Why is this fair?

[benbo]

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/accom.html
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) prohibits an owner, manager, or employee of any place that offers goods, services and facilities to the general public, such as a restaurant, hotel, doctor's office, camp, or theater, from directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual because of that individual's race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, marital status, domestic partnership status, ***, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability.

Ancestry? Does this mean they have to offer an "Italian meeting Italian" service?

Color? "Pale meeting pale"

Religion? "Swedenborgian meeting swedengborgian?"

And what the hell is creed anyway?

 

[Supe]

A God-awful band, of course.

From a purely engineering perspective, I'm surprised they didn't try to introduce some sort of defense based on metrics. Their matches are supposed to be based on success rate metrics studied on heterosexual couples.

Just think of all the broken hearts based on the faulty salsa-dancing metrics!

 

[wilheldp_PE]

The case was settled because the company caved in rather than face a powerful oppressive government.

Just a second there professor. Wasn't it you giving me crap for making statements like this when we were discussing anarchy?

 

[benbo]

Just a second there professor. Wasn't it you giving me crap for making statements like this when we were discussing anarchy?

If I did I was wrong. I am in the middle of the road on this issue - I think you are just on the more libertarian side than me.

I got particularly annoyed when I heard about some guy going around suing restaurants for violating draconian disabled protection laws. He would sue them if their bathroom sink was a couple centimeters too high. And he wasn't even in a wheelchair, he had ADD or PTSD or something.

 

[benbo]

A God-awful band, of course.

:Locolaugh:

 

[SkyWarp]

First, just because there is a law, doesn't mean the law is correct. That's my point. I didn't think they'd have so much hubris to sue somebody without having some statute they concocted to base it on.
The case was settled because the company caved in rather than face a powerful oppressive government.

Finally, I'm used to these laws, but I am sick of the left side of the aisle claiming they don't reach into people's lives and tell them how to live. They are constantly telling people how they have to think and how they have to run their business. They just don't see it.

Just because someone brings a suit doesn't mean they're going to win and I don't think it's fair to assume what would have happened at trial. If the law isn't correct, it could have been determined at trial, or clarified.

 

[DVINNY]

I with ya 100% on this one benbo.

it's total ****.

 

[DVINNY]

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/accom.html
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) prohibits an owner, manager, or employee of any place that offers goods, services and facilities to the general public, such as a restaurant, hotel, doctor's office, camp, or theater, from directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual because of that individual's race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, marital status, domestic partnership status, ***, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability.

^^ I would interpret that as clearly stating that Eharmony cannot say (to a gay man) "sorry, you can't use our services to match up with a woman because you're gay". If they did, it would be discrimination.

However, when the gay guy says "but I want you to hook me up with a man", and Eharmony says "we don't offer that service", then that should be that.

why do gays even need eharmony? Isn't that what highway rest areas are for?

ZING

 

[SkyWarp]

The reason this lawsuit had any merit was because eHarmony was refusing to use their "29 dimensions" algorithms to match same-*** couples. eHarmony's stance was that their research was on hetero couples and that they are seeking to promote marriage which in many states is only legal between a man and woman. It's a question of whether or not denying someone usage because it wasn't designed with them in mind is discrimination.

If you run a tanning salon and you think that your product only works well with the fair skinned, is it okay to tell anyone of a darker complexion that they aren't allowed to use it? Or do you warn them that the results might not be good and let them try if they want to?

In the settlement eHarmony agreed to create another site that may have a disclaimer stating that the matches are based on research from hetero couples. This is in essence, letting someone you think might not like your service try it anyway.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

If you run a tanning salon and you think that your product only works well with the fair skinned, is it okay to tell anyone of a darker complexion that they aren't allowed to use it? Or do you warn them that the results might not be good and let them try if they want to?

1. Yes, they absolutely could do that. A private business is allowed to discriminate on who they sell to. There are EEO employment laws that dictate that they cannot discriminate in hiring practices, but as far as service practices, most people are left to vote with their wallets.

2. Your example isn't exactly applicable to the eHarmony situation. Gay men absolutely could have used eHarmony the way it was designed, but their results would probably not be preferable. If eH doesn't plan on changing their matching protocols, then gay men could simply sign up as women to be matched with compatible men. Then again, the men that they are matched with might be a little pissed about that.

 

[Dleg]

However, when the gay guy says "but I want you to hook me up with a man", and Eharmony says "we don't offer that service", then that should be that.

That was my point. Why do businesses have to offer additional services in the name of non-discrimination? That's way too much government interference in the running of business, even for my socialist-commie ***.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Also notice that eHarmony settled in this case, so there is no true indication of whether or not they would have lost the lawsuit. Even if they did lose, I think they would have had the decision reversed on appeal.

 

[benbo]

That was my point. Why do businesses have to offer additional services in the name of non-discrimination? That's way too much government interference in the running of business, even for my socialist-commie ***.

I thought your clothes store argument was right on.

Say you have a woman's clothing store.

A man can shop there because according to this law you cannot discriminate on the basis of gender.

But he cannot demand that they sell jock straps.

I don't know if they would have won the suit or not. People give in because it is easier and less expensive than fighting. But regardless, I don't like the law the suit is based on. I sort of prefer freedom to operate your own business the way you want. I know I'm in the minority, and I suspect I'll just have to live with it.

I just wish they would call it what it is - a government intrusion into my personal choice on how I run my business. When the Supreme Court overturned a sodomy law last year I agreed because I don't think the government belongs in that personal life. I'm supposedly the one who wants to impose my will and values on other people, but it's really the other way around..

 

[SkyWarp]

1. Yes, they absolutely could do that. A private business is allowed to discriminate on who they sell to. There are EEO employment laws that dictate that they cannot discriminate in hiring practices, but as far as service practices, most people are left to vote with their wallets.

This is news to me. Just off the top of my head Denny's was successfully sued multiple times because they didn't serve black patrons.

2. Your example isn't exactly applicable to the eHarmony situation. Gay men absolutely could have used eHarmony the way it was designed, but their results would probably not be preferable. If eH doesn't plan on changing their matching protocols, then gay men could simply sign up as women to be matched with compatible men. Then again, the men that they are matched with might be a little pissed about that.

The question is whether or not it is okay for eHarmony to deny their service because of race, religion, orientation, etc, because it was not designed with them in mind.
It's an interesting question.

 

[Dleg]

Obviously it is wrong if you turn someone away from a restaurant that serves food. Everybody eats food. I think this case is more akin to someone, let's say a Bangladeshi, suing Denny's because they don't serve Bangladeshi food.

Or a picky person like me, suing them because they don't serve good food.

 

[SkyWarp]

Everybody eats food. I think this case is more akin to someone, let's say a Bangladeshi, suing Denny's because they don't serve Bangladeshi food.
Or a picky person like me, suing them because they don't serve good food.

Not at all. They didn't ask eHarmony to develop new metrics that match same-*** couples. They asked that they use the same "29 dimensions" and apply them to men seeking men and women seeking women. If it turned out that they didn't work well with same-*** couples, they could go elsewhere.
eHarmony said they don't have to do that because they didn't research it. That MAY be like saying we won't serve a Bangladeshi because we haven't researched if they will like our food.

 

[Dleg]

Well, I see the point. If it's jsut a simple matter of applying the same algorithm to same *** pairings, and eHarmony just says "no we won't try that because we don't want to provide such services", then the Denny's analogy would be that Dennys turns Bangladeshis away, and won't serve the the same food they serve others.

 

[Dleg]

Nope, I take that back - I still think it's different than refusing to serve them. eHarmony should be able ot just say "Yes, gay people can use our services. As long as they are looking for a heterosexual relationship".

I honestly don't think it should be any different than running a Mexican food restaurant - we serve Mexican food. Come in if you like Mexican Food.

eHarmony is just saying "We set up girls with boys. Come inside if you want us to set up a girl-boy relationship".

 

[wilheldp_PE]

This is news to me. Just off the top of my head Denny's was successfully sued multiple times because they didn't serve black patrons.

I'd like to see some examples of this. I know Cracker Barrel was accused of something similar, but there was never a lawsuit...just a huge public relations nightmare.

 

[DVINNY]

Nope, I take that back - I still think it's different than refusing to serve them. eHarmony should be able ot just say "Yes, gay people can use our services. As long as they are looking for a heterosexual relationship".
I honestly don't think it should be any different than running a Mexican food restaurant - we serve Mexican food. Come in if you like Mexican Food.

eHarmony is just saying "We set up girls with boys. Come inside if you want us to set up a girl-boy relationship".

Bingo.

To read into it any further is reaching.

Skywarp, I see your view as reaching, big time. JMO.

It's asking that mexican restaurant to use its same "29 dimension" stoves to cook the bangladeshi food.

No one says their "29 dimension" mexican stove won't actually cook bangladeshi food, it's just not in their business plan to do so.

I think its a shame they settled. Should have been taken to court.