Why is this fair?

[Road Guy]

anyone remember Andrew Dice Clays' comments about gay rights? You want gay rights, here's 10 cents off vaseline now get back in the closet!

:banhim:

 

[SkyWarp]

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.

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

 

[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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny's#R...nation_lawsuits

Denny's was sued on the grounds of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prevents discrimination in public places which I linked in an above post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act

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.

In most cases, businesses are not allowed to discriminate who you sell to because of race religion, etc.

 

[engineergurl]

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.

 

[SkyWarp]

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.

This lawsuit was not about them changing what they sell, it was about if they can decide who can buys what they sell.

 

[Flyer_PE]

^^ 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.

 

[SkyWarp]

^^ 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.

Are you arguing that the NJ law is wrong or that eHarmony restricting their search parameters to exclude same-sex partnerships is not violation of the law?

 

[DVINNY]

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.

Great point. That is scary, because I see it as the exact same thing.

The satan worshiper is free to shop at the store and buy Christianity items, but will they force them to sell satanic items so that it isn't discrimination? Exact same thing.

As I stated above, it's bullshit.

 

[benbo]

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

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.

Also, I don't know if you work for E-harmony, or if you designed the algorithms and statistics they use in their system, but if you don't I have absolutely no idea how you can state that it requires "very little effort."

E-Harmony is not like "Craigslist" - where you just post your name. It is a professional computerized mathching service.

I am almost 100% certain this suit is not about some gay person distressed because they can't find a match. It is about an agenda, and trying to force a change in public opinion throught the courts. Eventually the gay people are going to want to have access to the straight people on the system - they are not going to be satisfied with the solution. And the bisexuals are going to want access to everyone. Pretty soon you aren't going to be able to use the service unles you agree to be matched with anyone. Maybe that's a little far fetched, but I wouldn't be surprised the way things are going.

I suspect E-Harmony didn't fight too much because they want the money. If they really cared they would have licensed the technology to somebody and let them do the research and make any changes necessary to match same gender couples.

 

[mudpuppy]

I see it a different way. This has nothing to do with a simple thing like a type of cuisine or a religious text or some trinket that can easily be obtained somwhere else. E-harmony is billed a different (and patented) way to match people. This isn't a commodity that can be picked up anywhere--it is a new "scientifically-based" process that has the potential to greatly benefit mankind. Because of it's protection by our intellectual property laws, no one else is allowed to offer this service--Eharmony holds a monopoly on it. As such, should they also be granted the right to determine who can and can't use the service? If you want to open a store selling satanic items, or a restuarant service Bengaldeshi food, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. But you are prohibited by law from using Eharmony's matching process on anyone, homosexual or not.

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?

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.

 

[Flyer_PE]

^^ 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. If their patent is for a process matching heterosexual couples, what is to stop another company/group from starting a service for homosexual couples and getting their own patent? EHarmony can't go after them on grounds of the patent since their patent is for a heterosexual service. The only problem is that to create a new service would require a lot of effort and work. It's much easier to just sue eHarmony than to successfully start and run your own business.

To use your 'Caucasian Teleporter' example, it is in fact OK for you to withhold the technology because it is your intellectual private property. 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.

 

[SkyWarp]

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.

 

[engineergurl]

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.

Agreed... based on the liablilties I don't think the court should force you to allow just anyone to use it... if they do and the person ends getting messed up, then who's at fault? Then again, if the court does force you, then I bet that civil lawsuit would be one you would win. So maybe, had this whole e-harmony gone to court, and HAD they been forced to change their services, since the dimensions were tested on heterosexuals, the same guarentees... (or is that a different dating service that I am thinking of?) wouldn't be offered... 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.

 

[benbo]

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.

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.

It is obvious that Warren has an agenda (which really just means a point of view that he would like to see adopted). But to say Neil Clark Warren is "pushing" his agenda on anyone is really stretching. I haven't noticed E-Harmony suing any of the other gay dating services trying to force them to stop serving gays. I haven't noticed that E-Harmony only allows Christian to participate, which would seem logical if he was trying to push a Christian agenda. And anyway, I have no problem with anybody - whether it is the gay lobby or the Christian right - trying to push their agenda on others in a free market of ideas. I would be perfectly happy with the complainants in this lawsuit taking to the airwaves to blast and criticize E-Harmony and force them to change through the power of public opinion. What I have a problem with is a group using the coercive force of the government to force their agenda on people.

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.

 

[DVINNY]

Maybe E-harmony should just let the homosexuals use the service, and have the results all point to matching them with Richard Simmons.

That would solve all the problems.

 

[mudpuppy]

^^ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Eharmony claims to be "scientifially-based" so I'm not sure it is different on technological grounds. Eharmony is a technological process.

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.

But we want to argue ideals here, dammit! And beat the horse well after it's dead. :deadhorse:

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.

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?

I guess what it comes down to is who should control intellectual property that has the ability to drastically improve humanity. Should the inventor always have free reign, or should the goverment have a right to force the inventor to open up his or her invention for the greater good (assuming, of course, due process and just compensation)?

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.

Agreed, but it's still fun to argue.

 

[benbo]

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?

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-sex 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.

It is a little stretch to go from sentencing my wife to a death sentence to requiring a company to provide a dating service, for which I am certain there are a lot of alternatives. But if I'm going to comment on this situation, I do not believe anybody should be legally obligated to save anybody else's life. And I say this with full confidence in the nature of the pharmaeutical industry and the intense profit motive behind the development of medications and cures that there is absolutely zero chance that anything like this would ever happen. Let me take it to an equally ridiculous level - if I see Adolph Hitler choking to death, should I be required to administer the Heimlich maneuver and give him CPR or face legal consequences?

And this is like the church situation. These people are not suing to be able to use A dating service, they are suing to be able to use THIS dating service. Just because there are alternative churches doesn't mean these people will not eventually get around to suing the Catholic Church where they can't get married because they are not satisfied with the Methodist Church where they can get married.

 

[benbo]

Let me state from a programmer's perspective why, although I have no idea how much work it would take for E-Harmony to change the system, there is no way they can just allow same sex people to use it exactly as is. And this is at the bare minimum.

You first have to add extra boxes on the applications and forms for men seeking men and women seeking women, and (probably) people seeking either.

Then you have to put on the forms if the person would be interested in meeting a self identified bisexual (unless you just have the bisexual fill out the form for both the gay and straight databases - assuming that is even fair because there may be some people, both gay and straight, who wouldn't want to be matched with a self identified bisexual).

To do all this you would need separate databases, or at least separate search terms. Then you would have to change the HTML on all your internet forms, and reprint all your brochures and paper applications.

And all this is just at an absolute minimum.

 

[benbo]

My final comment on this (can you tell it's a pet peeve of mine?). If we are bound and determined to do this kind of government imposed social engineering I would be a lot happier (though not entirely happy) with the government rescinding E-Harmony's patent and forcing them to open source their software and methods. That way some other entrepreneur could provide the service without the company being forced to go against it's moral beliefs. Although it appears their moral beliefs weren't that strong in this case.

 

[mudpuppy]

This has been an intersting discussion. Thanks, benbo. I still don't agree with you but I understand your position better.