EHarmony dating service has been bullied into offering their services to gay people. You know how it starts. A lawsuit is filed or a state commission opens an investigation and then comes the threat. The threat is that the persecution will persist and you’ll go broke fighting us so you might as well give us what we want.
According to World Net Daily:
Internet dating service eHarmony has officially agreed to begin matching homosexual couples, beginning next year.
The popular California-based service has been known for focusing on long-term relationships, especially marriage, which has been said to align with founder Clark Warren’s early work with Focus on the Family’s evangelical Christian base and perspective.
Warren, a psychologist with a divinity degree, has had three of his 10 books on love and dating published by Focus on the Family. It was an appearance on James Dobson’s radio program, in 2001, that triggered a response of 90,000 new referrals to the website, starting a climb of registered participants on the site from 4,000 to today’s 20 million clients.
As WND reported, the company originally said it was “based on the Christian principles of Focus on the Family author Dr. Neil Clark Warren.” It stood firm on its decision to reject homosexuals from its profiling and matching services. Its entire compatibility system is based on research of married heterosexual couples.
In 2005, Warren told USA Today the company’s goal is marriage and that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states.
“We don’t really want to participate in something that’s illegal,” he said.
But now the company has been compelled to changed its nationwide policy as part of a New Jersey lawsuit settlement.
On March 14, 2005, Eric McKinley filed a lawsuit against eHarmony, claiming the company discriminated against him when it refused to accept his advertisement for a “gay” partner.
McKinley’s complaint triggered a state investigation into the dating service.
Last week, eHarmony agreed to begin providing an eHarmony-affiliated “Compatible Partners” service to gays and lesbians, with listings labeled “male seeking male” and “female seeking female” by March 31, 2009.
For complying, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights has dismissed the complaint against eHarmony, and Warren is considered “absolved of liability.” Also, the dating site has been ordered to pay the division $50,000 for investigation-related administrative costs and give McKinley $5,000. It has agreed to provide a free one-year membership to its “gay” service to McKinley, plus free six-month memberships to “the first 10,000 users registering for same-sex matching within one year of the initiation on the same-sex matching service,” according to the settlement.
You’ve got to love it. The bullies kick the company around so much until the company starts apologizing for getting blood on the bully’s kicking boots. And then the bullies kick a little more until the company offers to pay for new kicking boots. It’s a disgrace.
The moral of this is that morals are disallowed from the public sphere and if you don’t like it, say something. They dare you. Because you might be next.
November 20, 2008 at 4:23 am
This is a tragedy.
Would you believe we actually had a decent column on this matter here in the Bay State? Despite the surname, he’s not Catholic, but he’s definitely got his head screwed on straight. It might even deserve its own thread. Props to Joe Fitzgerald. Naturally, this article did not appear in The Globe.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/2008_11_19_‘Cultural_War__won_at_democracy_s_cost/
You know, somehow in this world we’ve got well intentioned people who are trying to be good getting very confused. I actually had a Muslim tell me she thought we should be past the debate on abortion, even though she thought it wrong. The Left seems to think they can just make our conscience and our morality obsolete – and the worst thing is, we’re letting them.
November 20, 2008 at 4:34 am
Simple solution: eHarmony should close up shop. If they’re a Christian organization, it’s better to do that than accept money for sinful aberrant behaviour.
November 20, 2008 at 4:47 am
Gay brownshirts on the march!
November 20, 2008 at 4:48 am
Tito, wouldn’t those shirts be pink?
November 20, 2008 at 5:00 am
It’s very troubling that private enterprises are pressured into accepting the modern sexual ethos. It shows that many view this as a civil rights issue, when in fact it isn’t. And if enough people think it’s a civil rights issue, there’s no end to the coercion deemed justifiable. That’s why I think their arguments fall flat when SSM advocates say, “Oh, we’d never take legal action against churches for denying same sex marriage!”
November 20, 2008 at 8:00 am
Every hope we have in America, gradually dwindles: it isn’t even an economic leader any longer, sad that the rest of us have to be hurt by your cultural problem. As with this financial crisis, which will lose 100 000 000 of our people their jobs, while your economy is bailed out. It is not fair: it’s indirect murder, and the murder which retains Africa as a warlike continent!
November 20, 2008 at 8:25 am
Yeah, this sounds like Jersey politics. I apologize on behalf of my state of residence.
November 20, 2008 at 9:52 am
Since its business model was designed to foster marriages, they may have… difficulty… with the new clientèle.
The worst part will be later on, when the company can no longer claim “such and such” high level of successful matchings, which might drive away people who could benefit from help finding a spouse.
Here again it drives home the point that language is important – if eHarmony advertises that they provide marriage matching for heterosexuals and uh, “relationship”(?) matching for homosexuals, they’re going to get handed another court order.
Even their wiki page says “matches men and women with compatible singles of the opposite sex”. That algorithm is going to completely fail when applied to homosexuals.
November 20, 2008 at 11:26 am
This simply doesn’t surprise me. A bunch of folks in California, including that one man who resigned from his post at a theatre (remember him?), after being put on the Gay Rights Enemy List have simply made a donation to gay activist groups equivalent to the amount they gave to the proposition 8 campaign.
And now they’re off the list. All they needed to do was make one simple compromise…freaking cowards…
November 20, 2008 at 1:42 pm
There was an enemies list? Wow. Now the violent reaction to the prayer vigil is entirely in character within context.
Lists are the tool of tyranny, and often of violence. This is worrisome.
~Zee
November 20, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Frankly, I can’t imagine why a community that has recourse to exclusive services of their own would want to force the issue with anyone else, unless they are so determined to make their point that they have found a way to bully others. Yes, that’s all this is — bullying.
The founder of eHarmony had always maintained that their system of matching was based on data accumulated from the experience of heterosexual married couples, and that there was simply not enough data on “married” gay couples to do the same. It seems that this wasn’t convincing to a judge.
On the bright side (and I believe some respondents have missed this), the same-sex matching service would be provided under a separate brand.
“Last week, eHarmony agreed to begin providing an eHarmony-affiliated ‘Compatible Partners’ service to gays and lesbians, with listings labeled ‘male seeking male’ and ‘female seeking female’ by March 31, 2009.”
It stands to reason that the service would be provided on a separate website. The integrity of the eHarmony brand would be preserved. So it’s a partial victory for the “gay community” at best, and the company might be in a position to discontinue the service, if they can establish that it is not profit-making.
I wouldn’t go for such a thing myself.
November 20, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Not that there’s anything wrong with…oh wait. There is.
November 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm
The bigger problem is that people will allow this to happen because most have no solid sense of principle. The vast majority of people who use eHarmony and disagree with this will still continue to use the site for the service and convenience it offers rather than do the honorable thing and deactivate their accounts. Most people place personal convenience, among many other self-interests, far above principle, integrity, and morals. So why shouldn’t eHarmony cave in to this pressure and comply with the bullies’ demands? It’s not as if they will lose any significant business by doing so. Until people stand up for what is right and place principle above self-interest (which most never will), this garbage will continue full steam ahead.
November 20, 2008 at 4:09 pm
“So why shouldn’t eHarmony cave in to this pressure and comply with the bullies’ demands?”
They were taken to court. They lost. If the additional service is on a separate site, most people won’t know the difference. To boycott them for being forced against their will to comply will only encourage bullies to do this to someone else.
Now, before you respond, think this through to its conclusion. What would you realistically expect eHarmony to do that they could get away with?
Other than shut down. And who would that help?
November 20, 2008 at 4:42 pm
There are numerous gays-only dating sites. The demand for “tolerance” quickly turned into “approval” which is quickly turning into something even further. Requiring people to serve gays against their own moral objections. So much for just wanting to be free. Now they are imposing their will on everyone else. Tolerant people are so intolerant.
November 20, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“and who would that help?”
It would help the homo’s by not supporting or encouraging their sickness. These people are mentally sick and need help. It is not right to hate them as persons but it is right to not give them an inch when they are acting immoral.
November 20, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Can I ask a question? Why would you care if eHarmony does business with homosexuals.
So you “Christians” won’t deal with any business that deals with homosexuals. Would you not eat at McDonald’s because they sell hamburgers to gay people? I don’t understand your point. It’s not like they’re forcing you to have a gay relationship. They asked for an online dating service and they got one. Sure, they filed a lawsuit but that’s the American Way. EHarmony must have known they were going to lose. Doesn’t that tell you something?
November 20, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Anonymous, I don’t think the issue is whether or not people want to do business with homosexuals. It’s that there was a particular service offered for a particular group of individuals/market. It’s like a woman’s shoe manufacturer being sued because they don’t put out mens’s sizes. In a free market economy, ANY business should be free to make decisions that effect their business with regards to the target market they are aiming for.
This was just plain wrong.
November 20, 2008 at 5:48 pm
It’s like a woman’s shoe manufacturer being sued because they don’t put out mens’s sizes.
Transvestites should sue!!!
November 20, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Anonymous, you’ve missed the point.
There’s nothing wrong with doing business with homosexuals. But there is something seriously sinful about helping people to imitate and redefine marriage through same sex relationships. The sexual orientation of the clients doesn’t mean a thing. It’s just as wrong for a company to facilitate heterosexuals in entering same-sex “marriages” as it is homosexuals.
It’s a sin for Christians to refuse business with someone solely because of their sexual orientation. No one said that Christians should refuse business to homosexuals or boycott organizations who offer their goods and services to homosexuals. On the other hand, I can’t fault anyone who refuses to support a business actively tries to redefine marriage by any means (e.g. promoting no-fault divorce, or promiscuity within marriage, or gay “marriage”, etc.).
Gays have many options in online dating services. Chemistry.com, for example, makes a killing by attuning their service to people who aren’t necessarily looking for a relationship that leads to marriage including same sex relationships.
A quick Google search reveals several exclusively gay dating services. What would the public reaction be if courts forced them to offer their services to people seeking heterosexual relationships?