LA TIMES -- Nov 19 -- eHarmony will begin providing same-sex matches under as part of a settlement with New Jersey's Civil Rights Division. Under terms of the settlement, the company can create a new or differently named Web site for same-sex singles. In addition, eHarmony will pay the division $50,000 to cover administrative costs. It will pay McKinley $5,000 and give him a free one-year membership to its new service.
The full article was originally published at LA Times, but is no longer available.
My goodness. All it took was a court suit. It's about time.
Posted by: Kathryn Lord | Nov 19, 2008 at 05:46 PM
Something doesn't add up. eHarmony *can* create a new or diffferent site. That doesn't mean they will. And, if they do, they could have just one registrant: Mr. McKinley.
Seems like a hollow victory to me - hardly close to his demand that a private company cater to his niche (which is ridiculous) - when it isn't the market they serve. It is scary to think that people can impose their will on others without regards to chosen markets, deeply held beliefs, etc. Granted, eHarmony isn't objecting on the basis of the latter. But, still.
When is manhunt.net, outpersonals.com, etc. going to be forced to cater to heterosexuals? How about taking down offensive images and content to people like me?
Or, does it only work one way?
Posted by: Sam Moorcroft, ChristianCafe.com | Nov 19, 2008 at 09:44 PM
Another glaring example of discrimination exposed.
I’m talking about a new group of people largely in the majority. Heterosexuals. Why is discrimination only valid one way as Sam Moorcroft alludes to?
This is a shallow win for a “look at me, I’m really, really different” type of person who has lost the power of reasoning. Everyone else knows eHarmony is not the most appropriate venue for searching for a same sex mate? A homosexual partner.
Seriously, those who quietly choose homosexuality need to be squirming in their seats and as deeply embarrassed by this decision as genuine quietly practicing Christians are by weirdo TV evangelicals.
This just simply divides the groups even further. One continuing example: Simply to discuss the topic in favor of non-homosexual behavior immediately classifies that person as homophobic, tell me, is that fair? Isn’t this discrimination in its purest form? Christians don’t agree with the homosexual’s lifestyle, but it’s both party’s choice and freedom to practice their beliefs.
However, it would easily seem that equality and understanding is not what is sought here from McKinley, it is a sort of legislation that demands that Christians must adopt and adapt his thinking.
McKinleys words just got in the way of basic harmony.
Posted by: pacificstu | Nov 19, 2008 at 10:36 PM
It does seem absolutely ridiculous that a private company be forced to cater for an audience that it doesn't commercially wish to cater for.
It does seem foolish that eHarmony hadn't created a separate gay-only brand but that's a commercial decision.
I think what probably made their position weak was a perception that perhaps the company looked down on the idea of same-sex relationships.
Either way - whilst it's absolutely right that there should be services to provide for any sexual preferences, I think the perceived attack on eHarmony for this is faintly ridiculous and I'd love to understand more about this.
I've had a few recent experiences of the pitiful litigious nature of some north american businesses - shouldn't market demand and commercial economics decide a corporate strategy, rather than the courts?
Ross
(a really rather liberal conservative european)
Posted by: Ross Williams | Nov 21, 2008 at 05:10 PM
This ruling is ludicrous. I am a straight man and yes, I am in favor of Gay marriage. (I gave money to defeat Prop 8 in California.) And yes, Gays should absolutely have equal rights.
However, forcing a company to serve two distinctly different populations serves no one. The needs and wants of the the Gay population are different from the needs and wants of the straight population. Is the state now going to force "Big and Tall" Men's shops to have product for people under 6 feet tall?
This is also not a case where the Gay population cannot get excellent services elsewhere. There are a number of quality dating services for Gays including MyPartner.com, which understands the needs of the Gay man looking for a long-term relationship. Is the state now going to tell these services they have to help straight people. Where would this stop?
Give Gays equal rights to marry and equal rights in the military and ignore these much smaller issues which the marketplace itself will solve by itself.
Posted by: Glenn G. Millar | Nov 24, 2008 at 11:42 PM