Suit forces eHarmony to offer gay dating service

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Online dating service eHarmony has agreed to create a new website for gays and lesbians as part of a settlement with a gay man in New Jersey, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General said on Wednesday.
The website will provide a dating service with "male seeking a male" or "female seeking a female" options, the Attorney General's office said in a statement.
eHarmony said it will launch the new same-sex dating site, named "Compatible Partners," by March 31.
The settlement was the result of a discrimination complaint filed by Eric McKinley against eHarmony in 2005, which will be dismissed under the settlement agreement.
eHarmony was founded in 2000 by evangelical Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren and had ties with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family.
The New Jersey complaint is not the only legal action to be brought against eHarmony for failing to provide a same-sex option.
In March, lawyers in California brought a lawsuit against the company on behalf of San Francisco resident Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.
"We believe that this case is now essentially moot, and we're confident that we will prove that in court," eHarmony vice president Antone Johnson said in a statement about the California case.
(Reporting by Rebekah Kebede, Editing by Sandra Maler)

 

This is rather interesting. A couple of years ago there was another suit brought by a gay couple against Parent Profiles which is a site for hopeful adoptive parents to post their profiles. The site only allowed married straight couples. The gay couple won their suit. Parent Profiles chose to not allow anyone from California to post a profile rather than to compromise their standards. There still has never been anything brought about single people hoping to adopt.

Wasn't there some issue about eHarmony not allowing people to place a preference for IR initially? (that's since changed also)

Not really sure what any of that has to do with IR though?

 

I'm not sure i agree with this ruling. There are dating websites out there that are strictly designed for gay/lesbian couples, and there are websites out there designed for straight people. It wouldn't be right for straight people to go to an all gay website and demand that there be a heterosexual option. That would defeat the purpose of the site, and remove the niche that gay and lesbian individuals created for themselves. So it seems kind of hypocritical for gay and lesbian individuals to invade the niche that e-harmony has for heterosexuals, and force them to change.

 

Co-sign Bryant, if E-harmony was the only game in town ..I could understand it but .....(shaking my head)

This board doesn't cater to GAYS ...other I/R sites do...and there nothing wrong with that...if your're looking for a specifc response or feedback from like minded people who understand your sitch.
This was the point Tinkerbell was making in another thread.

 

I agree with this.

 

I don't like the government forcing a private company to accommodate another group. This is not good at all. If LGBT people want a dating site, maybe they can start their own. eHarmony should not be compelled to accommodate them. Whatever happened to freedom of association?

 

Thank you Shion, but you said it better than I did!

 

You got it Dex. The government should let people have freedom to associate or not with whom ever they chose.

 

eHarmony is a highly popular website for people seeking to enter relationships, which means that denying a segment of the population the right to join prevents them from partaking of a service that increases their odds of finding a mate.

The root cause of eHarmony's decision was homophobia, which is likely the same reason why many of you object to the judicial ruling.

Here in California on November 4th, many black voters disgraced the heritage of the Civil Rights movement by voting for a proposition that denies gay and lesbian Americans the right to marry. I find it rather ironic for blacks to be so adamantly opposed to violations of our civil rights, but think nothing of denying the same fundamental rights and equal protection under law to other groups.

Read the 14th Amendment. No, in fact, read the entire Constitution . . . it's kind of important.

 

If I should chose to make a website that caters to persons who die their hair purple, and only purple, but it became a popular place to meet other purple haired people, would it be wrong for me to deny membership to a person who prefers to die their hair green?? Does the government have the right to tell me I can't deny that green haired person?

Really man, when people make a lifestyle choice it isn't a "civil right" it's a choice. I would never say they don't have the right to chose their lifestyle, I just don't think the government should tell us we have to accept everyones choice as if it were a civil right. Where will it end? Think about it!

 

Your right Tink it is a choice. Bi-sexuals deal with both is that not a choice?

 

*Sigh* some might argue being gay is not a lifestyle choice, you can't CHOOSE who you're attracted to.

Me being vegetarian and pro life, that's a "lifestyle" choice I suppose. I just don't think being gay is a choice. Just like I didn't choose to be hetrosexual, I just am.

 

I totally agree.

 

Exactly, there is no deliberative function to basic physical attraction and it would be intellectually dishonest to assert otherwise.

 

co-sign.

 

It's not a damn well choice for gods sake! I didn't choose to fall in love with my last gf, I just did! And trust me, I would have much rather fallen in love with a man, instead of having to get constant remarks from everyone else, either that what I did wasn't real, or that they wanted a threesome.
I didn't choose, I fell in love. It's not a choice! argh.

 

One can choose whom to have sex with, but I don't think one can choose one's orientation. I think it's something you're born with

But that has nothing to do with this ruling. LGBT singles have their own dating sites, and if there weren't any, they can create one. The government has no business being involved

 

I used to be an e-harmony member, albeit briefly. I deleted my profile since it felt it would be more preferred if I included black women as a preference. To me, I felt that was a red flag. I have nothing against black women, I respect them, but I'm not interested romantically speaking. I consider E-harmony to be conservative, with dictating what its members should date and be interested in, instead of letting its members choosing for themselves. With the issue of gays and this site, I say gays should be allowed to use this site and post their profiles, since match.com and cupid.com (to name a couple of online dating sites), allow gays to do so.

 

I think it's eHarmony's prerogative as to who they allow on their site, the same as any other site.

 

Yes, and they can have such a site if they want. The government shouldn't force anyone to include them.

I don't "fall in love"! That in and of itself is a huge mistake, IMO.

I have felt strong chemistry with people I have chosen NOT to date, or to "love". I take it as chemistry, then I evaluate the situation, before deciding who to get involved with, or who to allow myself to love in that way.

You see "LOVE" is also a choice!! That's what is wrong with a lot of relationships, people think they have no control over who they love or don't love. I beg to differ. You can even chose to love people who have been very hurtful to you, it's even healthy to do so as long as you don't let that person continue to have damaging control over you. You can also chose not to love every person you feel strongly for.

Ditto!!
We need to respect the right to segregate (for lack of a better word) if people want to. Granted I am talking about self segregation, not forced segregation! Big difference!