[Crossbones]

I am a Christian and have my own personal religious beliefs. I do believe that everyone should be treated equally. I do not think I am better than anyone else, but I do in turn believe no one is better than me. I do not support homosexuality, but I do not condemn those that choose that life. God said "love the sinner, but hate the sin" We all are sinners and fall short and I certainly do not hate myself. So why should I hate anyone else. I'll stand before God and be judged for the things I have done and answer for myself. Everyone else can do the same. I have a hard enough time taking care of my own problems. But I do have a problem with this.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/11/19/eha...cnn_latest
When is enough, enough? Makes me want to go out and sue Wendy's for not selling pizza. I know I will take some flack from some, but I really don't care. A point has to be drawn somewhere. People suing over " you didn't cater to me and offended me":confused: It's getting ridiculous. I found this on another site and thought I would post it here. Paying him $5000 is absurd and $50000 for legal cost or whatever they called it. Unbelievable.


Have at it.

[cheerdad]

I am a Christian, as well, and I am glad to see that eHarmony decided to do the right thing.

[Crossbones]

That's my point, I'm not sure it was the right thing. More of a business decision. The right thing would have been for the gentleman suing them, to have just started his own business and ran it the way HE liked. I know I would not like for someone to come to a business I owned and tell me how to run it. Again, Sue Wendy's because they don't sell pizza.

[Crossbones]

I can just about guaranty there are hundreds of web sites he could have used, instead he was looking for a quick buck. If I don't like Wendy's, I can go to Pizza Hut.

[More Cowbell]

I am a Christian, as well, and I am glad to see that eHarmony decided to do the right thing.

Yes, they did do the right thing. If the right thing was to roll over and bow down to a frivolous lawsuit.

Eharmony was fully within their legal rights to remain a heterosexual site. It's a private business, which was apparently not discriminating on the basis of hiring someone who is homosexual. They just wanted their site to be one where heterosexuals can meet other singles, which is fine. That is no more discriminatory than a Chinese restaurant discriminating against me by not serving me a cheeseburger, since I don't care for Chinese food. But, once again the legal system has to step in and stick its nose where it doesn't belong.

Shame on the lawyer who sued, and shame on the judge involved for not throwing this case out. :moon:

[cheerdad]

Yes, they did do the right thing. If the right thing was to roll over and bow down to a frivolous lawsuit.

Eharmony was fully within their legal rights to remain a heterosexual site. It's a private business, which was apparently not discriminating on the basis of hiring someone who is homosexual. They just wanted their site to be one where heterosexuals can meet other singles, which is fine. That is no more discriminatory than a Chinese restaurant discriminating against me by not serving me a cheeseburger, since I don't care for Chinese food. But, once again the legal system has to step in and stick its nose where it doesn't belong.

Shame on the lawyer who sued, and shame on the judge involved for not throwing this case out. :moon:

So, you're saying that it would have been ok to have left out African-Americans, Indians, Mexicans, etc or any other minority?

[Beetle01]

So, you're saying that it would have been ok to have left out African-Americans, Indians, Mexicans, etc or any other minority?

If a company wants to leave people out they can. Private businesses can do that to an extent. If I wanted to set up a site for whites to meet whites, or blacks to meet blacks I could do so. I'm targeting a specific group and my business is targeted at a specific consumer. Its not being a bigot, or racist or anything if you're trying to target a specific consumer group to maximize profits.

[oneijoe]

As far as Wendy's is concerned, it was less expensive to pay the $5000 than defend the case.

This is, IMO, is an example of one of the central issues of what's now wrong with America. It heralds back to the McDonald's suit over the spilled coffee. To this day, you'll see a "CAUTION: CONTENTS ARE HOT!" on every cup of coffee sold at a chain restaurant.

Attorneys know big companies will pay rather than defend. All it takes for a lawyer to bring suit is a little of his time once he's found an IDIOT who hurt himself.

[oneijoe]

So, you're saying that it would have been ok to have left out African-Americans, Indians, Mexicans, etc or any other minority?

Don't hijack the thread. You know darn well this isn't a race issue.

[Crossbones]

So, you're saying that it would have been ok to have left out African-Americans, Indians, Mexicans, etc or any other minority?

Would be no different than me not getting a loan from the United ***** College Fund, or my wife not getting accepted to the Miss Black America pagent. They work to serve a specific group and I am not part of that group. But there are groups set up to serve me. Those are the ones I should use instead of suing the others, just for a $$$$.

[cheerdad]

Don't hijack the thread. You know darn well this isn't a race issue.

Wasn't trying to "hijack"...ok....handicapped, blondes and hazel eyes

[Crossbones]

Wasn't trying to "hijack"...ok....handicapped, blondes and hazel eyes

:confused:

[Crossbones]

I'm amazed there not more discussion of this.

[thecavemaster]

Yes, they did do the right thing. If the right thing was to roll over and bow down to a frivolous lawsuit.

Eharmony was fully within their legal rights to remain a heterosexual site. It's a private business, which was apparently not discriminating on the basis of hiring someone who is homosexual. They just wanted their site to be one where heterosexuals can meet other singles, which is fine. That is no more discriminatory than a Chinese restaurant discriminating against me by not serving me a cheeseburger, since I don't care for Chinese food. But, once again the legal system has to step in and stick its nose where it doesn't belong.

Shame on the lawyer who sued, and shame on the judge involved for not throwing this case out. :moon:

And, the diner in Alabama just wanted their busines to be where whites could eat and talk with other whites. You are comparing cheeseburgers vs. sweet and sour chicken, as opposed to United States citizens seeking to not be discriminated against. I am fairly sure that homsexuals cannot get cheeseburgers at Hop Sing's either. The Constitution of the United States is not a selective document. Shame on you.

[Crossbones]

And, the diner in Alabama just wanted their busines to be where whites could eat and talk with other whites. You are comparing cheeseburgers vs. sweet and sour chicken, as opposed to United States citizens seeking to not be discriminated against. I am fairly sure that homsexuals cannot get cheeseburgers at Hop Sing's either. The Constitution of the United States is not a selective document. Shame on you.

Point of order. What about BET, or the United ***** College Fund. They discriminate against Mexican, Japanese, Whites and so forth. Do they not? Millions of United States citizens could "seek to not be discriminated against. A group of atheist choose to have a club and I am a Christian and they won't let me in because I talk about God to them. That is discrimination is it not? Wouldn't it be better for me to just go to a group of Christians instead of looking for a cheap buck. If this guy truly wanted to change eharmony's business, why would he have been seeking $$?

[oneijoe]

I'm amazed there not more discussion of this.

If you think for a minute, you'll realize why so few are stirred up about this...

For the current younger generation, it is perceived as normal to take most ANY issue before a court. As a corollary, most think "good for them" when someone sues and collects money from a company over ANYTHING. In their defense, though, that's all the new generation has seen. The time period from 1980-present has truly been the "era of the attorney".

Attorneys used to not pursue frivolous cases, but have learned there's $$$ in it for them. It's about following the money.

That's why I like my current business liability policy. It has a "no settle" clause (that cost a little extra) that gives ME the final say on whether a claim can be settled. Low and behold, I've yet to have the 1st lawyer pursue a claim against my business once he realized the workings of my policy.

[thecavemaster]

Point of order. What about BET, or the United ***** College Fund. They discriminate against Mexican, Japanese, Whites and so forth. Do they not? Millions of United States citizens could "seek to not be discriminated against. A group of atheist choose to have a club and I am a Christian and they won't let me in because I talk about God to them. That is discrimination is it not? Wouldn't it be better for me to just go to a group of Christians instead of looking for a cheap buck. If this guy truly wanted to change eharmony's business, why would he have been seeking $$?

There are fundamental rights as established by the Constitution and Bill or Rights, as written and as interpreted. We could get silly with this, as in some of the instances you site as examples; however, denying people BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL freedoms, per the Constitution, is serious. However, in this instance, if other sites offer these services to gay folks, I don't see that this rises to a civil rights issue, as, it seems to me, no particular harm or "you are inferior" is intended.

[ImagineThat!]

I'm amazed there not more discussion of this.

I agree! That's what is wrong with this country. Christians have become too quiet and are letting the minority of the population determine what goes on in this country. Just like prayer in schools. We elect public officials by majority vote, but when it comes to moral issues, heaven forbid that we offend someone or hurt someone's feelings. We need to stand up for our beliefs. This country was founded on Christian values and beliefs by God-fearing men. I am amazed that some people get on here calling themselves Christians and condone some of these activities. My Bible clearly forbids these activities.

[EKY Sportster]

I couldn't agree with you more Crossbones!! A private business has the right to offer certain services. However, some businesses may not offer the services that someone is looking for. That is not discriminatory. A non-Christian person may not find it of any benefit to go to church. A homosexual may not find it useful to go to a heterosexual dating site. Makes sense to me.

As for lawyers, there are many and they want a quick buck too, so when you put a money hungry client with a money hungry lawyer you get a lawsuit. It is up to the Courts to throw those crazy cases out!!

[EKY Sportster]

And, the diner in Alabama just wanted their busines to be where whites could eat and talk with other whites. You are comparing cheeseburgers vs. sweet and sour chicken, as opposed to United States citizens seeking to not be discriminated against. I am fairly sure that homsexuals cannot get cheeseburgers at Hop Sing's either. The Constitution of the United States is not a selective document. Shame on you.

eHarmony has not discriminated! At no time did they forbid to allow anyone of any race, religion, sexual orientation or so forth from using their services. It is just a case of where they didn't offer the services that this homosexual person was looking for. Well if I want a car, I wouldn't be looking for it at Lowes. I'd go to a car dealership. Discrimination occurs when a person is not permitted to enter a business or use a business' services because of their race, religion, and so forth. Big difference!!

[GB1]

I believe there are dating sites just for Christians, and just for Jews, & I see no problem with a business having a specialty like that. I am sure there are sites just for gays. Will they now be forced to accept straight couples? Also, I believe most of the higher profile sites are for singles only, will they be sued to accept married people wanting to cheat? To me this is more of a "government telling businesses how to operate" problem than one of discrimination. And BTW, I'm agnostic so I don't have a moral or spiritual horse in this race.

[cheerdad]

I agree! That's what is wrong with this country. Christians have become too quiet and are letting the minority of the population determine what goes on in this country. Just like prayer in schools. We elect public officials by majority vote, but when it comes to moral issues, heaven forbid that we offend someone or hurt someone's feelings. We need to stand up for our beliefs. This country was founded on Christian values and beliefs by God-fearing men. I am amazed that some people get on here calling themselves Christians and condone some of these activities. My Bible clearly forbids these activities.

Don't judge my or anyone's Christianity by your beliefs. I read the KJV, NIV, Greek and Hebrew scriptures, pray as I read that God will open my eyes, mind and heart to HIS word, not what a pastor/clergy gets up in the pulpit and says "this is the way it is." IMO, this is what is wrong with so many Christians today is that they take what the preacher says, the way they see it, as to being 'gospel" and not searching for themselves the Scripture to find the true meaning. There's more to reading God's word...you have to study it, read ALL your references, make notes, and pray.

Do you really feel that Christians are the majority in this country? I know, like in polls, and stuff like that, people say they believe in God or a higher being, but what is that higher being they are talking about? But, when they are asked how many times they attend a service, those numbers are rather low, compared to the number who say they believe in God. So, since the majority do not attend service on Sunday or Saturday, does that them a non-Christian? Just posing a question.

The Bible clearly forbids a lot of things that a lo of Christians still do today. The most common one is attending church on Sunday, when, the Sabbath is clearly on a Saturday, by modern calenders. I guess what I am trying to say is, there has always been different views of what a Christian really is. Different denominations interpret the Scripture in different ways, thus the reason why we have sooo many different denominations in America. Who is to say who is or if there really is a "true religion". All I know is, I can't wait to get to Heaven, and I really hope my mansion is right next door to a lot of people who've said that I ain't gonna make, so I can say...hahaha...told ya so, told ya so!!! LOL

I have to say this...I really have never gotten myself involved in many forums, but I have really enjoyed some of the topics that have been posted lately. I have wished though that some people could accept the fact that they did not agree and didn't get offensive and so harsh sometimes, but that's just human nature to defend something that you feel passionate about! I just hope we can continue to have these "adult" conversations without getting harsh and singling out a certain group of people.

[cheerdad]

eHarmony has not discriminated! At no time did they forbid to allow anyone of any race, religion, sexual orientation or so forth from using their services. It is just a case of where they didn't offer the services that this homosexual person was looking for. Well if I want a car, I wouldn't be looking for it at Lowes. I'd go to a car dealership. Discrimination occurs when a person is not permitted to enter a business or use a business' services because of their race, religion, and so forth. Big difference!!

UH....yea they did...thus this lawsuit.

A friend of mine, who is gay.....when eHarmony came out, tried to use their service to find a date. He did receive an email from the staff, very nicely stating that their company did not accomodate persons who were gay/lesbian. This was a VERY nice letter and he didn't think anything about it. It was no big deal. But after some more thought about this, (I can't believe I am going to say this...lol) but I do have to take back my earlier post and agree with the majority on this. Although, I do not agree with some of the analogies that have been presented, some actually have been quiet ridiculous, but....this compnay should not have been forced to find a date of gay/lesbian people. But, then again, government has forced companies to make sure they hire percentages of people, based on community population, of minorities...Affirmative Action. A great example of this is flight attendants. 98% of flight attendants are female. It took a lawsuit for airline companies to hire male flight attendants. Years ago, it took a law suit for airlines to allow their flight attendants to get married if they wanted too, start a family, be able to work past 28. So, I guess it all in the eye of the beholder. Make sense???

[oneijoe]

Don't judge my or anyone's Christianity by your beliefs. I read the KJV, NIV, Greek and Hebrew scriptures, pray as I read that God will open my eyes, mind and heart to HIS word, not what a pastor/clergy gets up in the pulpit and says "this is the way it is." IMO, this is what is wrong with so many Christians today is that they take what the preacher says, the way they see it, as to being 'gospel" and not searching for themselves the Scripture to find the true meaning. There's more to reading God's word...you have to study it, read ALL your references, make notes, and pray.

Do you really feel that Christians are the majority in this country? I know, like in polls, and stuff like that, people say they believe in God or a higher being, but what is that higher being they are talking about? But, when they are asked how many times they attend a service, those numbers are rather low, compared to the number who say they believe in God. So, since the majority do not attend service on Sunday or Saturday, does that them a non-Christian? Just posing a question.

The Bible clearly forbids a lot of things that a lo of Christians still do today. The most common one is attending church on Sunday, when, the Sabbath is clearly on a Saturday, by modern calenders. I guess what I am trying to say is, there has always been different views of what a Christian really is. Different denominations interpret the Scripture in different ways, thus the reason why we have sooo many different denominations in America. Who is to say who is or if there really is a "true religion". All I know is, I can't wait to get to Heaven, and I really hope my mansion is right next door to a lot of people who've said that I ain't gonna make, so I can say...hahaha...told ya so, told ya so!!! LOL

I have to say this...I really have never gotten myself involved in many forums, but I have really enjoyed some of the topics that have been posted lately. I have wished though that some people could accept the fact that they did not agree and didn't get offensive and so harsh sometimes, but that's just human nature to defend something that you feel passionate about! I just hope we can continue to have these "adult" conversations without getting harsh and singling out a certain group of people.

Very good post that shows why separation of church and state is vital to effective government of a free people.

There's far too much danger of the masses "following the preacher" if the U.S. ever starts down the road of mixing religion and government. An American theocracy would be more dangerous than anything the world has seen.

Though it catches flack for many things, this is one area the ACLU has it right.

[Old School]

Yes, they did do the right thing. If the right thing was to roll over and bow down to a frivolous lawsuit.

Eharmony was fully within their legal rights to remain a heterosexual site. It's a private business, which was apparently not discriminating on the basis of hiring someone who is homosexual. They just wanted their site to be one where heterosexuals can meet other singles, which is fine. That is no more discriminatory than a Chinese restaurant discriminating against me by not serving me a cheeseburger, since I don't care for Chinese food. But, once again the legal system has to step in and stick its nose where it doesn't belong.

Shame on the lawyer who sued, and shame on the judge involved for not throwing this case out. :moon:

Good Post........I agree, if the owners of eharmony want to stand by their morals and are ok with the posibility of losing a few clients because they do not accept gay clients then they should be able to. I'm sure there are dozens of site gays can go to other than eharmony.

[sherman14]

So, you're saying that it would have been ok to have left out African-Americans, Indians, Mexicans, etc or any other minority?

Homosexuals are not a minority or a race. They are any race thats just "batting" for the other team.

[More Cowbell]

And, the diner in Alabama just wanted their busines to be where whites could eat and talk with other whites. You are comparing cheeseburgers vs. sweet and sour chicken, as opposed to United States citizens seeking to not be discriminated against. I am fairly sure that homsexuals cannot get cheeseburgers at Hop Sing's either. The Constitution of the United States is not a selective document. Shame on you.

Shame on you, cavemaster, for making this issue into something it is not.

If anyone has made an invalid comparison, it is you. This is not a matter of a certain people group being discriminated against. Your comparison to racial segregation in the Old South is a smack in the face to all the African-Americans who were victims of such prejudice. In that case, blacks were not allowed to enter a place of business that was open to the public, which is a violation of civil rights.

In the matter of e-harmony, it's not that homosexuals are not allowed to join, just that they would not be able to receive the services that they desired. The company is not required to offer services solely to cater to one people group. This where the comparison comes in: requiring e-harmony to provide homosexual dating services is no different than requiring Wendy's to serve tacos. It's not on the menu, yet someone wants it anyway, and by gosh they're going to get it.

To summarize, to not allow an African-American into a restaurant because of their race would be discrimination. However, if the person was told that they could not order something that was not on the menu, that is not the same. Similarly, if a homosexual person was denied access to e-harmony due to their orientation, that would be discrimination. But if they were not satisfied because the site would only allow them to meet people of the other sex, that is not the same. Everyone on the site is offered the same services, access to members of the opposite sex, so no one is being discriminated against.

[More Cowbell]

So, you're saying that it would have been ok to have left out African-Americans, Indians, Mexicans, etc or any other minority?

I did not say it would be okay to deny anyone the opportunity to join the site.

What I said was that the company should not required to provide services that it does not want to. The company wants to offer ONE service, meeting members of the opposite sex, to its members. As long as this particular service is available to anyone, be they white, black, gay, straight, rich, or poor, then there's no problem.

[Beetle01]

Shame on you, cavemaster, for making this issue into something it is not.

If anyone has made an invalid comparison, it is you. This is not a matter of a certain people group being discriminated against. Your comparison to racial segregation in the Old South is a smack in the face to all the African-Americans who were victims of such prejudice. In that case, blacks were not allowed to enter a place of business that was open to the public, which is a violation of civil rights.

In the matter of e-harmony, it's not that homosexuals are not allowed to join, just that they would not be able to receive the services that they desired. The company is not required to offer services solely to cater to one people group. This where the comparison comes in: requiring e-harmony to provide homosexual dating services is no different than requiring Wendy's to serve tacos. It's not on the menu, yet someone wants it anyway, and by gosh they're going to get it.

To summarize, to not allow an African-American into a restaurant because of their race would be discrimination. However, if the person was told that they could not order something that was not on the menu, that is not the same. Similarly, if a homosexual person was denied access to e-harmony due to their orientation, that would be discrimination. But if they were not satisfied because the site would only allow them to meet people of the other sex, that is not the same. Everyone on the site is offered the same services, access to members of the opposite sex, so no one is being discriminated against.

GOOD POST!

[thecavemaster]

Shame on you, cavemaster, for making this issue into something it is not.

If anyone has made an invalid comparison, it is you. This is not a matter of a certain people group being discriminated against. Your comparison to racial segregation in the Old South is a smack in the face to all the African-Americans who were victims of such prejudice. In that case, blacks were not allowed to enter a place of business that was open to the public, which is a violation of civil rights.

In the matter of e-harmony, it's not that homosexuals are not allowed to join, just that they would not be able to receive the services that they desired. The company is not required to offer services solely to cater to one people group. This where the comparison comes in: requiring e-harmony to provide homosexual dating services is no different than requiring Wendy's to serve tacos. It's not on the menu, yet someone wants it anyway, and by gosh they're going to get it.

To summarize, to not allow an African-American into a restaurant because of their race would be discrimination. However, if the person was told that they could not order something that was not on the menu, that is not the same. Similarly, if a homosexual person was denied access to e-harmony due to their orientation, that would be discrimination. But if they were not satisfied because the site would only allow them to meet people of the other sex, that is not the same. Everyone on the site is offered the same services, access to members of the opposite sex, so no one is being discriminated against.

I think, in a later post, I said that this particular thing (eharmony) did not, in my opinion, rise to the level of a civil rights issue because other companies did offer it. I see your point about the "not on the menu" aspect and don't disagree. However, my general thought is to err on the side of civil rights, with a careful distinction between legitimate issues and bogus litigation. Yours is a good post.