eHarmony caves to courts and will offer same sex dating niche site |
Some readers might remember 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 website.
In a court ruling where eHarmony has admitted doing no wrong, it has agreeed to start — yep, you guessed it — a same sex website.
It’s not going to be at eHarmony though (puzzling to say the least) which means the courts didn’t do anything except force eHarmony to start a niche site for same sex partners and give someone $$$ for crying foul.
The new same sex site eHarmony is creating is available at compatiblepartners.net. Now let’s see what the guy who complained, Eric McKinley, says about eHarmony (emphasis mine):
McKinley, 46, said he was shocked when he tried to sign up for the dating site but couldn’t get past the first screen because there was no option for men seeking men.
"It’s very frustrating and it’s very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can’t," he said. "And the only reason I can’t is because I’m a gay man. That’s very hurtful."
Did he just use the word ‘humilating’ to describe a website that didn’t cater to him? Seriously? I can’t believe Mr. McKinley didn’t just use his browser of choice and choose a different website. Why did he feel it was important to force eHarmony to create a separate niche site so he could find other men to date?
This is not a gay vs. straight issue
Just so I’m not misunderstood, this is not a gay vs. straight issue. I have no problem with gay people being able to find dates online. No problem with bisexual people dating men and women. This isn’t about sexual preference at all to me. This is about a business online that has chosen to only cater to hetero dating being forced to create a site for same sex couples.
I can’t believe the court didn’t just throw this out. It’s not discrimination. Discrimination would be telling gays and lesbians that they can’t use the site to search for the other sex to date. eHarmony did no such thing, did they? Or did I miss that?
At the end of the day all this lawsuit did was give publicity to eHarmony to start a niche site that caters to same sex couples, joining a sea of others that already offer the service online. Mr. McKinley and Ms. Carlson who I wrote about originally could have found plenty of dates at other online dating sites. They were no more discriminated against than I would be if I want to exchange science fiction books at some website that only allows exchanging romance.
Outrageous. The courts got this one wrong. Agree/disagree?
Did this post make you go hmm?
(2 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ...Maybe Related Posts (plugin generated)
- No eHarmony for lesbians
- Online dating site granted a patent
- Top 10 personals / dating sites in March 2005
- USA TODAY forms harmonious deal with eHarmony
- Married? It’s True.com you shouldn’t visit!
- Background checks for online dating being proposed in Michigan
You have touched on a very sore subject with me. I agree this was not a discrimination issue. I do not practice discrimination and have little respect for those who do. But lets be realistic for a change. The ultimate result of this type of situation is the free enterprise system breaks down. I don’t think it’s a ‘right’ that everything be available to everyone just because. If I run a business with a product line that is entirely purple, I should not have to produce orange alternative items just cause someone doesn’t like purple! Find a business that caters to your preferences and quit wasting tax money and abusing an already strained legal system just because you think you deserve special treatment. Frivolous lawsuits like this are what PROMOTE discrimination! You think your helping your cause by making people aware, but your killing your cause. Instead of helping your cause by choosing to stand up against something that would really make a difference you are desensitizing everyone. If you want to be a martyr for killing your cause, your on the right track.
Comment by Gretchen — November 21, 2008 @ 7:10 am PST
Great, another bailout. This is just sick. What’s big brotha going to dictate to us next?? Oh yea thats right. They are going to redistribute hard earned income to those who don’t work.
In protest they could make the site/service suck. Plain interface, no ‘compatibility guarantee’. Of course why do that when they can capitalize on it? They may have been forced, but they will cash in on this. So in a way the govt forced them to create a new biz section.
Just wait for the govt to put taxes on this service.
Comment by Lestat — November 21, 2008 @ 8:14 am PST
…and frankly I’m upset makeyougohmm doesn’t offer an alternative site for those of us who prefer things that don’t make us go hmm.
Comment by Lestat — November 21, 2008 @ 8:15 am PST
This is not right. If they didn’t want to offer same sex dating services than they shouldnt be FORCED to.
Im sure there are plenty of other same sex dating sites that are around.
Comment by Daniel — November 24, 2008 @ 5:32 pm PST
I agree, no court should force someone to make a site when they aren’t trying to discriminate against anyone. If I see a site that doesn’t sell clothes that fit my lifestyle or size or whatever it is, I have no right to take them to court to enforce that they do. Unbelievable!
Comment by Brittney — November 24, 2008 @ 5:46 pm PST
Maybe a fair protest is if everyone went to gay oriented sites and DEMANDED they include matches/chats/whatever for heterosexuals. Even better, how about matchmaking for Christians who believe “true love waits”? How capable are they at servicing needs outside of their expertise?
Comment by Tammy — November 24, 2008 @ 7:23 pm PST