If you ever wondered why people worry so much about activist judges, this would be a sterling example of why. EHarmoney, the on-line dating site, has now agreed to start a matchmaking service for gays, as part of a court settlement, to be called Compatible Partners. Evidently, EHarmony's policy of arranging matches with compatible couples did not include homosexuals, and this was deemed discrimination and thus unconstitutional according to a suit filed in New Jersey.
But EHarmony's new relationship with the gay community is more like a shotgun wedding: The company agreed in November to start the dating service as part of a settlement with the New Jersey attorney general in the wake of a discrimination suit.
Dating site consultant Mark Brooks says Compatible Partners will be watched closely.
"This will be one of the most scrutinized products in Internet dating," said Brooks, who hasn't worked for EHarmony. "They will have to introduce an A1 product."
It's not a comfortable fit for EHarmony's founder, Neil Clark Warren, who based the original service -- which requires applicants to fill out lengthy questionnaires -- on his own practice as a psychologist.
"It's what I did for 40 years," said Warren, 74, who is retired but remains on the board. "I never had a gay couple."
Warren is the former dean of the psychology graduate school at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena. Much of the early promotion of EHarmony was done by well-known figures in the evangelical community, some of whom preach against gay rights.
Well, it sounds ridiculous to me. No one has a constitutional right to be fixed up, any more than I would have a constitutional right to be accepted as a member of the Goth community if I weren't a Goth. Yeah, if I go into a Goth hangout I can sue them if they refuse to serve me, but do I really have a right to bitch if the customers don't like me? What am I doing there? Why should gays expect to fit in with a heterosexual dating service? If there are homosexual dating services, do heteros now have the right to sue them as well?
Just another case of judicial overreach. No one is preventing gays from having their own dating service, and by the same token no one should prevent a business from catering to a specific clientele when it doesn't pertain to a vital service. Matchmaking is not a vital service. EHarmony's policies is a private business decision. This is not Matthew Shepherd strung out across a fence in Montana.
So what's next, restaurants are going to be expected to cater to gays to the point they must advertise themselves openly as gay friendly?
This is one of the biggest reasons many are against gay marriage, and why I in fact am very wary of it even though I am okay with the concept. It's just that I can see the floodgates suddenly opened to a flurry of frivolous lawsuits, including gay couples wanting to adopt and demanding the right. Sure, you can make the case some gays would make worthwhile adoptive parents and might then have the right to file a legitimate suit.
The problem becomes, how many adoption agencies cave in to the demands of unworthy or unqualified gay couples just to avoid a lawsuit? This is just the kind of test case activist groups salivate over. It's not about rights, its about power and control with the aid of government officials and a judiciary subverting the constitution in order to impose unreasonable standards of fairness and equality, with freedom being the true casualty.
6 comments:
There isn't much info about what brought about the suit.
The activist judge stuff, is out the window, when conservatives aren't winning. Norm Coleman sure changed, when he was losing the vote count.
The adoption stuff is wild speculation. Adoption isn't easy for anyone, let alone a gay couple.
You get yourself worked up sometimes when you write, and lose focus.
A number of points-
Norm Coleman may or may not have a valid complaint, I don't really know that much about that particular case, but I suspect he does.
In this case, there is no doubt, this is a frivolous lawsuit. That's what makes it a case of judicial activism, the fact that a judge even agreed to make room on the court docket for it.
You're missing the point about the adoption issue as well. How many straight couples are going to sue an adoption agency because they are not allowed to adopt? Probably a very low percentage, because in most cases there is going to be an understanding that in some way they are not qualified or are in some other manner unfit.
How many gay couples will be willing to sue an adoption agency if they are refused on the same grounds as a straight couple? The numbers would no doubt be considerably higher, and of course in most of these cases they are going to be screaming discrimination.
Thus you have a situation where court dockets are filled with meaningless, frivolous lawsuits and in many cases adoption agencies simply shrug and okay the adoption just to avoid a lengthy and expensive court battle that, I have no doubt in my mind, gay activist groups would gleefully bring on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Sorry, I just can't go along with this. There are already far too many kids with far too many problems, the last thing we need is yet another process by where they can be turned into political footballs for the sake of social engineering and "fairness" and "equality". Kids are not, or should not, be political pawns for the use of those with agendas.
As for losing my focus, I don't see where you get that. EHarmony in the grand scheme of things is not that important, except that it is a private business that catered to a specific clientele, just like there are myriads other businesses across the US, and the globe, that cater to a specific clientele. There is nothing wrong with that.
What's next, are businesses that cater to the rich expected to throw open their doors and offer goods to food stamp recipients? If not, why not? For that matter, are greasy spoon restaurants that cater to the working class supposed to offer caviar and escargot for the benefit of the rich guy in town-just in case one happens by on any given day?
There is a difference between legitimate discrimination charges and foolishness. Can't they have their own matchmaking sites? They certainly have enough bars and nightclubs that cater to them. So do I have the right to demand that they all start employing a certain percentage of heterosexual female exotic dancers? Again, what the hell is the difference?
Far from losing my focus, I consider myself focused like a laser on the facts and the implications here. This lawsuit actually proves my point for me.
There will probably be plenty of others as time goes on, and I have no doubt the vast majority of them will be equally frivolous, and maybe even more so.
I should sue EHarmony for telling me I was unmatchable...
Yeah, Danielle, that would probably be a real civil rights violation right there, seeing as how it seems everybody suddenly has the constitutional right to date, marry, fuck, and have children. I want to know where my fucking wife is. I want one and I want the god damned motherfucking government to give me one right fucking NOW!
I'll bet the Russian government can give you one, lol.
Well, you know, one organized crime syndicate is about as good as another one.
Post a Comment