No eHarmony for lesbians |
Linda Carlson was looking for some female to female e-harmony at the dating site you’ve probably heard advertised on the radio called, yes, eHarmony. Problem is eHarmony doesn’t offer matchmaking options for gays, lesbians or bisexuals. So what does a person in this day using common sense do? Find a different website that does allow women to search for women. No, Not Ms. Carlson, these days you sue! And then the attorneys ask for class action status.
The lawsuit claims that by only offering to find a compatible match for men seeking women or women seeking men, the company was violating state law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Crazy. Take a look at the screenshot at the top of this page which as of this writing is the home page when you visit eharmony.com. It clearly shows the options available at the site. You’re either a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man. There isn’t any other option. This woman becoming so upset that eHarmony didn’t offer a lesbian option that she went running to the lawyers is bizarre and wrong.
Note to people thinking of lawsuits: make that a last resort. Suing someone or a company should be the last option on the table. In this circumstance and I didn’t try searching, but am certain there are dozens (hundreds?) of other dating sites (and please do not use the comments below to link to them) that cater to gay, lesbians and bisexual people. These alternative sites are just a Google search away.
There is no discrimination happening at eHarmony, there was a business choice made to focus on a niche market that did not include people with certain sexual orientation. Heck there are niche sites like Asian Friend Finder that focus on people of a specific nationality (and curiously they offer the same options as eHarmony). You don’t see people running out class action lawsuits against them. Or maybe that’s next?
Nothing against people who are gay, lesbian or bisexual, but I do discriminate against frivolous lawsuits.
Did this post make you go hmm?
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...Maybe Related Posts (plugin generated)
- eHarmony caves to courts and will offer same sex dating niche site
- New school for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
- Microsoft CEO change of heart in supporting diversity
- iPod and iBook class action lawsuits?
- USA TODAY forms harmonious deal with eHarmony
- Sexist men vs. women parking game
Yeah. Mainly because it’s a waste of time, money, and there’s no point to prove. You can start a campaign about how stupid eHarmony is instead for less. Seriously. If Google suddenly said.. hey… we don’t like Asians anymore… no problem. I’ll just start using Yahoo. Or whatever else… don’t make something a bigger deal than it is. That’s just plain idiotic. And it makes people wonder about your true intentions.
Comment by darkmoon — June 1, 2007 @ 7:42 am PST
Google up “rejected eHarmony” and take a look at the common thread from the 20% rejected from the site.
Comment by Wayne — June 1, 2007 @ 11:27 am PST
Wayne - a little short on time, so maybe you can help summarize your findings. Are 20% of them gay, lesbian or bisexual? If it’s 100% then so what? From their dropdown box it says men seeking women and women seeking men. They don’t offer a matchmaking service for people with a certain sexual orientation, I’m more curious why Ms. Carlson and her attorneys seeking class action status think that they should be able to force a website to provide matchmaking services to all different sexual orientations when that’s not the niche the website (eHarmony) wants to operate in?
Comment by TDavid — June 1, 2007 @ 11:49 am PST
Oh no…I wasn’t defending her suit in any way.
I was just noticing the large number of posts from people who were rejected, seemingly because they weren’t of a Christian based faith.
It may be a coincidence but I doubt it.
Comment by Wayne — June 1, 2007 @ 1:10 pm PST
There was a great interview on Fresh Air with the founder last year. He and his wife started it as a Christian dating site, but now it is mainstream. He firmly stated (in response to a little pushing from Terri Gross) that the gay/lesbian market was a market they just weren’t interested in serving. Seems fair enough to me.
Comment by Will — June 1, 2007 @ 4:31 pm PST
Hopefully common sense will prevail here. This lawsuit makes no sense. There are plenty of alternatives. If Ms. Carlson wins, there had better be a lawsuit against some big gay/lesbian dating site to allows straights in, too.
Comment by Bill — June 4, 2007 @ 1:43 pm PST
Perhaps it is finally coming to a point where people are starting to realize that the whole GLBT agenda is over-the-edge and getting outrageously out of control? They have long since left wanting fairness and/or simple inclusion and are now pushing for control of all views, social actions and even “thought control”. Are they not becoming more dangerous than the people that they claimed were “suppressing” them and their rights? This is certainly how it is starting to look.
Fairness is one thing, but unfair treatment and bullying of others by gays, should not be “tolerated” by anyone.
Comment by Linda — June 6, 2007 @ 9:46 pm PST
Imho, that’s a pretty rash statement to make against the entire community based on one person’s actions. That’s like saying… geee… I think that all Christians must be contentious because some Baptist church sent some people to my door during dinner time and wouldn’t leave. The same could be said for the ‘control of all views, social actions and even “thought control”‘ regards.
But the truth is, it’s not so much that, then some lady overstepping her bounds just as any other culture, lifestyle or what not has those people that go nuts.
Amusingly enough, it reminds me of this comment that I had to correct in one of my local blogs one day. The lady said that “All terrorists are Muslim.” And I had to respond that there were a lot of other people out that are terrorists that are not Muslim. Looks like we’re pushing into FUD now.
Comment by darkmoon — June 7, 2007 @ 5:31 am PST
I’m with darkmoon, Linda. There is no “agenda” here for any group of people, it’s a frivolous lawsuit. I’ll be disappointed if this one doesn’t get thrown out of court along with some well deserved admonishment from the judge.
Comment by TDavid — June 7, 2007 @ 5:59 am PST
Reply to Darkmoon and TDavid…
I would tend to completely agree with you were this “agenda” that I speak of the only thing that was being addressed by my comments. Darkmoon, before you “correct” me, and I say this with no sarcasm in mind–I would suggest that both you and TDavid go to a few site such as “massresistance.com” or “AmericansForTruth@comcast.net” and do a little listening and a some reading up on what is found there.
Actually, several months ago I would have been in total agreement with you both that there was no “agenda” behind the gay movement…today, I am no longer convinced of that. While I agree that we cannot and should not legislate “morality”–we also cannnot allow our school aged children to be indoctrinated against the will of their parents in a policestate-like environment, and that, folks, is what we are looking at. Seriously.
The mass media allows for no decent–NONE. If you do not side with them, you are branded “a hater” and “a bigot”. That, again, in itself is wrong. If you do visit sites like Mass Resistance, for instance, you will find that these folks ARE NOT coming at their stance against the GLBT because of any religious affiliation. That should tell you something. For them these are constitutional issues that are being diminished and obliterated here by a group of people who are becoming more and more so–out of control.
The problem then extends itself to other issues also; issues that the general public IS NOT being made aware of such as that of the pederast and pedophiles that are using the same language and the very same tactics and are fast making ground. Oh the gays then jump up and down in protest, however, who was it that taught them (the pedophiles) how to do it? Hmmm Perhaps it time to stop and take a real good look at things.
Several years ago, as you certainly will recall, we were made aware of the killing of a young man named “Matthew Sheppard”. A terrible thing when any person looses their life. Agree? Of course. However. We have heard about this young man from every possible venue, yes? But how much did you hear about the four year old that was murdered by a woman’s transsexual partner when he refused to call the other woman “Daddy”? Be honest here. It was barely taken notice of. Who speaks for this child? Certainly not the mass media. If a crime against a member of the gay community is to be considered a “Hate Crime”–then what is it called then one of their members commits a crime. Herein lies the problem. Gays are pushing for laws that will, in essence, make it unlawful for others to even so much as to have an opinion that is contrary to theirs. And, further that…what we do NOT realize is that one day the even crimes committed by this select group, due to its stature of “over protection” will be nearly exempt from prosecution for many crimes that they themselves will commit! Think that cannot happen–think again. It can and is well on its way to happening.
Again, if this was only about this law suit, I would tend to agree with you both. But I do challenge you to do your homework and do some digging. We, as a society, are being lulled into a “1984″ scenario by special interest groups such as the gay community who DO very much have an agenda, one that will floor you if you start looking into it. This is not about ONE person going “nuts” as you say. It is a well-planned agenda with millions of members, mind-blowing budgets and a goal to be reached at any price. Again, I invite you to look into it and then decide. I did. This is not about “gay bashing” either. One of my two best friends is an ex-lesbian and would take massive amounts of abuse from them (gays themselves) if she broadcast this. That’s another issue also. See. They are NOT about choice. This is being made more clear as time progresses.
I apologize to you both for my overly-long comments, but it is hard to say all this without going into some details as to the “whys” of it all. I look forward to your replying comments. We must all have “voice”, eh?
Comment by Linda — June 7, 2007 @ 8:13 am PST
No offense but I know plenty of GLBT people and activists that don’t follow what you call the “agenda”.
You can say the same for any PAC or even political party.
Personally, I think it’s overblown. Everyone wants you to be a part of their clique and follow the rules and patterns. Example:
Gun control - there are people that want to restrict guns.
Abortion - there are people that want to restrict abortion.
I actually find it amusing that you mention the whole “gay bashing” thing since I never thought otherwise until you said it. The whole “ex-lesbian” thing doesn’t agree with me. How the heck are you an “ex-lesbian”? That’s like saying someone that is gay but has had straight sex before as “ex-straight”. WTH.
While I can see some groups being extreme, it’s no different from anything else. People have muttered under their breath that Koreans were all nuts when the media declared Cho rom the VT shootings as a “Korean”. Like it or not, there’s always going to be extreme groups. The question is if you’ve done your homework and actually been able to pinpoint the groups that are that.
With regards to your whole media argument of coverage of some child’s death? Sorry, but we live in a world where bad things happen all the time. You want to spur on conspiracy theories? Fine. How about the fact that some Chinese tourist was beaten to near death by DHS agents thinking she was a terrorist because she didn’t speak English? Happened. At Niagara Falls. Media coverage? Nihil. Yet, it sparked intense outrage across the Pacific.
No one is saying you can’t have an opinion. Nor choice. The fact is that eHarmony started as a Christian dating service. Okay, fine. Whatever. We all know that most Christians don’t find GLBT as norm. So thus, when GLBT chases after a service that started out with a certain type of customer in mind, then this becomes a frivilous lawsuit by someone who’s a little bit of a whackjob.
And if we’re going to debate philosophy of society, then that’s a whole other story altogether. We as a society don’t follow the rules we dictate. So the whole 1984 thing? True. But by SIGs? Eh, I’m more for the freedoms that the government restricts without your knowledge like the NSLs than your SIG thought. But that’s moving in the wrong direction of this post anyways.
Comment by darkmoon — June 7, 2007 @ 8:41 am PST
[…] R and NC-17. The homepage for Hmm currently ranks PG-13 as of this writing. I was able to find a recent post that ranked […]
Pingback by Your blog page movie rating » Make You Go Hmm — June 24, 2007 @ 8:14 am PST
There’s nothing wrong with eHarmony or any other site offering Hetero or Gay or Lesbian exclusive dating services. A business should be able to choose their target market.
Comment by Lily — July 2, 2007 @ 8:40 am PST
Lily…
You are absolutely right. There is nothing wrong with that.
Comment by Linda — July 2, 2007 @ 4:37 pm PST
I agree with Lily. What about a developer right to shape their business as they like. We cannot possibly do everything for everyone…If you want to buy bread you go to bakery. Sue the shoe shop for not selling bread! Lets sue gay dating website for not allowing straight couples hook up:)
Comment by kb — September 15, 2008 @ 5:12 pm PST
An update on this eHarmony same sex situation:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2008-11-19-eharmony-same-sex_N.htm?csp=34
The courts got this wrong. Why is it so important for a website to focus on same sex dating if that’s not their focus? I’ll probably write more on this in an updated post.
Comment by TDavid — November 20, 2008 @ 9:40 am PST
I don’t see why anyone would use them knowing that they don’t care for it. That’s basically setting up a failing business. But whatever.
Comment by darkmoon — November 20, 2008 @ 10:27 am PST
[…] my dismay over what I felt was a frivolous lawsuit: a complaint against the site eHarmony for not offering same sex dating services at their […]
Pingback by eHarmony caves to courts and will offer same sex dating niche site » Make You Go Hmm — November 21, 2008 @ 12:18 am PST