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.

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.

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.

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?

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”.

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

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.

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.