit card debt!
     
  20. Jun 1, 2007 #19
  21. Jun 1, 2007 #20
    What channel do you watch, QVC? Lawyer commercials are not main stream american TV. You typically see that on low budget tv stations at 2 am.

    Side:

    Why do you constantly bash America? Is it because were so much greater and richer than you? Americas lil'bro, always mad for attention. I understand :wink: :devil::devil::devil:

    I dont see anyone trashing Canda (which is a great country) the way you Bash the US (constantly). Enough cheap shots.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: EHarmony sued in California for excluding gays
  1. Gay Penguins (Replies: 33)

  2. California Fires (Replies: 17)

Loading...