eHarmony sued for excluding gays

Remove all ads!

http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN3122132120070531?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

So I saw this yesterday while news surfing. The heart of it is exactly what it sounds like. A bunch of homosexuals in California are suing eHarmony for excluding them, and are currently seeking class-action status.

Now aside from the established fact that eHarmony doesn't offer any homosexual relationship finders (they've got men looking for women and women looking for men) and the fact that eHarmony was established by Christians and was first big in Christian communities, any thoughts on this?

Most specifically, I'm wondering on the legality of it. I mean, can a private organization be legally forced to service everyone? What about when there are legitimate claims that the service requested is different from what they specialize in? Are these people suing eHarmony just for kicks or do they have a legitimate legal claim?

 

Well, the page is now expired so I can't access it. Without the story to back it up, I'll do my best to give you an answer.

My understanding of US law is that you cannot prevent someone for requesting a service based on their sexual orientation. So I don't think you could legally prevent them from signing up. However, there certainly would be no obligation on eHarmony's part to match them up in homosexual relationships. eHarmony is very clear that they are hoping the people they match get married, and since homosexual marriages and civil unions are not recognized in most areas of the country, such a pairing is antithetical to their company's mission statement.

Furthermore, just because a company offers a certain service, there is no legal obligation to offer a deviation of that service, especially if they consider such a deviation amoral.

So I guess my answer is both yes and no. No, you can't deny someone a service based on their sexual orientation, but you are within your rights to select what type of service you offer. eHarmony offers matching of heterosexuals. Someone who is gay should only be allowed to use the service if they were willing to be matched to people of the opposite sex.

 

The link you posted tells me that the page has expired.

I know far too little of the law in this regard to tell if what they are attempting is likely to succeed, but the entire thing seems rather ridiculous. It seems rather like a heterosexual guy going to a gay club and complaining that the club doesn't cater fully to his tastes- there aren't enough single women looking for guys there. Or, to use a similar analogy, me forming a Warhammer club and then recieving complaints that I am not doing enough to encourage Warmachine players.

IMO, if it is a private organisation, it is entirely up to them who they choose to help. Charities tend to only help specific groups of society. Here in Britain, I know that there is at least one car insurance company that only accepts female drivers. While that last example could be seen as discrimination (albeit positive), I'm rather unlikely to sue them for refusing to accept me.

The fact that they are a Christian group should not, I believe, come into it at all. However, I don't see religion as a good justification for the vast majority of actions. They should be bound by the law in the same way as everyone else, but here I cannot see the law really having all that much authority over them.

Edit: Good points, Aldeth.

 

Well, it's news to me. I sinderely hope this case gets quashed in the earliest possible stages. It's as stupid as a vegetarian going to Big Harley's House o' Meat and complaining that Big Harley is discriminating against them by not offering salads. No law says that every customer must be given exactly what he wants, or that every business must offer every service.

It's actions like this that minimize the real plight faced by gays who are beaten, imprisoned or tortured. It's actions like this that make people like me not trust militant homosexual groups.

 

so, should all the straight people form class action lawsuits against all the gay sites? like others have said this lawsuit is/was stupid/silly.

 

Eharmony is a private company. They can actually exclude anyone they want for any reason. Look around. There are dating sites for whites only. There are black only dating services, Muslim only dating services, Indian only dating services. There are dating sites only for homosexuals. There are vegan only dating sites. They are all legal. If it is legal to run a dating site that only services people of a certain race, it most assuredly is also legal to service only people of a certain sexual orientation.

My take on this is that the folks filing the lawsuit probably already know that the suit is bunk and that their real goal is to shame Eharmony into providing service to homosexuals through bad publicity.

 

I'm wondering if this was not a limit in their initial programming, as their search engine doesn't accommodate such variances from the defined normal. After all, it's simpler to match from column a to column b than to have four columns then have an option for bi-sexuals...

Edit: Now that I read the article, the research that they rely on is based off heterosexual couples, and they don't feel they can make the same guarantee for homosexuals.

 

Considering there are tons of websites out there that cater exclusively to the homosexual community, and another huge number that have choices for homo, hetero and bisexual searches, I'd say just use another engine. I don't see what the fuss is about. Yes, you could call that discrimination, if it wasn't for all the sites that cater to an exclusive ethnicity, or religion, or what have you.

I don't like this statement much, because this exact same sentence could have been used by those restaurants that used to have signs saying "no blacks, no dogs, no irish". I know that's not what you meant and your next sentence makes that very clear. I suppose I would agree with the lawsuit if this was a hotel, at which point I'd say it would be discrimination for a hotel owner to refuse gay couples. However dating sites are another matter entirely and the "differs from our specialisation" claim seems a more reasonable one in this particular context. My only worry is that the case being thrown out may encourage bigots to use that exact excuse even when it is not justified.

 

Actually, ziad, that was very much part of my question.

From a legal standpoint, I see two problems. The first is, even if this is discrimination, can a private company be sued for it? Can McDonald's be sued for excluding blacks? Does Sears have the right to refuse to sell to old people? If discrimintation by a private company isn't grounds for a suit, then it doesn't matter if this is it or not, there's no grounds for a suit. If this is grounds for a suit, then you then need to determine if this is in fact discrimination or if it is simply a rational restriction of services offered. That would (I think) be determined by the court during the actual suit, so legal proceedings go ahead. The first one, however, is a clear matter of the law (I think).

 

I doubt that private companies are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexuality or race in the US, I would think the civil rights movement took care of that one. They certainly aren't allowed to do so here and we have had some cases where some idiotic redneck bars have refused to serve people of different ethnicities, they have been sued and punished accordingly for discrimination. Now for my part I'll just say that there's a difference between saying "we won't serve you because you're gay" or saying that "we don't have the expertise necessary to serve your demands". The former being discriminatory and the latter not being. To some it might seem like a question of semantics but in my opinion the difference is quite significant.

 

http://soulsingles.com/ - A black only dating site.
http://www.imilap.com - An Indian only matrimonial site.
http://www.pridedating.com/ - A gay only dating site.
http://www.allwhitedating.com/ - an all white dating site.
http://www.amigos.com - A Latino only dating site.

Like it or not, It's legal. Now, if any of these companies refused to hire someone based on race or sexual orientation, that would be illegal. Choosing only to service a specific niche (whites, blacks, gays, hindus, heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc), on the other hand, is completely legal.

 

A dating service is selling an item, in this case "dating service for heterosexuals". If you have no interest in their goods shop elsehwere. They are not discriminating anyone, they are just selling a specific service. I can't go into a McDonald's asking for a Whooper. Now as Drew wrote, if they refused to hire staff due to sexual preferences now that would be discrimination or if they refused to sell their heterosexual dating service to someone they knew was gay. Not supplying all kinds of services can't be discrimination

 

I think dating sites are a bit tricky example and could be justified somewhat better than say a private school, bar or a bus accepting only white customers. I'd find it somewhat surprising if those were still acceptable in the US. I can understand that some services are very specified sometimes by sexuality or ethnicity, this is quite OK but IMO it becomes discriminatory at the point when sexuality or ethnicity have nothing to do with the service itself.

 

I have profiles on three different sites that cater to LDS singles. I don't think they'd refuse a non LDS person, but they will enforce LDS standards, and customers know that the majority are in fact LDS and SINGLE. Naturally it does not accommodate gay, lesbian or bisexuals, and requires that you are single...

 

Or at least claim to be

 

But it is unlikely that someone seeking someone of the same gender will find any takers...

 

Once again, I will make an analogy -- If I go into Kentucky Fried Chicken and ask for a T-Bone steak, they are going to tell me that they cannot help me -- they do not provide that menu item. It's not because they hate me or are discriminating against me, that's just not what they do. To use a service instead of an item, if I walk into my local tire store and ask them to give me a haircut, they will tell me that they don't provide that service. No discrimination there, just the fact that the business does not offer that to its customers.

I think the gays are just trying to get some publicity at the expense of a legitimate business.

 

But there exists such a thing as the freedom of association. If I offer services, then I should be able to discriminate among my customers, using any system that I want to enforce. That is what this freedom means, it means that I am free to discriminate, that I am free to allow only certain people in my store (if I had one.)

Would-be customers do not have any right to my services, they should simply look elsewhere if I do not want to offer.

 

Not necessarily. They're perfectly within their rights to, oh, stage a boycott, or generate negative PR, or....