Just amazingly dumb.
A Northern California woman sued the online dating service eHarmony on Thursday, alleging it discriminates against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
Linda Carlson said she tried to use the Internet site in February to meet a woman but could not based on her sexual orientation. When Carlson wrote to eHarmony to complain, the company refused to change its policy, according to the lawsuit filed on her behalf in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
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.
I’m gonna go sue JDate for not letting me in because I’m not Jewish, or some other Gay dating site because I’m straight.
It’s so amazingly stupid and makes an already litigious society look worse.
I agree entirely.
not only does eHarmony not accept gays & lesbians, its founder, Neil Clark Warren, has long-standing ties to James Dobson. If this suit publicizes these facts more and forces eHarmony to be a little more honest about its agenda, I don’t mind at all.
Gotta love those trial lawyers.
JDate allows non-Jews.
So what if Neil Clark Warren has ties to Dobson?
It’s his company and he can run it anyway he wants. For those who have a problem with it, I’d be interested to know what your take is on this.
So you’ll never bleat about George Soros then. Good.
I’m a lawyer, and can speak to this issue. In the US, people who bring frivolous lawsuits are almost never sanctioned, and their lawyers are almost never sanctioned. I think the lawsuit system is a very important way to hold companies and other institutions responsible for their actions (partially because labor laws, environmental laws, and product safety laws are weak and barely enforced), which is why there should be zero tolerance of people who abuse the legal system. More cases like this, and a lot of the public will support industry-backed “tort reform”, which would close the door on legitimate cases also.
Oliver - You miss the point - unlike “jdate”, etc. - eHarmony ostensibly is not designed to cater to a specific group - they advertise and solicit to everyone - therefore if they are in fact discriminating in their services - it’s false advertising at the least.
Gravypan - you make the same mistake - the case you cite, and the bar/club are cater to a set specific clientle and they advertise that fact.
If eHarmony had said up front, or even in the tiny fine print that they don’t cater to gays or support gay dating, or some such then they’d be covered.
I know - there’s way too much suing and not enough common sense, but there’s a logical and legal point here.
Oliver - You miss the point - unlike “jdate”, etc. - eHarmony ostensibly is not designed to cater to a specific group - they advertise and solicit to everyone - therefore if they are in fact discriminating in their services - it’s false advertising at the least.
Gravypan - you make the same mistake - the case you cite, and the bar/club are cater to a set specific clientle and they advertise that fact.
If eHarmony had said up front, or even in the tiny fine print that they don’t cater to gays or support gay dating, or some such then they’d be covered.
I know - there’s way too much suing and not enough common sense, but there’s a logical and legal point here. Though, something tells me this is a suit of opportunism not personal rights, ya know? Then again - I’m a cynic
Iceman - excellent point(s) and sadly all too true
Please. It isn’t false advertising because otherwise eharmony would be required to list every gender/orientation/fetish they cater to.
The point about frivolous lawsuits is exactly my point. Lawsuits are a good tool to get corporations to pay for evil they do, but people will remember the dingbat who sued eharmony and support “tort reform”.
From Gravypan’s link: “McKenzie said there was evidence some straight patrons were going to the bar to use the predominantly gay customers as a form of entertainment.”
Holy shit. Australia just outlawed people watching.
Iceman, who determines which lawsuits are frivolous? Who would get caught in that “zero tolerance” net of yours? Isn’t it up to the judge to determine if a suit has merit?
Actually, also as a lawyer- there is an interesting legal question here:
1) Is this a public accommodation? A public accommodation is a private business that caters to the general public. In the same way that a hotel or restaurant cannot turn away people based on their ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.
Sexual preference is not universal in the United States under the public accommodation standards, but they are in many places. As this is a nationally-advertised website, they might be open to some liability in specific jurisdictions.
Oliver, I can’t speak to gay websites, but I know for a fact that there are a ton of non-Jews on jdate.
The question this will come down to is whether eharmony is a public accommodation or is this a private club (a la the Boy Scouts Anti-gay membership case).
As far as the Australian gay club - personally, I think that anyone should be allowed to walk through the door, whether the club is a known gay club or not. As a straight guy with gay friends, I don’t necessarily want to be excluded from some place when I am with my friends. They should also be allowed to remove patrons, should their intent be something other than having a drink and being social.
Otherwise, the club in Australia has no bearing whatsoever on American law. Let them deal with it in their courts.
One other side note -
I don’t know how this is going to turn out. Very likely it will be ruled that eharmony is not a public accommodation and will be thrown out.
However, I had no idea Dr. Neal Clark Warren was an evangelical with his fingers in with Dobson.
If this lawsuit accomplishes anything, it informs the public about Dr. Warren’s intentions and gives people the choice of whether or not they will patronize eharmony.
For the same reason that I do not eat at Chick-fil-a or shop at Wal-mart.
It’s my choice and I prefer to be fully informed of my options.
So it was okay when restaurants refused to serve black people? I mean, they CAN run their businesses any way they want, right?
The grounds for the suit are irrelevant. Half of this argument portrays the exact reasons people hate lawyers.
The poor woman went to eHarmony looking for a relationship. They tell her, “Sorry,but we don’t arrange gay relationships”.
That’s it. End of story. She didn’t suffer. She was inconvenienced. What will she sue for? Gas money to the place? Bus or cab fare?
That’s what’s wrong here. That’s why the suit is, at its core, frivolous.