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?

[Greatest I Am]

I'm not sure eHarmony is specifically discriminating against gays.

The company said the allegations of discrimination against gays were false and reckless.

"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages," it said in a statement.

"Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted," eHarmony added.

Their service is based on their research of compatibility between heterosexual couples. It does not appear that their research involved anything with homosexual couples.

It would seem like if they were going to offer services to gays, then they'd have to expand their research with gay couples. So, I'm not sure then this would be a case of discrimination, but rather a lack of their capability of matching gays.

So why don't they simply offer the service to gays. People are people. Whatever you do to find compatible people, probably works as well for gays as for the rest of us.

And what is sexual orientation? Will that mean eharmony would have to allow for people who love sheep and horses, too, in order to be "nondiscriminatory?" Some who have been convicted of "pedophilia" claimed they couldn't help themselves. Does eharmony have to provide for them also?

How about within the law? It is not discriminatory to exclude providing a service that would be against the law.

And as far as "political affiliation," I wouldn't care if the Dems and Reps want to have their own elite club. I woudn't join either of them, but I wouldn't be offended. And as far as that goes, if the Baptists (or insert denomination here) don't want to have gay ministers, they shouldnt be required to. The gays can create their own Baptist (insert denomination here) church. The church has long been accused of forcing beliefs down peoples throats, and mostly unfairly...though it has happened, but the new gay agenda doesn't even pretend they aren't forcing ideas on people, they are DEMANDING it.

This thread is not about forcing religions to adhere to the laws that our society has regarding discrimination. Religions already have a pass in that arena. Religions are allowed to operate with full government recognition of their religious charitable status, even though some do not allow full participation by women. Religions are allowed to discriminate against gays. In Canada, even though under common law, religious organizations are allowed to refuse to marry any couple for any reason, the law enacted to recognize same-sex marriage, explicitly states that no religious group will be required to perform same-sex weddings. Should it be legal for a church be allowed to operate if it did not allow people of a certain racial or ethnic background to be leaders?

If I have two job applicants in front of me that are identical in all qualification and talent and one is my color or race and the other is not.

What is my best choice.

Should I prefer my own race or color over the other as a positive reason to hire.
Should I hire the other as my best choice and reverse discriminate.

I believe that it is quite OK to prefer my own color or race. Why not?
Not because I discriminate negatively the other race or color.

Is this the wrong thing to do.
Am I not allowed to be loyal to my own?

Your best choice is to do whatever you would have done if the two applicants were (as far as you could tell) identical in all qualifications and talent period. Usually what is done is to further examine the qualifications of the applicants to show that one or the other is more qualified. No reason to discriminate based on race.

I do not agree. I think I should look at the positive aspect of discrimination and go with it.

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

If I have two job applicants in front of me that are identical in all qualification and talent and one is my color or race and the other is not.

Your best choice is to do whatever you would have done if the two applicants were (as far as you could tell) identical in all qualifications and talent period. Usually what is done is to further examine the qualifications of the applicants to show that one or the other is more qualified. No reason to discriminate based on race.

I do not agree. I think I should look at the positive aspect of discrimination and go with it.

You then disagree with both common sense and the law. What positive aspect of discrimination are you talking about?

[Greatest I Am]

If I have two job applicants in front of me that are identical in all qualification and talent and one is my color or race and the other is not.

Your best choice is to do whatever you would have done if the two applicants were (as far as you could tell) identical in all qualifications and talent period. Usually what is done is to further examine the qualifications of the applicants to show that one or the other is more qualified. No reason to discriminate based on race.

I do not agree. I think I should look at the positive aspect of discrimination and go with it.

You then disagree with both common sense and the law. What positive aspect of discrimination are you talking about?

Loyalty to the social group I belong to is positive discrimination. Team spirit is, patriotism is etc.

When all else is the same, it is better to let positive things guide me than to ignore them and flip a coin.

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

If I have two job applicants in front of me that are identical in all qualification and talent and one is my color or race and the other is not.

Your best choice is to do whatever you would have done if the two applicants were (as far as you could tell) identical in all qualifications and talent period. Usually what is done is to further examine the qualifications of the applicants to show that one or the other is more qualified. No reason to discriminate based on race.

I do not agree. I think I should look at the positive aspect of discrimination and go with it.

You then disagree with both common sense and the law. What positive aspect of discrimination are you talking about?

Loyalty to the social group I belong to is positive discrimination. Team spirit is, patriotism is etc.

When assessing the appropriateness of a job applicant, your loyalty should be to your employer. Putting something such as your loyalty to a religious, ethnic or racial group ahead of your fiduciary responsibility to your employer is not a positive thing.

When all else is the same, it is better to let positive things guide me than to ignore them and flip a coin.

The truth is that it is never the case that all else is the same. What I advocate, is that when it seems that all relevant factors regarding the two job applicants seem to be the same (color, race, ethnic background, sexual practices, marital status, gender etc. being usually irrelevant) you should not have to resort to flipping a coin. You should delve deeper into the qualifications of the applicants, perhaps using hands on testing, to determine which really would be the better applicant. Which is what you would do, if you were being responsible, if the two job applicants seemed identical in all relevant qualifications and were identical in racial background as well.

[Greatest I Am]

If I have two job applicants in front of me that are identical in all qualification and talent and one is my color or race and the other is not.

Your best choice is to do whatever you would have done if the two applicants were (as far as you could tell) identical in all qualifications and talent period. Usually what is done is to further examine the qualifications of the applicants to show that one or the other is more qualified. No reason to discriminate based on race.

I do not agree. I think I should look at the positive aspect of discrimination and go with it.

You then disagree with both common sense and the law. What positive aspect of discrimination are you talking about?

Loyalty to the social group I belong to is positive discrimination. Team spirit is, patriotism is etc.

When assessing the appropriateness of a job applicant, your loyalty should be to your employer. Putting something such as your loyalty to a religious, ethnic or racial group ahead of your fiduciary responsibility to your employer is not a positive thing.

When all else is the same, it is better to let positive things guide me than to ignore them and flip a coin.

The truth is that it is never the case that all else is the same. What I advocate, is that when it seems that all relevant factors regarding the two job applicants seem to be the same (color, race, ethnic background, sexual practices, marital status, gender etc. being usually irrelevant) you should not have to resort to flipping a coin. You should delve deeper into the qualifications of the applicants, perhaps using hands on testing, to determine which really would be the better applicant. Which is what you would do, if you were being responsible, if the two job applicants seemed identical in all relevant qualifications and were identical in racial background as well.

And after all this is done and they are still identical we are back to flipping the coin.
Your suggestion are good, don't get me wrong but when I say identical I mean identical. The HR tests have all been passed. Identical scores of 100% all around.

You need to find a way to eliminate the coin flip to negate my positive reasons for my choice.

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

And after all this is done and they are still identical we are back to flipping the coin.
Your suggestion are good, don't get me wrong but when I say identical I mean identical. The HR tests have all been passed. Identical scores of 100% all around.

You need to find a way to eliminate the coin flip to negate my positive reasons for my choice.

Make them arm wrestle for the job.

What would you do if there were no ethnic or racial difference either?

[Greatest I Am]

And after all this is done and they are still identical we are back to flipping the coin.
Your suggestion are good, don't get me wrong but when I say identical I mean identical. The HR tests have all been passed. Identical scores of 100% all around.

You need to find a way to eliminate the coin flip to negate my positive reasons for my choice.

Make them arm wrestle for the job.

What would you do if there were no ethnic or racial difference either?

Flip the coin.

Why will you not allow positive discrimination?

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

Flip the coin.

Why will you not allow positive discrimination?

What you call positive discrimination for the candidate which suits your prejudices, would be called negative discrimination by the qualified candidate you reject. The process which favours a candidate based on race is unfair. At least random selection can be perceived to be fair, because each candidate has an equal chance.

Why do you persist in the fiction that all qualifications are equal?

[Greatest I Am]

Flip the coin.

Why will you not allow positive discrimination?

What you call positive discrimination for the candidate which suits your prejudices, would be called negative discrimination by the qualified candidate you reject. The process which favours a candidate based on race is unfair. At least random selection can be perceived to be fair, because each candidate has an equal chance.

Why do you persist in the fiction that all qualifications are equal?

To get people off the fence.
To prove that flipping a coin ignores positive reasons for the choice.
Are you saying that identical qualifications are impossible in an imaginary scenario?

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

So you are saying that race is a positive reason for choosing a candidate for employment? I and many countries' legal system and many ethicists say that race is not a suitable reason for choosing a candidate for employment.

I am saying that identical qualifications are only possible in an imaginary scenario.

However, given that you find yourself in such an imaginary scenario, then the method you use should be fair and should be seen to be fair. Choosing based on race is not fair. Providing some sort of tie breaking random arbitrary process is arguably fair.