Love, love, love!!! Ain’t it grand?
I laughed out loud when I read that a lesbian was suing Christian online dating service eHarmony for discriminating against her because she sleeps with women. Nitwit. It reminded me of the bozo who sued eHarmony for rejecting him because he was married but separated. It’s a service for singles. Get it? Singles. There’s no such thing as almost single.
Running a business is risky. You create something from nothing, try to do some good in the world, and end up getting sued by people with too much time on their hands and too few brain cells in their heads.
Online dating. It’s come a long way. I know a woman who found a husband (what a retro expression!) on eHarmony. She encouraged me to sign up. What do I have to lose?
I was a member of eHarmony, very briefly a few years ago, and I can attest to the thoroughness of its patented Compatibility Matching System. The questionnaire covers 20+ “dimensions of compatibility,” which includes questions about religious beliefs, sense of humor, character, intellect, and so on. The idea is to match you to someone as closely as possible using a wide range of factors.
My heart wasn’t in it, and I let my membership lapse. I did communicate with someone, but I closed contact after he dragged his feet about showing me a photo of himself. I’m sorry, but looks are important. If someone is hesitant to show you what he looks like…
Of all people, I understand that photos may not accurately reflect someone’s true appearance. I’ve been told many times by people who’ve met me in person that my pictures on this blog don’t do me “justice.” I was as nervous uploading my photo as he probably was, but…I’ve got to see the face. Know what I mean?
I am pleased to say that I won’t be renewing my eHarmony membership anytime in the foreseeable future. 
(I like doing that.)
Anyway, back to the lawsuit. EHarmony’s mission is to bring people together for relationships leading to marriage. There is no such thing as marriage between two men or two women. And as a private entity, eHarmony can offer or withhold its services to whomever it chooses for whatever reason.
Aren’t there plenty of online dating services for homosexuals? I mean, if you’re a lesbian, why would you go looking for women at a dating service created by an evangelical Christian? Strange. Perhaps this lesbian tried to become a member simply to find out whether eHarmony had policies against helping homosexuals hook up.
Two questions for you, and don’t be shy:
1) What’s your opinion of the lawsuit?
2) Have you ever used an online/offline dating service? (I’m nosy!) If so, did you find your spouse or current girlfriend/boyfriend using the service?
Update: A commenter writes: “Yes, I used eHarmony to find the wife God had for me. We met in 2003, married in 2004 and now have two children. I can’t say enough about the site and how I think it is great for people who are serious about being introduced to people who could be their spouse. I don’t recommend this site for people who want to just get dates, use one of the other ones for that.”
{ 1 trackback }
{ 88 comments }
1) What’s your opinion of the lawsuit?
Utterly ridiculous, but some phony “rights” group will no doubt champion the “cause” unless a judge with a brain throws it out of court.
2) Have you ever used an online/offline dating service?
No. My wife would probably object. No slack at all from that woman.
Lawsuit? Stupid. The situation reminds me of a young woman down south, years ago, who sued to be admitted to an all male military academy. I think it was in South Carolina, but I’m not sure. It was in the news. She won. However, she couldn’t cut it and had to drop out. I didn’t feel sorry for her at all.
I know it’s not the same situation but the idea of intentionally trying to force yourself into situations and/or organizations where you’re not wanted and then crying foul when you’re rejected is the same stupidity.
As for on-line dating, I never tried it.
I don’t agree w/the lawsuit, mostly for the reasons you stated & yes, it is disappointing to see any private businesses attacked like this for no good reason whatsoever.
Yes, I have used on line dating services before & I’m currently dating someone I met on line. It’s a good option for busy people who aren’t into bars or don’t what to be ‘hooked up’ by friends & have a straight forward attitude about meeting people. Each approach has its pros & cons but overall it’s been a good experience & I have among my friends women I’ve initially met this way. I’ve been doing it long enough to spot those that are just sort of dabbling in it (such as the no picture guy you mentioned) versus those that are serious about making a new friend. Sometimes, that’s half the battle.
1) I completely agree that this lawsuit is bunk, stupid, and has nothing to do with civil liberties.
The sad part is that the lawsuit will probably go in favor of the lesbian. Once the ACLU gestapo goes into full swing, eHarmony is going to lose this one.
2) No I’ve never used an online dating service. I “found” my wife through our youth group at Church.
A black, female, Christian Conservative. Don’t mean to go off topic but I am a young one and you are an inspiration Lashawn.
It really does my soul good to see someone who is not afraid to name the name of Jesus without caring about what the politically correct nutcases might say.
Keep doing what you do, Lashawn. I am a faithful reader of your blogs.
In any case, this lawsuit is so stupid! Did the ACLU have something to do with it? I just recently found out that the creator of eHarmony.com was a Christian. I was pleasantly surprised by that.
Aren’t there like a million sites dedicated to homosexuals? Did anyone hear about the hotel in Australia that only excepts the gay clientele. No heterosexuals OR lesbians allowed. (Google it).
The lawsuit is frivulous and I hope a common sense judge sees it that way as well.
1. Frivolous, frivolous, frivolous. I agree with you Ms Barber, looks like this was just to see if eHarmony had policies against helping homosexuals hook-up. Did I mention frivolous?
2. Never tried a dating service, left it all to fate, and it worked out just fine.
eHarmony: “The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages,”
In other words, if you offer a service that depends on being expert on some narrow field of study, you must also become expert in all related fields so you can offer related services as well.
It’s the end of competent specialization. Become a semi-skilled jack-of-all-trades, or get your ass sued off.
1) What’s your opinion of the lawsuit?
Agree with you and others, total joke and complete waste of a businesses hard earned money to defend themselves. Great example for the case that if the lawsuit is dropped or they lose the suit, the plaintiff should be held responsible for all legal fees for the defendant.
2) Have you ever used an online/offline dating service?
Yes, I used eHarmony to find the wife God had for me. We met in 2003, married in 2004 and now have two children. I can’t say enough about the site and how I think it is great for people who are serious about being introduced to people who could be their spouse. I don’t recommend this site for people who want to just get dates, use one of the other ones for that.
1. Irritating. And what you said. The closing paragraph in the Reuters article was the most irritating: “Carlson’s lawyers expect a significant number of gays and lesbians to join the class action, which seeks to force eHarmony to end its policy as well as unspecified damages for those denied eHarmony services based on their sexual orientation.”
Oh, ye who complain about Christians “forcing” Christianity on everyone. Here you are, in print, seeking to force an organization to go along with the gay agenda. Grr.
2. No dating service.
1. I think the lawsuit is being issued to make a political point more than anything else.
2. I haven’t done any online dating (I met my husband in college), but one of my friends met her husband online (they’ll be celebrating 4 years this summer). I’ve also helped one of my male friends come up with a profile for an online dating site.
At one time in this nation (pre-1920s), ‘freedom of contract’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract
was an almost absolute legal concept.
That was then…..now, any parasite, (I mean) lawyer can keel haul your decent self through the legal system on behalf any turd with a fat checkbook and find some judge who will actually agree! Rule of law (or common sense) be damned.
Mark my words, in this politically-correct-non-offensive-accomodate-everyone-because-everything-is-permissible culture, this homosexual, given enough time & money & parasites (I mean) lawyers, will find a judge who will wipe their sorry butt and grant a judgement on their behalf and smack eharmony with a million dollar judgement.
It’s how john edwards made his millions……
But, hey. It’s a free country. Right?
I think lawsuits such as this are inherently ridiculous. It is not the job of an entrepreneur, or even a Matchmaker for that matter, to make their business an entity that has ’something for everyone’. E-Harmony is a specialist site that has a tool that is best suited to heterosexuals who want to find a committed relationship, i.e. marriage.
As a matter of fact, I have used a couple of online dating services. Match.com catered to the quick-hookup crowd, but I did find a good guy and we dated for six months before we broke it off. You can meet exceptions to the rule on Match.
As for E-Harmony, I think too many men who join the site are just too busy to be in a relationship. It is either their job, their children (which I am okay with) or something, but most are great in the ‘getting to know you stage’ but hesitant to set aside the time necessary to meet and perhaps begin a relationship. Again, I know there are exceptions to my experience, but I dropped out for lack of follow-through on the men side of the equation.
1. How about the lawyer’s comment: “about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love.” No one is denying their “right” to meet people. That’s baloney. The first part of the statement is the crux. It’s all about changing the (your) landscape. Please, someone out there cry discrimination with a GLBT dating service for inhibiting the rights of heterosexuals to find a love connection.
2. Met my bride 22 years ago in college. But know someone getting married next week as a result of an eHarmony connection.
I’m disgusted by the suit, but not surprised.
You know something, someone needs to even the playing field. I say lets have a heterosexual sue to join a gay cruise or something..
I did do online dating years ago. It was fun. I met my wife the old fashioned way though…
1. I think this is a good example of small groups who want to push their ideology rather than accept the norms of society at large.
If this “issue” were a big enough deal to the rest of our society (and the users of eHarmony) then the market would take care of the problem. Subscribers would leave eHarmony because of their “bigoted ways” and eHarmony would either A. change or B. go under.
However, since this will most likely not be the case, the small group will attempt to use the law to meddle in what is essentially a private affair. This amounts to a playground “my dad can beat up your dad” kind of scenario.
2. Tried one once a long time ago. Gave up, met me wife while volunteering at a christian youth camp.
PS: Commenter #2 mentioned the young woman who tried to get into The Citadel in Charleston, SC. I think I was in high school at the time. I remember that she didn’t hack it because #1 she was overweight and thus could not keep up with the physical demands of the academy and #2 she felt the other cadets didn’t accept her. Well, what did she expect? She intentionally spit in the eye of years of tradition.
I signed up for JDate years ago so I could meet other Jews. Non-Jews also signed up occasionally, but it was their intention to date Jews. Wouldn’t it be ridiculous if JDate were sued and forced to renounce its Jewish identity and social purpose? This is what is happening to eHarmony now.
The lawsuit is stupid. However, in today’s climate, I’m sure it will go to court.
I have not used an online dating service. If I were single, I would not use one.
I am in the 12th year of a state (Tx) registered domestic partnership. I cringe whenever I see stories like this. The “radical gay agenda” types are “moonbats” to me and do not represent me or my life.
This suit is yet another reminder of how America is going down the tubes. But lots of good points have been made on this thread; someone should forward it to eHarmony. I especially like the insight from the user of JDate.
I’ve seen advertisements for eHarmony, but I never seriously considered using them – or any other dating service.
However, thanks to this lawsuit, I’ve learned about its Christian background and read some good reviews, so I might actually give it a try.
Maybe eHarmony can ride the publicity wave to help recoup some of their losses.
1) What’s your opinion of the lawsuit?
Dumb.
2) Have you ever used an online/offline dating service?
No.
[Hmmm...inappropriate...had to delete - Admin] I didn’t know that homosexuality was offically deemed a “normal lifestyle”. When did this happen? There are plenty of dating sites on the internet that cater to her lifestyle. E-Harmonly is a private company that didn’t break any laws in it’s operations. Maybe I can hook her up with Rosie. Two miserable people deserve each other.
I read this the other day and thought it hilarious, actually. What a litigious society we live in…*sigh*
I actually have a profile up on eHarmony right now though I confess I haven’t followed through with communcating with anyone just yet. I’m about 2 months out of a relationship and not quite ready yet. I’m encouraged though.
LB – You need to spill the beans about the ‘friend’. You ain’t slick…LOL!
1) No lawsuit surprises me in this day and age. I hope E-Harmony files malicious prosecution to recover their attorney fees. I’m not a lawyer tho and don’t know what the laws are everywhere.
2) I tried Match.com for a few months. Met one guy I dated for a while who was ok but it sorta felt like a meat market to me. I’m an oldie but goodie. I should probably just quit the nonsense and enjoy my beautiful new home and swimming pool by myself (grin…hint/hint)
Lawsuit: Really stupid and shouldn’t go anywhere. Here’s hoping that the first judge to see it is common sense and rules that you can’t force a private company to provide a service it doesn’t want to. It’s the same as the landscaping service in the news a few months ago that wouldn’t provide service to homosexuals. It’s their company and their right to limit their services. Customers who don’t agree go elsewhere but they pick up customers who want to support them. That’s how it works.
I met my husband at work when we were in college. We’ve been married 23 years this September.
1) My wife and I saw a “rejected by eHarmony” commercial on TV here in MD. It was hilarious. Then she commented how someone was going to sue and here it is. This is a completely ridiculous lawsuit. It would only take you a few minutes to learn that eHarmony is not for MM or FF relationships. You could even listen to interviews by eHarmony founder Neil Clarke Warren. I guess that this is the times we are in. It will be interesting to see how this lawsuit plays out.
2) My wife and I met online using the now defunct Hotmail personals. After being with her for 8 years, 5 as her husband, I am all for dating sites.
After I saw the article about the suit against eHarmony, I saw the competitor’s ad “Still Gay”. You can see the ad at the Chemistry.com site. It would seem that Chemistry.com is serve the market niche that eHarmony feels it is unqualifed to serve.
Free enterprise not lawyers can solve this “problem”.
I vote the lawsuit as stupid.
Lawsuit is dumb, it’s just that simple.
I met my husband online in 1994 on an early internet chat. We married August of 1995 and a month later, my sister married a man she met online as well. We’re both still happily married to these men (without compatibility tests!). I have four great kids. One of my close friends just met her soon-to-be husband online as well and we have a large connection to people who have met online and later married. For us, it has been a great experience.
But like any great thing, there are dark sides as well. Like any new relationship, caution should be taken. We were very fortunate and very blessed.
E-Harmony is based out of California. Would California’s Unruh Act (the non-discrimination code) apply in this situation?:
“The Civil Rights Act of 2005 adds sexual orientation, gender, and marital status to the Unruh Act, explicitly strengthening nondiscrimination protections to clarify that businesses that provide services, goods or accommodations to the public cannot discriminate against LGBT people. The law requires “Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments” covered by the Unruh Act, which include shopping centers, mobile home parks, bars and restaurants, schools, medical and dental offices, hotels, theaters, hospitals, salons, public agencies, retail stores, and certain organizations like condominium homeowners’ associations.”
I’m curious: do a lot of the gay dating sites have options for heteros? Otherwise, it’s simple agenda-pushing.
I met my wife through Yahoo personals many years ago. We dated 6 weeks and then married. That was almost 9 years and two children ago. We’re still together.
If E-harmony should tackle this with humor. (what else would you expect from an IMAO blogger?) I say that no matter what the gay person puts in their profile, they should always match up with the same one person – Elton John.
1) Wouldn’t it be ridiculous if JDate were sued and forced to renounce its Jewish identity and social purpose?
Great minds thinks alike…the first thing I thought when I read the article was “imagine if a Jew or a Christian sued for the right to join an all-Muslim matchmaking service….” The exact same people trumpeting this lawsuit would be up in arms to defend the service’s right to choose its customers.
2) I’ve always been curious about the algorithm eHarmony uses to determine compatibility…I’m not sure I believe you can quantify a person’s personality and treat them as a set of numbers.
I know three couples who met and married from match.com, but knowing the histories and attitudes of these people led me to theorize that if you put two people whose sole goal in life is to be a couple into a room, they’ll pair up out of desperation and/or relief.
Cynical in my spinsterhood, I am.
Lawsuit demonstrates a nutiness of this movement forcing their lifestyle choice down the throats of non-participants.
You know, that 99% of the population who’s opinions that they obviously don’t care about Leshawn, while trying to normalize this anyways through misguided PC legislation. Great post about this goofy group and article.
1) What’s your opinion of the lawsuit?
I think that we are seeing an attempt by some narrow-minded bigots within the gay/lesbian community to force their views upon everyone else. More than that: Does anyone seriously believe that this is an issue that is worthy of government action? After all – we have a government that cannot balance the budget, cannot clean up the ethical sleaze within its own ranks, cannot enforce immigration laws, cannot provide basic border security, cannot expunge racial discrimination from its own laws (affirmative action), and cannot even debate issues without degenerating into incoherent shouted rage among the overexposed buffoons in Congress. Now these same incompetents could be in a position to bully a successful company into providing certain kinds of service that they must offer? What’s next – a government-enforced guarantee of eternal bliss (Live happily ever after – or we will see you in court)?
2) Have you ever used an online/offline dating service? (I’m nosy!) If so, did you find your spouse or current girlfriend/boyfriend using the service?
Never. To be honest, I would be a bit leery of such services.
The lawsuit is bunk, its just another piece of the gay rights gestapo trying to close down something designed for “breeders”.
I personally have used online dating before, well not dating… I have met someone through match.com We have been together close to 6 years now.
The lawsuit isn’t going to go anywhere. The complaint is made without a good understanding of discrimination law.
Here’s some background on the basis of sexual discrimination law. For purposes of our example, let’s use Hooters restaurant as the business. Hooters only hires female waitresses. You’d be hard pressed to find a single Hooters establishment with a single male waiter anywhere. There may be male employees but definitely not waiting tables. Hooters is clearly discriminating on the basis of gender right?
The business of Hooters restaurant calls for female waiting staff. Just as the case for strip clubs to hire strippers of a particular gender (male or female depending on establishment). Businesses are allowed to hire and act according to their particular business case as long as their business case have those requirements.
Additional example. Let’s say you are an employee of a men’s magazine that regularly publishes nudes of women models. If you were to discuss the attributes of a particular model with a fellow employee would it be sexual harassment to be discussing the model’s anatomy? No, it would not be due to the nature of the business.
Likewise, hate groups that operates as political parties are allowed to exist. NSM88 is an American Nazi group. They operate a record company for publishing specific hate music. That sounds like an invitation for every minority group to apply for employment and sue for racial discrimination when they are rejected right? No. The law doesn’t quite work that way. Equal opportunity employment doesn’t work like that (Section 703, (k) (1) (A) (i) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
That is how employment laws work. I’d imagine rights extending to customers are applied similarly.
If you don’t go to a Catholic church and sue them for religious discrimination because they won’t provide Islamic religious services, you probably shouldn’t sue a company matching up heterosexual couples for marriage (eHarmony doesn’t sell itself as a dating site) because they don’t provide similar services for homosexual couples. There is this entire matter of lack of legal recognition of homosexual marriages that would exclude them from the activities that eHarmony would be engaging in.
1) The lawsuit is just another attempt to lash out and cause destruction to something that doesn’t bow down to a destructive lifestyle.
2) I get a lot of flack for this opinion, especially when I share it on the air, but I don’t believe Christians have any business using dating services. Yes people have married, great relationships, blah-blah-blah… I’m not denying that.
I just believe it’s the easy way out for people who aren’t putting God and seeking Him first in their lives. A Christian immersed in God is a very attractive person, and will draw people to themself. Some will be people they don’t like, but some will be people on their same level of maturity and personality. God knows what the Christian needs and is certainly willing to “hook you up” along the way while serving Him.
Perhaps God has someone in mind for His child who doesn’t meet the “list of qualifications”? Hosea would surely laugh at that one.
A person more interested in serving God than fillin his or her felt or even actual needs will soon find those needs either not so felt or filled by God.
1)
As with most things like this, it’s not about what’s on the surface (finding a good partner), but rather on changing how society functions, as others have pointed out. It’s quite eyebrow raising to say the least and I should think she will have a hard time making a case, freedom of association playing a factor. It’s a shame eharmony will have to waste money defending it’s business model.
What she is doing is akin to walking into KFC and raising a stink because they won’t sell you a Big Mac.
2)
I’ve tested out a couple of services (match, yahoo) just to see how they functioned and whether people noticed me, but not for any real dating. More just curiosity.
Recently I read in the Wall Street Journal about this huge service run by a young Canadian guy out of his spare room. It is free to users but he uses Google advertising to make a buck, and the Journal actually verified that the guy earned upwards of $5 million a year. One guy. From a bedroom. So naturally I had to look… envy being a factor. I signed up to see how it functioned. It was interesting because you could see who looked at your ad. It caused some self reflection about who catches my eye, and whose eyes I catch.
2) Oops, forgot. Have not, no intention to.
1. The lawsuit is a travisty and another sign of our cultural decay. However, it will probably be won, because of the CA anti-discrimination laws that rh cited in #27 , and the fact that eHarmony does not explicitly say on their top pages that their goal is creating marriages. I truely fear for the company’s future.
2. Well, there were no on-line dating services 23 years ago when I met my wife, so I had to go the old fashioned route of meeting her in a church single’s group (which had 4 weddings the following year). It was funny how several people were trying to “fix us up” while I was in the process of getting in position to take her out.
I read your opinions (i.e., answers to #1) with interest, but I regret to tell all of you that the plaintiff has a case. Look up “eharmony unruh” on your favourite search engine and you’ll discover the law in California that gives $4,000 in damages per plaintiff. (Sorry Giao and everyone.) If you would even read further, you’ll find out about how the suit against Adoption.com/ParentProfiles.com concluded late last month, barely two weeks before she initiated this suit.
What will happen now? eHarmony is eF!@ked.
1) I think the suit should be thrown out.
2) I’ve been signed up on a variety of dating sites over the years, all to no avail. One problem is they all cost money. eHarmony is particularly expensive…
1. Shameless.
2. No.
3. Wonder who’s paying the plaintiff’s lawyer.
1) The lawsuit is not just stupid. It’s malicious.
2) I tried eHarmony when it was fairly new, got a few matches, but it never got as far as meeting. A friend of mine tried it more recently, saying in her info that her faith was important to her and she wanted a man whose faith was important to him. But when she got matches, their profiles talked about Jesus and how important He was to them, but they ended by saying they were looking for “intimacy.” They might as well go to the meat market matching sites…
The lawsuit is D-U-M-B. Period. Hopefully it’ll get tossed but in these crazy times I wouldn’t bet the farm on that.
I’ve used dating services and online sites. They were good for meeting people and I see nothing wrong with them.
My wife of today, who I believe is the one God meant for me to find, met me via an online chat room. If we’d used a dating service we’d never have found one another. Different temperments, education backgrounds, big age difference, she’s Methodist and I’m Catholic, she’s Texan and I’m a New York native, and the list goes on.
We’ll be celebrating our eighth anniversary this year with our three children, aged 4, 2 and six months. God really does have a sense of humor and sometimes it’ll show!
1) What’s your opinion of the lawsuit?
My opinion is that this lawsuit is contrived. I don’t take is seriously whatsoever. eHarmony has been around for quite a few years now and anyone who checks out their commercials can plainly see that the couples displayed on television are heterosexual and traditional—male and female.
2) Have you ever used an online/offline dating service? No
1) I agree with you that this woman probably had ulterior motives in joining Eharmony. You’re right – the purpose of the site is clearly to create marriages, not for people to “hook up”. This is probably one of those “lets redefine marriage” lawsuits.
2) I have never used an online dating service, but one day I may have to (that’s a story I won’t be telling on this comment).
I personally had no idea that EHarmony was developed by an Evangelical Christian. I went to the site myself after hearing about the lawsuit and didn’t see that anywhere on the site. What I did see, on the very first sign up page, was a drop down menu box asking whether you are a man looking for a woman or a woman looking for a man. If looking for a same sex partner, you’re ruled out immediately. The only way a lesbian could get a membership… is if she misrepresented herself. Eeenterestiiing.
Private property rights have become so eroded in our society that this woman may win her suit, particularly as the US now twists itself in pretzels if a case has even a hint of discrimination possibility. (ppr includes the right to cater to the clientele that falls within one’s legal business description)
This utter erosion is all done in the name of the “greater good” but will ultimately lead to the “greater BAD.” A pox upon the new version of “the greater good!”
Regarding Sara’s comment (#2) the school sued by the unqualified girl was Virginia Military Institute (VMI) which was traditionally an all-male military school. One can assume that she was unqualified for military school, since the Air Force Academy, The Coast Guard Academy, Annapolis, and West Point all admit females, and she did not apply (or was rejected) by those schools.
Lawsuits like this one are a scam, designed simply to earn fame and celebrity and a citation in the law books for shrewd attorneys. The fate of the plaintiff is irrelevant, as was demonstrated by the VMI lawsuit.
Interestingly, I met my wife ten years ago through a matchmaking service (Together) so I can attest that good matchmaking services do work. I had dates with several women before I met my wife, and she had gone out with several guys before she met me, so you might have to do a little work before the right one comes along.
LaShawn, you should see if there is a matchmaking service with an “endangered species” list.
Mike Laprarie
1. Lawsuit is ridiculous, but lawyers (such as TB Boy here in Atlanta) gotta live.
2. My wife and I met through TelePersonals which I found in Atlanta’s free liberal rag Creative Loafing (which is good for local theatre news) she was referred by a female acquaintance who was using it for one night stands. We met ten years ago, she talked me into coming to work for her a year later, and we recently celebrated our eighth anniversary. Many of our friends say those eight years should count double or triple since we average less than an hour a day apart.
1. Something needs to be done with our litigation system to kill this type of crap before it even gets filed. Seriously.
2. My wife and I met in an online forum where we both wrote short stories. We started chatting over ICQ (I think that’s what we used back then) and met in person during a get-together with several of the writers from the forum. The rest, as they say, is history. We’re going on 5 years now.
The lawsuit has no legs because the Supremes have not ruled that marriage is between consenting adults of whatever gender they choose to be.
Sarcasm aside, it just peeves me no end that garbage suits muck up the judicial systems because someone’s ‘feelings’ were hurt. Why does she want a Christian female spouse? Why go after them unless it is to force an agenda? She is a fool.
No, I didn’t use a computer dating service. Have been married for over 20 years.
This lawsuit has obvious malicious, anti-Christian, make-a-statement intentions.
It is frivolous and should be dealt with accordingly by eharmony with a counter-suit.
This lawsuit is silly. How loud would these people bleat if I sued a gay dating site because I couldn’t find a straight man?
I think this lawsuit is just swell. I intend to sue Hugh Hefner/Playboy for not having male playmates and KFC for not selling me a McDonalds Big Mac. What does this lesbian think she will find at eHarmony? The service matches women to men or men to women for the intended purpose of a long term relationship also known as marriage. Did she want matched to a man?
Yes, several years ago I did try some internet meeting/dating services. I went on two dates with two diffent guys. The dates would have been shorter if I had worn my tennis shoes as I have always found running in high heels difficult.
I intend to sign up for e-harmony. A friend met a very nice man there and encourages me to try it out. However, I still need to work through some life issues before some else comes into my life. I’ve discovered that I absolutely stink at picking the right person for me. I know that God probably had someone in mind, but no doubt gave this person to some other deserving soul when I kept making my own mistakes. After all why should God’s perfect choice for me have to suffer for my mistakes. Now I will wait for God to bring me a mate, if that is his plan. To be sure there is someone man out there who made his own decisions that turned out badly and is now waiting for God to bring me to him.
1. The lawsuit is laughable. How sad that these people think they have to force their agenda onto the rest of us. If eHarmony’s goal is to ceate marriages and they’ve only researched hetero marriages, then there is no intentional discrimination. This is a business decision based on the expertise of the busness’ founder.
2. I have used many internet dating sites. Being in the San Francisco area, the majority of the resulting contacts were with meat market types looking for hookups. I tried eHarmony once, and I believe it can be a positive experience for those sincerley looking for a spouse. I believe that even within eHarmony one has to be cautious about the character of the people one meets.
1. The lawsuit is nonsense. The fact is that this woman was treated EXACTLY the way everyone else on the site is treated. She wanted a special privilege.
She isn’t trying to hook up with someone, any more than the “gay marriage” proponents really want genuine marriage. What these radicals want is complete acceptance of choices that are, like it or not, outside the norm, and they’re willing to destroy society to do it. It’s a great pity, and an insult to other homosexuals.
2. Since I got married before there WAS an internet, no.
Are any of you lawyers? I was just curious if anyone had knowledge about the “future” of frivolous lawsuits such as this. I’m a ridiculous optimist and continue to hope something can be done to prevent similar incidents. And quite frankly, I don’t understand how a private business can be held accountable for choosing not to serve everyone’s needs.
Somewhat related – only because it’s a lawsuit – did any of you see the lawsuit brought about by the family of the St. Louis Cardinals pitcher who killed himself while driving drunk and high, and talking on his cell phone? His father is suing the restaurant/bar he was at, the owner of the tow-truck he collided with, and the owner of the vehicle the tow-truck stopped to help. Personal responsibility? I guess that doesn’t apply.
1. Lawsuit it part of an evil agenda to destroy heterosexual marriage as the only correct marriage.
2. Tried online dating sites once, but only met FBI agents!!!!!
1. The lawsuit is nonsense. If only judges would start penalizing people who bring frivolous lawsuits and slap them with fines. The gays in America are declaring all out war against heterosexual society.
2. I belonged to JDate, Frumster, and also a dating service in my city. All were disastrous! I didn’t even meet anyone I liked, much less someone I could love. That was just my personal experience, though. I know many people have had great success with online dating services.
This whole incident brings to mind the case of the Catholic infertile woman who was a teacher in a Catholic parochial school. She did IVF, got pregnant, and was telling everyone that she had done IVF. The Catholic church forbids IVF, period. She was apparently very vocal about it, to the point that her fellow teachers and principal could no longer ignore it. Word got around to the higher ups and she was fired from her job. Then she tried to sue (I do not know what the outcome of that case was.) No matter how much I may think the Catholic church is wrong in its policy on IVF and no matter how much I may sympathize with the woman because she is a fellow infertile, the point is, she’s Catholic and she taught at a Catholic school so she knew what the rules were beforehand. What was she thinking? That she would single-handedly change the Vatican?
There is also a case in California of a high school student who is “transgender” whatever that means, suing the school district because they aren’t offering her a transgender bathroom. Cause, you know, she’s neither a boy or a girl, so where is she supposed to relieve herself? Oh pleeeeeez!
The similarity I see in all these cases is that people do not want to respect any rules that go against their own needs and desires and they live to impose themselves on others. It’s all about ME.
1) What’s your opinion of the lawsuit?
This is an example of why we need tort reform. If a Muslim signed up on jdate.com and (ding) couldn’t find a Muslim, would he have grounds to sue? Under the logic of the idiot ambulance chaser who filed this, yes.
2) Have you ever used an online/offline dating service?
I have. I recommend them only because more and more types of people are turning to the internet to find people. But, my husband and I chuckle when we hear about eHarmony’s “27 dimensions” because…it really doesn’t matter if people are projecting lofty aspirations of themselves as opposed to reality.
“The gays in America are declaring all out war against heterosexual society.”
1. I believe the lawsuit is as ridiculous as the above comment.
Batyah, a question
:
f heterosexual brought a frivolous class action suit, would you lump all ‘heterosexuals’ together?
1 – Most everyone above has said what I would about the lawsuit.
2 – Online dating service? Yes – I met my husband through a Catholic Singles site. And *gasp* can you believe this, he was CATHOLIC??? And that I am Catholic, too???
We’ve been married for seven years now.
Re: # 46:
Her name was Shannon Faulkner and she sued to be admitted to the Citadel, a traditionally all-male military academy in Charleston, SC. Her goal in life to be a school teacher, not exactly the career path that most Citadel grads take. She spent her first two years of college (while her suit was being heard) at another school and transferred in as a Junior, then quit after two weeks, citing physical exhaustion and emotional stress. I remember seeing her on the regional news, totally out of shape despite having two years to get ready for the physical requirements the Citadel demands.
VMI caved and started admitting women the next year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Faulkner
1) I think the eHarmony suit is laughable. eHarmony will probably lose since “alternate lifestyles” are all the rage with the PC jurist these days.
2) Met my wife through eHarmony. And glad I did!
In responce to Sara’s post (#3) it was VMI Virginia Military Institute and the little girl showed up 20lbs overweight, and not physically ready for the summer training.
I have used various online dating services with various degrees of success and dating a young lady that I met when she was in grad school.
As far as the lawsuit is concerned; its my humble opinion that this is a blatant attack on a Christian themed business to get it to either violate God’s command or accept CA’s law against discriminating against a protected class of people.
“I mean, if you’re a lesbian, why would you go looking for women at a dating service created by an evangelical Christian?”
I can answer in one word: A G E N D A.
Well, well, well…I was wondering what Rosie O’Donnell would do with all her free time since leaving The View!
Of course this is a frivolous lawsuit, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he/she won in court. I wonder if Greta Van Susteren is the attorney filing the lawsuit???
(Oh my…have I just “outed” someone?)
I actually met my present wife on the internet, but not through an online dating service. We met just playing an online game that had a chat window available.
This is my first time posting, but I enjoy your blog a great deal. Keep your chin up and God Bless.
JohnD, I stand by my comment. “Homosexuals” means just that; of course there will be some who are not a part of the effort to overthrow all our Judeo-Christian values, but that’s beside the point. The effort of the general majority is clear.
Have you noticed that in almost every Hollywood movie, there is a gay character? Have you noticed magazine ads for credit cards depicting two female “roommates” and did you ever wonder why they would be sharing a credit card account?? Are you aware of the massive “re-education” campaign going on throughout our public schools to teach children that homosexuals are just like everyone else? I would like to know why my son received this talk (no one warned me beforehand) when he was in the third grade. He was eight years old, for pete’s sake — why was he “learning” about homosexuals? Gay groups in America have admitted that they are on a mission to inject homosexuality into every aspect of our media in order to desensitize people to it. There was an article on one such interview and I’m sorry I don’t have the link for you but maybe someone else here does.
JohnD, the only thing ridiculous is your denial of the facts.
Batyah states
“JohnD, the only thing ridiculous is your denial of the facts.”
Show me where I denied a ‘fact’ and I’ll admit it. Meanwhile where are your figures to support the ‘general majority’ of gays being ‘anti-heterosexual?’
And I don’t mean pressure groups, I mean ‘general gays’ (if there is such a thing).
Regards,
JohnD
I don’t know the exact percentage of gays who are pushing the anti-straight campaign, but it’s significant. And worse, huge numbers of non-gay leftists in media and entertainment and government are willing accomplices to this socially undermining agenda. It’s not “live and let live” but rather it’s “let’s turn society on its head.”
“Have you noticed that in almost every Hollywood movie, there is a gay character?”
Now, trust mne, I’m a movie buff. I watch about 10-14 a week, and trust me, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. You ratio is off by about 95%.
But don’t let that stop you watching all the gay ones
Regards,
JohnD
Dr. Sowell has a current column devoted to the core reason (or lack of reason, more accurately) that drives the anti-straight agenda:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/06/05/adolescent_intellectuals
Re: #61 Thank you for the link to the Citadel case.
It seems that most folks here agree, in general, that this case is about one person trying to “make” a business serve her.
I agree that there should be some kind of law that bans frivolous lawsuits. The penalty should be that the author of said frivolous lawsuit should bear the costs that are incurred by the court and the other party for wasting everyone’s time. I’ve heard this idea before from the Libertarian folks.
That said, it does seem to me that there is a huge tendency in the USA to try and change the rule of law through these kinds of cases. It might not affect law directly. But it does affect public perception and encourage a general disrespect for law.
I hope I’m not hijacking the thread here, but here in CT, a law was just signed by the governor that all hospitals MUST supply abortions to rape victims. I don’t think I have the wording exactly right, but that’s the basic idea.
Now, while I sympathize with any rape victim who would want an abortion, I do not believe that the “state” has the right to force Catholic hospitals to perform procedures that they disagree with.
Another situation here in CT, is the decision of the city of New Haven to give ID cards to all citizens, legal or illegal. I don’t understand why legal citizens should need another form of ID.
This is being forced on people. Why?
I think it’s because of situations like this woman who wants E-Harmony to cater to her, whether they “agree” with her lifestyle or started their business to cater to her wishes or not; a young woman who insisted that an all-male academy accomodate her; or a mayor that just started handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples, even though the “law” said he couldn’t.
While it might be impossible to prove an “agenda” per se, I think it is undeniable that our country is falling apart internally because of stupidity and arrogancy. The arrogancy is self-explanatory. The stupidity, to me, is that we are so caught up in “me” and “now”, that we fail (refuse?)to give due consideration to the effects of our “rights” on our country in the future, coupled with a refusal to accept the responsibilities for asserting those rights, creating a huge void, which I’m afraid will swallow up the USA that I grew up in. This makes me concerned for my children.
And, since this type of thinking can not and should not be legislated, our country is going to have to re-learn how to think and be responsible for our own choices. That is, if we survive as a country. We might geographically. But I have serious doubts whether the country I pledged allegiance to as a child, even exists right now.
The Gay Report by two gay researchers, Karla Jay and Allen Young, written in 1979, stunned me when I stumbled upon it two years ago. Until that time, I had very little concept of a “gay culture.”
http://www.narth.com/docs/reporton.html
As for an agenda being foisted upon our children, on April 30, 2005, Brookling High School distributed “The Little Black Book” to students. I warn you in advance that the book is shocking, but it is far more shocking that a school found it appropriate to distribute this garbage to children in its care.
http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/glsen_043005/black_book/black_book_inside.htm
I met my husband on Match.com in 2003. EHarmnoy wasn’t that big back then, but Match was. We married in November 2005 and I’m expecting our first child any day now.
I wouldn’t suggest on-line dating for everyone. We both had some nightmare meetings/dates before meeting each other. But, if you work full time and are busy with your life, on-line dating can help you out. Especially if you are serious about meeting someone. If you are Christian and want to meet someone with the possibility of getting married, EHarmony is one of your best bets. If I was still single, I’d use it.
The lawsuit seems lame to me. As for the comparisons to the Citadel, that was a different issue. Like it or not, the Citadel was at the time (and still does as far as I know) getting state funding. There was also the issue of U.S. government funding, including ROTC scholarships. I believe VMI had the same issue with public funding.
1. I’m ambivalent about the lawsuit myself. I don’t care one way or the other, but I have a sneaking suspicion that is a “test case” with some left-leaning legal group hiding(ACLU???)in the background sponsoring the suit.
2. I have been married for twenty-five years so I’ve been out of the online dating scene from the get-go. I do think it’s probably a great thing to skip the bar scene and try and find someone compatable with the help of a database and a computer.
LOL!
The suit is really just about being mad that not everyone thinks homosexual relationships are a good thing. This woman wants you all to approve, darn it! Well tough, honey—we know the lawsuit is just a political move. Because if said lesbian really wanted a dating site for her twisted situation, she would start one herself for said twisted relationships. This one’s pretty straightfoward.
A relative of mine goes to the same church (Lake Avenue Congregational in Pasadena) as the creator of EHarmony, btw.
This relative also knows someone who is one E-Harmony and the friend complains to my relative that the problem she’s having with the service is that she does fine with the initial online connections, but whenever she sends the photo to the guys they stop communicating. Sad, isn’t it?
The lawsuit is silly (and contrived–to agree with another poster). It was just filed out of maliciousness. The homosexual most certainly did know that the site was geared to heteros. I would think having to answer 20+ questions about yourself would pretty much narrow that person’s categories down tremendously to the point of where they were considered “undatable” by 99.5% of the e-Harmony members anyway. Why would anyone want to ding their ego that badly anyway? “O, woe is me! I’m so undesirable that nobody wants me!” If the gays around here want a date they go pick one up at a gay bar. Yes, they do exist even here in the southeast right next to the biker bars that play Lynrd Skynrd and have rebel flags on their doors and bars on the windows.
Ms.Barber, I love you and your blog. We actually met at a conference for african american journalists in atlanta a few years ago. I listened to you speak, asked you several questions, thought you were brilliant and had/have the utmost respect for you. I do, however, have to respectfully disagree with you (as I do with many other Christians who do not believe gays/lesbians can also be Christians), I have been both gay and a Christian my entire life. I love my Jesus and expect to be with Him in heaven someday.
That being said,
(1) I believe the lawsuit is as DUMB as you do!! She knew what eHarmony stood for before she tried to build a profile and it’s utterly ridiculous for her to try to sue. There are plenty of gay/lesbian dating sites she can sign up for. Utterly ridiculous! But, it seems eHarmony is not exactly standing behind their beliefs. They said they’re not against providing access to gays/lesbians in the future. hmm.Ahh yes, it’s the PC syndrome of America once again and I, being a foreigner am appalled at how far it goes sometimes. If they believe a certain way, stand by it!!
2) I have tried the online dating scene and have been very successful on more than one occasion. It can really work for people who are, first of all, extremely careful but at the same time honest with themselves and with who they’re trying to meet.(for example, being up front about what they look like. i.e. sending a photo!)
1. As many others have stated, the suit is ludicrous and intended to foist the homosexual agenda and lifestyle on people who do not agree with them. But what do you expect when judges and legislators don’t know or understand the legal definition of the word, “marriage,” and refuse to acknowledge its origins.
2. I am in my 50s and these services – like the Internet itself – came along too late for me.
JohnD–
If you really watch all those movies, when do you have time to do anything else?
Tammy, my local biker saloon doesn’t have bars on the window. Has plywood covering the place where the window used to be, prior to the pool table sailing through it one night.
Bill the owner wouldn’t have any problem with a gay customer showing up. But he would have a problem if that customer sued Bill to force him to redecorate the place with ferns and oriental carpeting, despite the general clientele wanting to keep the existing decor of Fatheads, knife-carved tables and peanut shells on the floor.
This is a good point and also says something for eHarmony and their moral values. Perhaps, it seemed a legitimate claim against the singles service because of the broad moral-spectrum we have here in the U.S.. What do you think?
“JohnD–
If you really watch all those movies, when do you have time to do anything else?
Comment by Trish”
I work from 6am til 10pm, and I usually watch a movie with my wife (blockbuster or thriller or period drama or girle flick), and then one in bed (sci-fi or ‘heavy’ stuff) while mulling over the next day. My wife is disabled so we don’t go out much, and we are both movie lovers, but lik
Regards,
JohnD
This just confirms my long held suspicions that the “gay-rights” movement is less about civil rights and more about gaining superior rights for themselves. This woman knew when she signed onto this site what the standards were. If this lawsuit succeeds, I’m afraid that it would have a chilling effect on the rest of society that still lives by traditional standards. And another thing that really riles me is when they try to compare their movement with that of our (African-American) civil rights movement. THe whole idea is just too ridiculous for words.
“This just confirms my long held suspicions that the “gay-rights†movement is less about civil rights and more about gaining superior rights for themselves.”
Your suspicions are easily confirmed?
And Fred Phelps?Jerry Falwell confirmed my suspicions about Christians…and Amren and Vdare and confirm my spuspicions about Conservatives, and the killing of animal testing workers and abortionists confirms all of my suspicions about left, right, black white christian and pagan.
One of the biggest lies is the oft-repeated meme that all homosexuals want ’special rights’ and not equality.
Just like all Christians want a Christian theocracy, right…?
JohnD, surely you’re not equating the “gay rights” movement (as referenced by Blanche) with the entire homosexual population. You wouldn’t make an error like that, would you?
#87
No, I’m saying that Blanche’s ’suspicions’ about ‘gay rights’ being confirmed by this one (frivolous/dumb delete as applicable)lesbian doesn’t make sense.
I am in fact making quite the opposite point to that which you inferred, but I guess you knew that already, judging by that cheeky little wink. You cheeky boy
Now, back to having my suspicions confirmed about the ‘Conservative’ movement. Where does one start? With good stories or bad?
Has anyone seen those chemistry.com commercials? I think they’re really playing off of this lawsuit. It says something like “We don’t know why a million people were rejected from eharmony, but come as you are to chemistry.com.”
Comments on this entry are closed.