Read about it here. And just think, this is without civil rights for sexual preferences being in place. Just think what you have to look forward to if/when those come about!
“The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.”
I predict that the transgender groups will form a class action against the gay/lesbian/bisexual groups for excluding them. Who do they think they are, anyway?
Seriously, I bet many gays think that suing eHarmony is ridiculous. But there is a sizable portion that won’t rest until every school, church, Mosque, etc. has to hire GLBTs in every conceivable job.
I think this type of action is going to have a backfire effect. This can only harden the hearts of many of the “middle of the roaders” that have been trying to have open minds about the gay experience, etc. It tends to amplify the worst of what they have to offer in a way that becomes a sterotype and a caricature. ….. Next Stop Lauderdale
I agree with my pops. Backfire BANG!
Well, why can’t a heterosexual sue LGBT sites for exclusion? Obviously, they could argue that a straight man could find a bi woman, but a straight man can’t find a straight woman, which is his sexual preference.
That is the real backfire effect – their specialised groups can be sued for excluding mainstream society.
This is ridiculous. So, can vegetarians start suing BBQ joints for not being vegan-friendly? Can I sue a preschool for not accepting me just because I’m 19? How about a man suing Curves for being a women-only facility? Some businesses are geared toward specific crowds. I’m not offended because I don’t fit into every possible social category… so why are GLBTs?
In a capitalist society, shouldn’t gays just start their own sort of eharmony.com (which I hear they already have)? That would be a win-win situation for everyone. I guess it would appear that they aren’t truly looking for such a situation. Hmm.
Actually, Tieki, I think that some guy had sued Curves over the woman-only policy. (As progressive as it sounds, the policy is actually very traditional. Curves apparently does not have walls of mirrors, either – the idea is to work out and get fit in peace, without staring at yourself or having men stare at you.)
To me, a diverse marketplace is a great thing. I can have my women-only workout areas, a vegetarian-only restaurant and the like.
Stuff like this makes me want to use my law degree for reverse discrimination suits, just to point out how stupid the whole thing is. Someone sues eharmony? Great – drop your suit or we’ll shut down your LGBT website.
Quick! Somebody start gHarmony.com! Then you can get sued by straights.
What a joke. Ooops! Darn. I was reading this on my mobile phone while driving and spilled hot McDonalds coffee all over my lap. AAAgggHH it burns!. I’m suing 4simpsons, the phone company, and McDonalds. It’s the American way.
I am curious why E-harmony doesn’t allow gays? I support their decision, but I am curious what they base their stand on.
Yeah, Bridget, I thought there might have been some lawsuit like that as I was writing that comment, but I was feeling just lazy enough to leave it general.
Do you know what the outcome of that lawsuit was? I assume that Curves won since they have maintained their women-only atmosphere.
As for a diverse marketplace, it’s just inconceivable to me how anyone would not appreciate that! Sometimes I just can’t wrap my mind around why people choose to be so unreasonable and unpractical. Ironically, those two adjectives are often used to describe conservatives… weird!
I added my own thoughts to this on my blog. My 2 main points were this.
1) I agree with theobromophile, in that I think the marketplace would sort this out.
2) Many liberals are truly about a “live and let live” atmosphere, but this shows that many are not, that they are all about forcing others to accommodate their own lifestyle.
Tieki,
See this for the Curves suit in Wisconsin: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995568,00.html
(WI re-wrote their anti-discrimination laws.)
California’s bill to allow for single-sex health clubs died in committee in 2006.
http://fitnessbusinesspro.com/mag/fitness_access_denied/
Wow. Thanks for the link, Bridget. That California deal is just insane and it kind of makes me angry. I mean, seriously… I have no desire to go into a men-only center, so why do they want to go to a women-only center? It’s not as if there aren’t co-ed facilities already in existence. This whole “discrimination” thing is getting old. Why can’t business owners choose their targeted audiences? What right does the government have to force business owners to serve people that their business isn’t designed for? Insanity.
Welcome to the realm of positive rights, Tieki.
Back in the Jim Crow era, the government would often mandate that common carriers (restaurants, hotels, and transportation industries) segregate racially. That was not just a private action. I assume that many people followed out of custom.
We developed the right to be free from government-enforced segregation – i.e. the negative right to not REQUIRE segregation. We saw that with Brown v. Board and the progeny of cases from there (including the VMI case).
Somewhere along the line, the right to be free from gov’t-mandated rules mutated into the “right” to not make your own rules. In the ’50s and ’60s, many restaurants, even if they so desired, could not integrate. The right to integrate and patronise integreted establishments changed into the right to be free from segregation.
(…and people think we are crazy when we worry that the right to get an abortion, justified on public policy grounds, could transform into the requirement to abort.)
Hi Bridget – Excellent point about positive rights. China is obviously an example of the requirement to abort, but I don’t think we’re far from insurance companies “reluctantly” telling people that they must abort or the pregnancy won’t be covered. They’ll do this anytime a pregnancy looks troublesome.
Doctors do this already in an effort to avoid lawsuits. I know several people who were encouraged to abort yet the kids are now thriving (Not that having a disability would be a reason to abort, anyway – it is just that the doctors missed the point on the whole thing twice).
As a gay man, I also do not see the point of this lawsuit. There are lots and lots of GLBT establishments which are explicitly not open to heteros. In fact, my partner and I frequently vacation either Palm Springs or Guerneville, two gay male resort towns. The hotels, restaurants and bars in these towns are largely open exclusively to gay men. If a woman tried to stay at a gay male hotel, for example, I would expect her to be told no.
Thanks, Neil.
I would not be surprised to see abortion being pushed on women. Let’s be honest: the justification is already “for their own good,” so can we be shocked when people tell women to abort for their own good? Or for financial reasons? Wow, abortion is anti-woman – go figure…..
Great point, David. In a free market, your rights are protected – you wouldn’t want me suing to get into your bar. And I’m happier knowing that gays can have their own safe space to interact with each other, just like I’m happy that there can be women-only schools and clubs.
Hi David,
Good points. Thanks for stopping by.
“In a free market, your rights are protected”
How so? I don’t really see the connection between one and the other. Please elaborate.
In a free market, you have the right to set up a gay bar, exclude straight people, and generally make a very comfortable atmosphere for yourself. (Of course, you are limited in how you can do this – you can’t step on anyone else’s toes.)
Sure, it sucks when the traditionally privileged groups use the free market to their advantage (such as by setting up clubs where only rich, white, heterosexual men can join), but there is the corresponding right to do the same with your own personal group.
If we remove the freedom to set up a clubs for heterosexual white males, there is little corresponding freedom to set up clubs for gays, women, or other minorities.
But that is only protecting my rights insofar as I am exercising them. What if I did not have the means to compete with the “traditionally privileged group” in the market? Would my rights be equal? Aren’t some rights inalienable regardless of the market?
UGH…. migraine coming on.
You have the right to freedom of speech. If you lack the funds to print up a newspaper, that’s a personal problem. If you lack the funds to purchase a gun for your Second Amendment rights, that’s a personal problem.
You have the right to be free from INTERFERENCE. That is the heart of both the free market and our negative rights.
Pray tell, what rights are “unalienable” that would not be protected under this scheme? The “unalienable right” to do things, regardless of wealth? No such right exists.
Civic rights are those granted by the civitas: the right to vote, the right to own land, etc. Those must be done without encumbrance – i.e. you can’t require a poll tax and you can’t prohibit someone from owning property. If you can’t afford property or you lack the means to get your butt to the polling station, that’s a personal problem. Other rights – such as the right to a gay bar – are not really “civil” rights in that they are not granted by the state. Again, you only have the negative right to be free from interference with your exercise of those rights.
If you want communism, go ahead. I can guarantee you that you’ll have absolutely no rights.