Speaking of Dating...
So, according to a Reuters article (I don't know how long this link will be valid) I just read, eHarmony, the Mega dating site, is being sued for refusing to offer its services to gay, lesbians, and homosexuals. Apparently, eHarmony has been pissing off the G/L/Bi community for quite a while for not offering "men seeking men" and "women seeking women" options on its site, though I'm not 100% sure what bisexuals are complaining about...
Anyway, one person tried, was denied, and she wrote the California-based dating site, asking them to change their illegal discriminatory (according to her, at least) policy, which they refused to do. So, she's suing. And the lawyers are trying to make this a class action suit.
Here's my thought on homosexuality. You want to be gay? Great. To pun a phrase in Yiddish - Gay Gesundeheit.:) What I don't find acceptable is the same thing I don't find acceptable with heterosexuals - what you do behind closed doors is none of my business and, quite honestly, I don't want to know about it. Period. I don't want to see a gay pride parade, and I don't want to see gays making out. Honestly, I don't really want to see heterosexuals making out in public either. Now, some would say I might be a little hypocritical when it comes to TV and movies. I have no problems with heterosexuals getting it on. I don't really like seeing gays (men or women) doing "it" in my face. Sorry, but for me it's just personal preference.
eHarmony was founded by an evangelical Christian, Dr. Neil Clark Warren, and had strong early ties with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family, according to the Reuters article. As an evangelical Christian, Warren decided not to offer homosexuals his services. Regardless of interpretation of the law in California, Warren has the right to not provide certain services. It's kind of like the sign you see in many stores: "We reserve the right to deny anyone service for any reason." Or "No shirt, no tie, no service." In Warren's case with eHarmony, the policy is "we service heterosexual dating."
Imagine walking into a supermarket, not finding kosher meat, and being told "sorry, we don't carry that here and don't plan to because we don't feel like servicing the Jewish community." OK. Great. You've lost my business because I'll go to supermarket B and buy my kosher meat there. The same applies here. The site refuses to service homosexuals. Great. GO TO ANOTHER SITE!!!! STOP FORCING A STORE TO CARRY A PRODUCT IT DOES NOT WANT TO CARRY. Further, if carrying that product goes against the owner's religious beliefs, when you sue him for that, you are suing him for his religious beliefs. Maybe, in turn, Warren should sue this woman, and the entire class action if it becomes a class action suit, for inhibiting his freedom of religion.
Imagine a non-Jew going on JDate.com, not finding any non-Jewish women on it, and suing JDate for discriminating against him for not providing an option for non-Jewish women. Or imagine a non-Orthodox Jew going on a frum dating site, like Saw You At Sinai and not finding an option for denomination and suing SYAS for discriminating against him by not offering an option for someone of his Jewish practices. Pretty stupid, huh?
Or, imagine a non-Jew walking into a kosher deli (not kosher style, but actually kosher) and asking for ham and cheese on white bread. He'll be told they don't offer ham because it's not kosher and they don't offer cheese because it's a meat restaurant. Is he going to sue for the deli for not catering to his desires?
The answer to all these: NO. The person, if they really want they are looking for and not finding it in one place, will leave and find it elsewhere. If you are gay and trying to find a date on a heterosexual site, you’re not going to have any luck. So, go to another site and find a date there!
I hope the California Superior Court will find this lawsuit to be completely frivolous. Otherwise, it opens doors to a lot of very silly lawsuits out there that will drain resources that could be used for other, more deserving purposes.
Sorry to have gone on so long, but this was a too good to leave alone, and it's my blog, so I'll write if I want to...:)
One Last Comment:
Sorry, but I missed the last paragraph in that Reuters article about eHarmony. This is just too precious:
"Carlson's lawyers expect a significant number of gays and lesbians to join the class action, which seeks to force eHarmony to end its policy and unspecified damages for those denied eHarmony services based on their sexual orientation."
Excuse me? What? Damages? Hee hee Yikes!!
20 comments:
As a complete non-user of dating service providers (or whatever the heck they're called), who or what they offer iz mir gonz sheiss-egal.
None of the gay men I know seem to have any problem hitching up (and I have no interest in asking them what they do once upgehitst).
As far as the e-Harmony services they were denied, they weren't denied anything. I'm sure that they could easily have found some frigid person of the other gender who would gladly cater to their every whim in a supportive manner while abjuring any and all sexual contact with them - sexless marriages are quite common, and much to be recommended. Too many people who should not be parents become parents anyhow. Time to turn that tendency around.
Now if only I could persuade my signifother that children would be a great idea for her, life would be perfect.
You see, unlike all other dating services, apparently E-harmony actually works!
And here I thought the Chemistry.com commercials bashing e-harmony were bad enough.
My wife and I met on frumster.com. One of the nice things about that site is that they actually try to check that you are really an Orthodox Jew. I've heard horror stories from folks who met someone on JDate who claimed to be Jewish and wasn't.
The back of the hill,
No pun intended, but don't you think a sexless marriage would suck?
My wife and I have discussed this about being frum and gay. How does one reconcile the two? It's a lot to go into here and now, and maybe I will, with my wife's help, at some point.
And you are right. There are many people who simply should not be parents and they are. And there are also many, unfortunately, who aren't who should be.
And maybe I should introduce your significant other to my kids. My son actually caused a couple we know to finally decide to have kids!!:) They now have a set of beautiful twins, a boy and a girl, and are extremely happy with their decision!:)
Totally frivilous.
Guess what, I turn away dishonest clients. So sue me!
SephardiLady,
You wouldn't!!
Wifey says hi.
No pun intended, but don't you think a sexless marriage would suck?
One of my ancestors had twenty-seven children who all lived to adulthood. He wore out three wives.
From the point of view of at least two of those wives, a sexless marriage might have been not such a bad thing.
I would consider introducing my signifother to your kids, were it not for two minor matters:
1. A distance of around three thousand miles (SF versus East-Coast), and:
2. That woman is so shy she is nearly impossible to introduce to anybody. We once bumped into some friends of mine in the metro-station, and when I turned around to introduce them to her, she was already halfway down the platform.
Silent, stealthy, and adept at remaining invisible.
While I believe it's "wrong" to not allow same-sex dating on your site, it should not be illegal. No chance this lawsuit goes anywhere.
Ooh. Too bad. I used to live in LA. Could have met then. We left because the cost of living, as you know living in SF, skyrocketed. We actually live in the Midwest. So it's really only about 2200 miles. :)
I promise you, if my son ever met your wife, she would warm to him in an instant. He just has that way about him. And my daughter? She's 19 months and full of spunk!
Well, if you're ever in the Midwest, contact me at amksheoref at gmail.com...
Jewish Atheist,
I don't agree or disagree with you as I am not the proprietor of eHarmony. However, as the proprietor, he has the right what to offer and not offer. Let's say you go into shop that exclusively sells food and you are looking to buy diapers. The store has no diapers as it exclusively sells food. Is the proprietor of that store wrong (aside from bad business practice) not to sell diapers?
I really believe the same applies here. The proprietor of eHarmony sells heterosexual, monogamous relationships. Exclusively. He doesn't want to sell anything else. In what way is he wrong? It's his choice what to sell and not sell.
Great post. eHarmony, lulei demistafina, looks to promote families and procreation.
AKO:
Let's say you go into shop that exclusively sells food and you are looking to buy diapers.
Food and diapers are morally neutral. It's more like a dating site refusing to match black people or allowing all religions but Mormons. Places like Jdate who cater specifically to a minority population looking to date each other are not really equivalent. It's the difference between a site saying we're a dating site for Hispanics and one saying we're a dating site for all people but Hispanics.
If eHarmony was explicitly a dating site for a certain kind of Christian, I'd be okay with it, but being only for heterosexuals is basically allowing everybody except one particular group, for arbitrary reasons.
JA- Being only for heterosexuals allows everybody but two specific groups. Besides, I don't fully agree with the racial comparison. The argument that Barak/eHarmony is making is that they sell a certain product not that they don't sell to certain people. It's not as if they would stop a homosexual from using their site to find someone of the opposite sex.
I disagree. Why can't you say this is a dating site for heterosexuals. There are dating sites for homosexuals, and that excludes heterosexuals. Does that make it wrong?
My wife adds something very important to remember: eHarmony is specifically geared toward setting people up for marriage, not just for dating. Now, this does open a whole can of worms regarding homosexual marriage. However, as a religious person, the person running the site is running it for the purpose of heterosexual marriage.
J-Date has a lot of non-Jewish woman on there under the category "want to convert" so the non-Jewish men would find MANY girls there. I think it's pretty annoying that J-Date has a category such as "willing to convert". It shouldn't be there.
Frumster does not check if someone is really Orthodox. I am about to sue someone on Frumster who has been stalking me for over a year. The stuff he has done is way against the Halacha.
Have you contacted Frumster to get this guy blocked? Maybe change your profile? Might be easier, unless the guy knows who you are and where you live, which presents another huge problem with these sites. You never really know what you're getting into until it's too late to out of it.
Good luck.
Imagine a non-Jew going on JDate.com, not finding any non-Jewish women on it, and suing JDate for discriminating against him for not providing an option for non-Jewish women.
Actually, there are non-Jewish women on J-Date. Just FYI.
Something about this whole deal stinks.
Two thumbs up!
hello
rendez vous sur jewisheritage.fr
a bientot
shalom
Post a Comment