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]

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.

Perhaps.

If I were to make my selection for a negative reason you would be of course correct.
I make my selection, not because of any negativity towards the other, I am only positively attracted to the other.

To follow your bliss is natural.

I cheer for the Senators, not because I do not like the other, I cheer because of other positive reasons. And when we have the cup back. Cheers.

Regards
DL

[micatala]

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.

If the company were required to do the research on gays in addition to its existing research, than I think the company would have a legitimate beef. However, if a gay person is willing to make use of the product as is, I can't see any basis for the company objecting.

[Alamanach]

If the company were required to do the research on gays in addition to its existing research, than I think the company would have a legitimate beef. However, if a gay person is willing to make use of the product as is, I can't see any basis for the company objecting.

That's okay, I can; eHarmony wants to maintain their success rate. Given all the research they've done into heterosexual relationships, they have a good idea of how well they can match those people, and they can advertise accordingly. If they haven't researched homosexual relationships, then there's no knowing how well their matching protocol will work, and they don't want to risk their batting average.

I was at an outfitter's this afternoon (it was REI), and they didn't carry the sort of pocketknife I was looking for. Is this discrimination? Actually, yes it is; they discriminated very carefully when they decided which part of the market they were going to pursue, and that market segment doesn't happen to include me. I'm better served by others, and REI knows better than to try to compete with those others. It would lose.

So if eHarmony doesn't want to go after the gay market, that's perfectly reasonable. The hispanic grocery store up the street doesn't stock nutella. It's good business sense.

[McCulloch]

If the company were required to do the research on gays in addition to its existing research, than I think the company would have a legitimate beef. However, if a gay person is willing to make use of the product as is, I can't see any basis for the company objecting.

That's okay, I can; eHarmony wants to maintain their success rate. Given all the research they've done into heterosexual relationships, they have a good idea of how well they can match those people, and they can advertise accordingly. If they haven't researched homosexual relationships, then there's no knowing how well their matching protocol will work, and they don't want to risk their batting average.

I was at an outfitter's this afternoon (it was REI), and they didn't carry the sort of pocketknife I was looking for. Is this discrimination? Actually, yes it is; they discriminated very carefully when they decided which part of the market they were going to pursue, and that market segment doesn't happen to include me. I'm better served by others, and REI knows better than to try to compete with those others. It would lose.

So if eHarmony doesn't want to go after the gay market, that's perfectly reasonable. The hispanic grocery store up the street doesn't stock nutella. It's good business sense.

It is fine that it does not want to go after the gay market. But it is quite a different thing to refuse their custom. Your objections could be easily resolved by eHarmony tracking their success rates separately by sexual orientation, thus avoiding the statistical bias from their lack of knowledge and experience in that particular market and by a simple disclaimer about how their research had been done.

My local Lebanese grocer does not stock oatmeal, but they do not prevent me from buying brown sugar to put into this true Scotsman's oatmeal.

[Alamanach]

My local Lebanese grocer does not stock oatmeal, but they do not prevent me from buying brown sugar to put into this true Scotsman's oatmeal.

And eHarmony does not prevent a gay man from trying to hook up with some elegible bachelorette. Nobody is being excluded from coming in and doing some shopping. But if the gay man wants another gay man, then he'll have to find a "store" that stocks that line of merchandise. There is no grounds for demanding that eHarmony accomodate every desire of every customer that walks through its doors. eHarmony is what it is, take it or leave it.

...could be easily resolved by eHarmony tracking their success rates separately by sexual orientation, thus avoiding the statistical bias from their lack of knowledge and experience in that particular market and by a simple disclaimer about how their research had been done.

For you and I sitting here chatting about it, it probably seems like adding a disclaimer would be an easy thing to do. And maybe it is. But who are we to tell eHarmony how to run their business? Maybe having a clean, disclaimer-free sales pitch is important to their business model. Maybe there are other, technical difficulties with servicing gays that you and I know nothing about. They have to be free to find their own place in the market.

Which, now that I think about it, brings up another point-- if eHarmony was obligated to somehow make its services suit the needs of everybody, then eHarmony's competitors would have to be obligated to do the same. If they are all providing exactly the same services, then there is no substantial difference between any of them. That would be bad because in an environment like that, nobody makes any money; look at the major airlines, for example. It is better for everybody if competitors have some areas where they don't quite overlap.

[MikeH]

"Blacks" are a race. When "gays/lesbians" become an established race, I will agree with you.

So discrimination based on race is bad but discrimination based on sexual orientation is not? Why is that? Discrimination based on religion, political affiliation and other non-race attributes is considered wrong, even illegal, why should sexual orientation not be included?

You have to look at the product being offered, and not just make blanket statements that any product that not offered to everybody is discrimination.

For the purpose of matching up sexual partners, the race, religion, or political affiliation do not affect how the customer relates to the product, but being homosexual instead of hetero does.

If they were selling ice cream and refused to serve gay customers it would be discrimination. In this case, they're just not carrying the flavor that some people like.

There are going to be certain products made for certain sub groups of people. By your standards, tampon companies should be forced to market to men and all adult stores should legally have to carry gay pornography.

[alexjohnc3]

I heard about that on the news yesterday. I think Augusta National Golf Club should be able to serve whoever they want. There is a smorgasgbord of golf clubs exclusively for them. If Augusta National Golf Club loses, it will set a precedent requiring those sites to allow whites and others. And technically, Tiger Woods is not denied access to Augusta National Golf Club, there just aren't any other blacks on there I presume.

Actually, yes, that would mean Tiger Woods would be denied access.

If they were selling ice cream and refused to serve gay customers it would be discrimination. In this case, they're just not carrying the flavor that some people like.

Very nice analogy, though it would have been better to say that they refused to serve people who like vanilla ice cream, for example.

[Assent]

I tend to be more Libertarian when it comes to a company denying services. There are more options available to the public than basically going to the government and having them shout, "Hey, knock it off!" Like boycotting, for instance. If the general public refuses to accept eHarmony's service, then we have proof of a popular consent that everyone should have access.

While I would not discriminate in this sense if I were in eHarmony's position, I will respect their right to offer their services to whomever they please.

I do believe that the line in cases such as these is drawn at whether or not the company is publicly traded. I guess the rationale is that if the company is owned by "the people," then since the government has the ability to legislate "the people" then they can make such a company conform to its wishes.

Hm... *checks around*

Yep. Privately owned. Pretty sure the plaintiff's gonna lose this one.

The hispanic grocery store...

My local Lebanese grocer...

...

My grocer is white.

I'm so ashamed!

[McCulloch]

I tend to be more Libertarian when it comes to a company denying services. There are more options available to the public than basically going to the government and having them shout, "Hey, knock it off!" Like boycotting, for instance. If the general public refuses to accept eHarmony's service, then we have proof of a popular consent that everyone should have access.

While I would not discriminate in this sense if I were in eHarmony's position, I will respect their right to offer their services to whomever they please.

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.

I do believe that the line in cases such as these is drawn at whether or not the company is publicly traded. I guess the rationale is that if the company is owned by "the people," then since the government has the ability to legislate "the people" then they can make such a company conform to its wishes.

I disagree. I believe that the line in such cases is drawn at whether the company is competing in the public market. The law does not discriminate between privately held and publicly held firms in this manner.

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

[Assent]

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.

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.

And I will say this, without hesitation, and as strongly as possible: Private Companies May Discriminate, But The Government Must Not. Everything I say I apply to the private sector; everything I say does not apply to the government or anything it owns or anything it funds.

Private individuals and the companies they run can hate all they want,
But the Government cannot afford to.