eHarmony sued for excluding gays

[otseng]

eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays

The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

Does eHarmony have the right to decide what profile of customers it wishes to serve even at the expense of excluding certain groups?

Should eHarmony include gays seeking other gays in their dating service?

[McCulloch]

So you don't think that there should be a legal issue if they were, for example, offering their service only to White, Baptist, Republican heterosexuals between the ages of 21 and 25 and refused to serve anyone else.

Yes. Even though I would find such a thing distasteful personally, and would not give a company money if it did so, I do believe that it is their right to limit their services.
I do believe that it is a right of a private group of any sort to be wrong.

No you don't. There are many ways in which the behaviour of private groups are regulated and legislated. For instance, a flour mill is not allowed to package sawdust and sell it as flour. So our question is not whether a private company is exempt from all laws and regulations but whether private groups' adherence to basic human rights should be exempt. I believe not.

Things you will not hear, "Oh, you are a privately held company, you can discriminate against women in your hiring practices. "

As I said, there are more ways to get a company to change its mind than through the government. Just because we rely on the government today to do these things for us does not mean they are not there. If a company excluded its clientele based on any requirements, then companies with less discriminating tastes would be able to pick up the slack and become larger than their snobby competition. If those excluded or discriminated against organized a boycott or strike of some kind, especially if they could get those who are not discriminated against to join them, than this would be a better path than to sue through the government.

You seem to be describing a moral trickle down theory. It does not work for economics, what makes you think it would work for human rights?

[Assent]

No you don't. There are many ways in which the behaviour of private groups are regulated and legislated. For instance, a flour mill is not allowed to package sawdust and sell it as flour. So our question is not whether a private company is exempt from all laws and regulations but whether private groups' adherence to basic human rights should be exempt. I believe not.

By "wrong," I meant that they have a right to disagree with me and everyone else who agrees with me, even if we form the majority. In your example, they are deceiving their customers. An openly bigoted company does not, at least about its discriminations.

You seem to be describing a moral trickle down theory. It does not work for economics, what makes you think it would work for human rights?

Moral trickle down? So if the rich are given specific morals, they will trickle down to the general populace?

You have to understand, my feelings on this matter are not just because I can tolerate opposing beliefs, no matter how wrong I think they are. It is also out of fear of the government.

The way the US judicial system works is on precedent. Whenever an opinion is made on a related matter, it is extrapolated to similar cases. And if a private company is forced to make policy changes related to private opinions, it sets a bad precedent. Giving the courts the power to change the opinions of a private company once means that they will have the power to do it again. And next time the cause may not be so humanitarian. I know it seems unlikely now, but how do we know what the future will hold for us ten years down the line? Twenty? Thirty? What if another terrorist attack causes public opinion to swing against the Moslem population, and someone sues a private company then to force them to stop providing service to Moslems? I do not find a scenario completely out of the scope of possibility; hatred towards others is something any society can provide, no matter how humanitarian they presume to be beforehand.

And when I say that the plaintiff will lose this case, it is because I have studied constitutional law in the past, and cases like the famous Boy Scouts of America vs. homosexuals provide precedent in this matter.