This is hypocritical to the extreme.”

November 19th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

There are a number of gay-dating sites in which you’ll find a heterosexual man/woman who puts up an add. They are not specifically blocked from adding a profile. They just don’t get many hits.

eHarmony actively excluded anyone who was looking for a same-sex partner. The minute you put “Man looking for man” you received a message that they were unable to match you with anyone in their database. Why? Because the actively blocked any of these profiles from ever being entered in their website.

So much for “equal treatment”.

As for your straw-man argument about being denied the right to buy lingerie, you are not blocked at the door from entering the establishment, are you?

How can a company providing a dating service to heterosexuals be construed as depriving a gay of their human rights.

I don’t have an exact count but there are 13 different internet sites, that I know of, offering dating matches and services to the GLBT community.

So again explain how I am having my human rights violated. eHarmony does not do gay dating so as a free citizen in a free country making a free choice I DO NOT DO BUSINESS with them. I go to the companies that do allow gay dating.

This is an assault on freedom of choice and freedom of expression.

What next? Are you going to pass civil rights legislation that forces ladies wear companies to sell me, a man, the lingerie I like to wear so badly(yeah transgendered too)? Or are you just going to leave it alone and let someone who wants to make money off me open a shop that caters to my tastes. That is the free market in a democratic society like the USA.

This is a far different scenario than a government passing laws forbidding citizens the same rights as someone else. This is about a business catering to it’s niche market. They are not infringing on anyones civil rights. There are plenty of alternative gay dating sites.

This is what the right screams about when they argue against gay rights. It is gays forcing everyone to cow down to their needs and wants. This is about forcing the gay lifestyle on heterosexuals against their will. And that is no better than the treatment we get in return for being gay or transgendered. How about a law forcing an exclusively gay dating site to setup and be forced to allow heterosexual dating on their site.

This is hypocritical to the extreme.

Although uber-right Focus on the Family did play a key role in getting eHarmony press during the early years, that association was severed several years ago… Much to the dismay, I’m sure, of Dr. Dobson.

November 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
______

He’s probably pretty happy about it now, though. ;)

If I ran an online dating service, I would see the profit benefits of matching up gays as much as matching up heterosexuals, and I wouldn’t wait for a civil rights settlement to capitalize on it.

I work for a company that’s all about matching men with men. Personals and adult sites have known for a long time that niche is what works. Trying to be everything to everyone doesn’t foster community. That’s built around common interests, of course.

Sure, we could offer a site for heterosexuals or lesbians but why should we be forced to divert resources to that? There’s nothing remotely like a monopoly situation among personals/matching sites. No one is getting tax payer dollars and then discriminating. And this isn’t like, oh say, an airline or a restaurant where the product has absolutely nothing to do with love and/or sex between customers.

It’s not nice that someone would not provide a product like this for some people because they believe those people to be immoral. But I don’t really see a need to force a private business to offer a product they have no interest in — in this case that being romantic matches for people of the same sex.

And back to the forced diversion of resources, our company is struggling with finances at this point (ad dollars are drying up) so I can’t even imagine what it would do to us if we were legally forced to spend money developing and maintaining a new product.

The sad thing for eHarmony is that they are being forced to do something that was in their interests to do all along. There is a huge market for gay and lesbians who are seeking meaningful, long term relationships. Had eHarmony looked at its bottom line instead of the biases of its leadership, this court case would never have been necessary.

I wish them luck in the new venture. Who knows, I may even give them a try.

Not at all. Are you for limiting who worships when and where?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

It’s not my business, and I’ve never claimed it was. Just keep it out of my face.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Is it my imagination, or is there money to be made from matching people up? It would seem that if one can make money from something, that “something” would exist.

If I ran an online dating service, I would see the profit benefits of matching up gays as much as matching up heterosexuals, and I wouldn’t wait for a civil rights settlement to capitalize on it.

I’m rather surprised that the free market hasn’t taken care of this.

November 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am

———–

It’s not always about money. Some people actually have core beliefs and they stand by them. I think this is one of those cases.

November 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

—-

Not at all. Are you for limiting who worships when and where?

So your all for taking down a church? That would be cool? Why? You want to limit others in their choices?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Are you for limiting others in their choice of life partners?

This is great. If I’m not mistaken there are some church ties to the ownership of eHarmony, and it might be the Mormon Church. Would that be cool and ironic as hell or what?? Can anyone confirm that perception of mine about the church ownership?

November 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am

So your all for taking down a church? That would be cool? Why? You want to limit others in their choices?

I went back in and changed my response to the minimum amount of religious activity (don’t remember what it was), and miraculously there were matches for me.

Have you seen their commercials? Seriously, I think they’re helping closeted gays already. ;)

a further reading of that same article would have yielded this:

In late May, after Warren began to publicly distance himself from Focus on the Family, Dobson announced a formal separation of sorts on his radio program. It’s a significant split; the conservative, evangelical community nourished Warren’s nascent business, and now he appears to be leaving it behind for the secular world. Part of his reluctance to talk to a reporter who he guessed would press him on religious and social issues may well have had to do with the delicacy of his situation. Is he a moral man who has begun to question the narrowness of the Christian right, especially their position on gays? Or is he a savvy opportunist looking for a bigger market share? And if it means that he is opening himself up to a more nuanced and accepting worldview, does it really matter?

But I know they have one for Repugs–it’s called

Lowered Expectations (MadTV)

**Man. can’t believe the trolls aren’t bouncing on this one!

Sorry Keyser – you are the one who is mistaken:

Since it’s not a secret that Warren is an evangelical Christian with strong ties to the conservative Christian community — including a prior business relationship with Focus on the Family leader James Dobson — I suspected that his views on social issues came straight from the Christian right, and the longer the company dodged my calls the more skeptical I got.

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2005/06/10/warren/

The Lord will smite the servers of this website, and pour forth his wrath down the tubes.

Keep trying, getting Daryll’s pious hypocrisy, with a whole lot of stupid mixed in takes a lot of practice, and possibly whacking your head with a 5 pound mallet a few times. =)