It's the view of the plaintiff and the state that pushed the case into court. I would have liked to have seen a judgment because I think it's a great debate.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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny's#R...nation_lawsuits1. 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.
In most cases, businesses are not allowed to discriminate who you sell to because of race religion, etc.The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibited the following forms of discrimination:1. Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin. People with disabilities and families with children were added to the list of protected classes by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.
2. Discrimination against a person in the terms, conditions or privilege of the sale or rental of a dwelling.
3. Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin (and, as of 1988, people with disabilities and families with children.)
4. Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights.
This lawsuit was not about them changing what they sell, it was about if they can decide who can buys what they sell.Okay you all have been discussing things, but I have one statement to make...
Stop thinking food and think.... Is this going to lead to a Christian Store getting sued for not selling satanic worship items on their shelves? I think it's highly comparable, and I'm worried.
Are you arguing that the NJ law is wrong or that eHarmony restricting their search parameters to exclude same-*** partnerships is not violation of the law?^^ If what they are selling is services for men seeking women and women seeking men, then how can being forced to supply services for men seeking men not be a change to what they sell?
It all depends on how you define their service vs. how they define their service. To me, it would be just like forcing the "Big&Tall" store to stock extra-small sizes just because some small short person got the nickers in a knot.
Great point. That is scary, because I see it as the exact same thing.Stop thinking food and think.... Is this going to lead to a Christian Store getting sued for not selling satanic worship items on their shelves? I think it's highly comparable, and I'm worried.
Even assuming I agreed with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it does not mention sexual orientation. I would agree with it in a limited basis, particularly for African Americans, but it has been stretched beyond all recognition. And this suit is based on the New Jersey law, with which I disagree.It's the view of the plaintiff and the state that pushed the case into court. I would have liked to have seen a judgment because I think it's a great debate.
I find this to be a very interesting case because in dating, people are allowed to discriminate any way they like. However, for an internet site it takes very little effort to add extra search terms that would include additional groups. Asking a restaurant to cook different food is asking them to change the service. In the case of eHarmony, the service is matchups and the lawsuit was about them not providing that service.
The government decided a while ago that it's not fair to preclude groups because of race, religion, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
I'm curious what the court would say. If you argue that it hasn't been tested, is that a good enough reason to deny usage from others or should a business have to test it first before saying a group of people can't use it? Because technology is involved, maybe the rules are different.Let's put this a different way. Say you, an engineer, created some great new technology that would better mankind--let's say a teleporter a la Star Trek. The method that this transporter used somehow involved looking at your DNA. Let's say you designed this thing to work with caucasian DNA. Would it be ok for you to withhold this technology from other races, just because it had not been tested and/or designed for their DNA?
I'm curious what the court would say. If you argue that it hasn't been tested, is that a good enough reason to deny usage from others or should a business have to test it first before saying a group of people can't use it? Because technology is involved, maybe the rules are different.
This is part of my point. I thought we had freedom of religion and thought in this country.On top of this, the feeling I've gotten from reading the Eharmony founder (Dr. Neil Clark Warren)'s books is he holds strong Christian morals. He also holds a Master of Divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. Given these things, I think if there is an agenda here it is not the homosexuals trying to force Ehamony to match them with heterosexuals, but probably Eharmony not wanting to match homosexuals on religious grounds.
I fundatmentally disagree with the thought that people should be able to make a profit "any way they see fit," and there are all kinds of laws and regulations that say you can't. For instance, you can't legally make a profit from a commodity by cornering the market. In this case, I feel that withholding a technology from a class of people because you disagree with them on religious grounds is anti-competitve and fails the free market.^^ You're right. That process is eHarmony's private intellectual property. They put a lot of effort and work into it and should be allowed to make a profit off of it in any way they see fit.
No one is saying they have to spend a lot of money to change their process. Just to open it up as-is for others to use. It might not work well for homosexuals, but that's not the point. Of course, to go along with this I think E-harmony should be completely indemnified from any liability of a homosexual using the service.If you spent a fortune developing this thing and it works only on a certain DNA type, why should an outside party be able to demand that you spend another fortune trying to make it work for all types of DNA. The simple economics of it won't hold water. Even if you (the inventor) were a racist/bigot/homophobe and wanted to only serve one type of person, the profit incentive would be enormous for the service to expand. If you didn't want the money from people you don't like, others with no such hangups will come up with similar technology to service this much larger customer base.
Eharmony claims to be "scientifially-based" so I'm not sure it is different on technological grounds. Eharmony is a technological process.I'm curious what the court would say. If you argue that it hasn't been tested, is that a good enough reason to deny usage from others or should a business have to test it first before saying a group of people can't use it? Because technology is involved, maybe the rules are different.
But we want to argue ideals here, dammit! And beat the horse well after it's dead. :deadhorse:Regardless, this didn't go to court, and even if people feel like they were bullied into making the change by the threat of a lawsuit, the choice WAS theirs because it didn't... so I'm not so sure we can even debate about the fairness at all. At this point in time, it's all null and void because THEY made the choice.
This is completely different than forcing a church to marry gays. There are other churches out there that will marry gays. This is denying someone a service that is not available anywhere else because you don't agree with their views. Let's say your spouse was terminally ill and someone invented a cure--but declined to make the cure available to your spouse because he or she didn't agree with your religious views. Would that be ok?This is part of my point. I thought we had freedom of religion and thought in this country.Why is a person not allowed to hold religious beliefs and conduct their business in lines with their religious beliefs? This is my main beef with gay marriage. They will soon be coming into people's churches and forcing them to conduct these marriages which are against their religious beliefs. It is always the left who believes they are so much for freedom, but it is they who want to use the government to force their way of thinking on everyone else,whether they like it or not.
Agreed, but it's still fun to argue.But as usual, we're probably never going to come to an accord on this issue. This is a difference of opinion between liberals and conservatives, which is far more fundamental than a few percentage points in the top marginal tax rate, at least in my opinion.
Once again, you are assuming that they can just open up the service without changing things. You are making the assumption that you can just interchange men and women like there are absolutely no differences. Do you know anything about the E-Harmony questionaires? How do you know there aren't questions on there relating to things like breast feeding, or menstruation, or any number of things on which it wouldn't work for two gay men? How do you know E-Harmony doesn't gather demographic data from the surveys that they use for matching algorithms and that inputting the same-*** data isn't going to screw that up. They would have to reprogram their computers to ignore this data. I think you are making a lot of assumptions here.No one is saying they have to spend a lot of money to change their process. Just to open it up as-is for others to use. It might not work well for homosexuals, but that's not the point. Of course, to go along with this I think E-harmony should be completely indemnified from any liability of a homosexual using the service.
This is completely different than forcing a church to marry gays. There are other churches out there that will marry gays. This is denying someone a service that is not available anywhere else because you don't agree with their views. Let's say your spouse was terminally ill and someone invented a cure--but declined to make the cure available to your spouse because he or she didn't agree with your religious views. Would that be ok?
Enter your email address to join: