It's sad that the lonely guy (presuming that he wasn't just a "crusader seeking a cause") that started this frivolous lawsuit will never feel anything but pride over what he's "accomplished."

Still waiting for someone to force McDonalds to start serving Halal hamburgers.

When I took part in the online dating scene I eventually settled on a strategy of exaggerating my most frequently displayed personality traits. Especially my quirky sense of humor. Worked out pretty well for me as it proactively scared off all of those who took themselves a little too seriously.

The key word here is 'settle.'. He didn't force eharmony to do anything.

Snake, see this:

In 2007, the attorney general found probable cause that eHarmony had violated the state's Law Against Discrimination.

Don't you think that played a part in their settling?

"The key word here is 'settle.'. He didn't force eharmony to do anything. "

No, it's the fact that he tried to force eHarmony to do something by filing the lawsuit - and that the NJ Atty. General felt it was a viable suit. That eHarmony settled out of court (and tried to turn the negative PR around by creating a new gay-friendly site) doesn't lessen that at all.

On one hand, I think it would've been better if they'd fought the suit, and perhaps challenged the law in a higher court. That, however, would've made eharmony look like gayhaters. So, it's a lose-lose for the company.

This is idiotic.

One thing that annoyed me when I was single and looking was that all sites catered to everyone. I signed up for salon.com singles, and it turned out they pooled with several other companies. One site I signed up for pooled with jdate... and I'm not Jewish! So I got all these responses from people who loved my profile thinking I was Jewish, only to be disapointed to learn I'm a non-practicing Protestant with other spiritual leanings.

I like it better when the sites are specific, so you can get exactly what you are looking for.

And regardless, if someone wants to set up a website for Black Hindu Karate Blackbelts, they shouldn't have to cater it to anyone else.

Oh, the anti-gays are going to love this. It's unfortunate, but many people will judge the whole community by this one whining twit. You can't force a company to do matching that's based on research that doesnt exist. You want to be an activist? Focus on why there's no research. Lobby for some. Show a company how lucrative it could be. LGTBs have money! It could be a goldmine!

And that's the difference between the left and right so perfectly illustrated.

The Left: Sue in court to force someone to provide you with what you want.

The Right: See a niche, fill it, make a few coins in the process.

Jamie - Vegetarians did it already. First, after they pestered McDonalds into getting away from lard for their fries, they sued McDonalds for putting beef tallow in the fry oil to get some of the flavor back - see, they didn't warn the vegetarians they did it, and they got all pissy. Then they sued Burger King out in Granola-Land (California - what ain't fruits and nuts is flakes) to get veggie burgers on the menu.

Because heaven forbid someone should feel that their deeply-held beliefs come second to someone's business.

I do not understand the desire of so many leftoids to FORCE companies to change their business practices to suit the whims of the lefty just because that lefty can't be bothered to walk another block down the street.

Oh, and even though I'd likely never bother with eHarmony anyhow (I'm not their target demographic - maybe I should sue?) I certainly won't now, since they decided to cave rather than fight.

Brian,
Pestering? I have no problem with. Peaceful protesting? Ditto. It's using the legal system for delusional "damages" that bothers me. It bothers me more in this case that the NJ AG thought it was a worthwhile case than the case being brought forward in the first place.

I think the "War on Christmas" is the most idiotic "cause" I've heard in ages - but as long as the groups promoting it aren't suing people and just recommending that their sheep don't shop at those stores, I have no issue with it.

Don't like what's on a TV show? Change the channel. Don't like what a restaurant sells, don't buy their food. Want a hetero dating site to have a checkbox for gays? Feel free to picket, protest, or carpet-bomb their executives with e-mails - but keep it out of court.

I, too might have felt better if eHarmony would have fought the suit - emotionally - but rationally I think it made better business sense to do what they did. Settle, and make a NEW site - rather than be forced to change the existing one.

Not that it matters to me, as I'm out of the "market," as it were.

Since when is it against the law for a privately-held company to discriminate against whomever it chooses? I'm all for gay marriage. I think Prop 8 is ridiculous. I don't, however, think eHarmony should be forced (and that's exactly what happened) to provide a gay dating service. If that's what you're looking for, don't patronize their service! Simple as that! Unless they're receiving federal funding for their website, they can serve anyone they want. The great thing about America is it's a free country. If you don't like eHarmony, you don't have to use it.

Why would LGBT people use a service from a company that had been found to be discriminatory to them?

I'd think they would prefer to support an organization that had always supported them. There are plenty of Gay dating sites already out there.

fft - you don't understand the liberal mindset or agenda.

Liberals don't want to be inconvenienced by things such as choices. They want to have all options legislated and litigated out of existence. This not only makes their lives easier, it gives them power, because they get to decide what you should be allowed to access.

Whether it is homosexuals attacking eHarmony, or feminazis attacking men's gyms it's all the same. You will not stop us from invading your space.

And so it goes. There are, and will continue to be, dating sites that are gay only, and will resist any attempt to become more "inclusive", because gays need to have a place to go where they don't feel intimidated. Just like there are now women-only gyms that women can go to without feeling like they are being "objectified".

So, now we can have women only, but not men only gyms.

Because the only thing it's unacceptable to be in an exclusive group of is heterosexual white males.

I'd think they would prefer to support an organization that had always supported them. There are plenty of Gay dating sites already out there.

Because it's about forcing the "other" to acknowledge them as not equal, but superior. It's about denigrating those that they find to be unenlightened.

And ultimately its about control. "You will not tell us where we cannot go, but we will tell you where you cannot go."

How 3% of the population managed to get this level of power stuns me.

I think there's another aspect to this as well. Have you noticed that some completely joyless individuals enjoy spoiling things for everybody else? I wonder if getting eHarmony to create a gay site was really this guy's goal, or if he was really interested in seeing eHarmony ruined?

Or maybe I'm reading too much into this.

"fft - you don't understand the liberal mindset or agenda.

Liberals don't want to be inconvenienced by things such as choices."

And there's no conservative "agenda?"

Wasn't it the more "morally conservative" types that take up issues such as censorship? Aren't they trying their best to legislate morality (which has no place in law)? It's usually more the James Dobson types that scream about sex on tv rather than the Al Franken types. Excuse the choice of examples, but they were the best I could come up with since I tend to ignore punditry on both sides.

Not sayin' there ain't crackpot liberals. Just sayin' there's freakazoid zealots on both sides of that fence. Either of which I think we'd be better off without.

Jamie, I think you'll find censorious folks on both the left and right. It does seem like it's the James Dobson types who are more likely to complain about sexuality on TV. On the other hand, the push to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine on the radio and TV is more of a leftist phenomenon.

I think it's also as much a mistake to speak of a liberal mindset or agenda as it is to speak of a conservative mindset or agenda. While it makes a handy verbal shorthand for Rush Limbaugh and Randi Rhodes, neither the left nor the right in this country are particularly monolithic.

The most egregious censorship bill written in my lifetime was authored by a liberal democrat from Nebraska by the name of James Exon.

And if you look closely at James Dobson, you'll find that he's a liberal. Anyone who believes that government is the answer is, by definition, a liberal.

Christian != Conservative. Do not trust anyone who insists otherwise.

Exactly Brian, I was going to bring up the gym issue. This is another example (the "gay mafia" or "pink agenda" wing) of the PC parade. If anything, someone should sue eharmony for their annoying ads.

Also, on the men's only/women's only gym issue, IIRC "Curves for Women" is now only "Curves" because they've been sued by various men in certain states/counties. The great irony now is that you have some co-ed gyms that are catering to their female clients by having "women's only" workout rooms. You also have that Harvard gym on school grounds that was (or is) going to have a "womens only" hours to cater to their muslim students who didn't want to work out around men.

"Since when is it against the law for a privately-held company to discriminate against whomever it chooses? "

Since the Civil Rights Era. It's called public accomodation - you have to serve everyone equally if you run a public accomodation. That much makes sense.

That has nothing to do with this mess though. E-Harmony was perfectly willing to provide the same service to this guy as to everyone else. What this guy wants is not to be served in the same room of the same restaurant as everyone else, he insists on setting the menu they offer him. Bullshit.

Brian... I believe the beef tallow issue was that the fries were being marketed in a way that suggested they were vegetarian, when they weren't. They were boasting about 100% vegetable oil and such, and failing to mention the beef tallow. It was deceptive advertising.

As far as I know, they still use beef tallow in their fries. Now the vegetarians know about it, and don't buy them.

It really is bullshit all the way down.

However, as an aside, I surely can't be the only one that when I see Dr Neil Clark Warren on the commercials, I believe that he's gayer than Little Richard's underpants. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I don't know who Brian is or where he lives but he is spot-on about what's going on in your country.

America is devolving in the same way that my country of Canada and the UK has. This is being done through a combination of SLAPPs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP ], judge shopping, and electing politicians favorable to their causes.

On the surface, each of these changes may appear to many to be for the greater good - ie. who wouldn't want to help women & children and assorted minorities. But in fact, our freedoms are being dramatically eroded in a very short space of time.

20 Years from now, when you wake up and realize that you're living in an incredibly Politically Correct, Victim-Laden society where you have to mute ALL of your speech for fear of offending someone, don't say you weren't warned.

> eHarmony has now lost its
> freedom to offer the kind
> of dating services its
> founder wished to provide.

Why be concerned for Eharmony when you won't feel similar concern for the Boys Scouts of America or the Catholic Church?

Don't pretend you're being tolerant.

Now there's a class-action lawsuit in California. http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/news2008/eharmonyclassacrtionlawsuit.html

Good point Robert W. As a Canadian I can also attest to the fact that our freedoms have been completely eliminated in order to prevent "discrimination". I just had an argument with my girlfriend the other day. She was enraged that my hairdresser only cut mens' hair. She said it was discrimination. My answer was "so what". "You can just walk down the street and get your haircut elsewhere. She has the right to run her business however she pleases". So be forewarned, once your freedoms have been taken away, you're probably not going to get them back.

Amy,
I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Absurd. Anyone doubt that after gay unions (marriage, whatever) they will be suing the catholic church for discrimination for refusing to marry them under God?

Amy, you are far from their target member. Doesn't suprise me they didn't match you well. It's religion-based, you know. You seem to do quite good on your own anyway.

"No, it's the fact that he tried to force eHarmony to do something by filing the lawsuit - and that the NJ Atty. General felt it was a viable suit. That eHarmony settled out of court (and tried to turn the negative PR around by creating a new gay-friendly site) doesn't lessen that at all."

*Ugh. Yes it does. Listen, if eharmony's rights to do business as it wanted were as self-apparent as you think, don't you think they would have fought this case? The Attorney General's backing, intimidating as that may be, is not determinative. I have no knowledge of the case's actual merits, but if eharmony thought they could win, and felt strongly enough about it, they should have tested the case. What is far more likely is that they realized they could make more money by sponsoring a gay-dating site. Sorry, but you do not have a right to live lawsuit-free. You only have a right to argue your case; a right to which eharmony demurred.

"Why be concerned for Eharmony when you won't feel similar concern for the Boys Scouts of America or the Catholic Church?"

*As always, the distinguishing factor is the existence or absence of taxpayer subsidy. Its what turns your private views into the subject of public scrutiny.

"Anyone doubt that after gay unions (marriage, whatever) they will be suing the catholic church for discrimination for refusing to marry them under God?"

*I'm fairly certain that the First Amendment would block any attempts to force any religious organization into changing practices. Their tax-exempt status is another story.

You make the church pay taxes, you can't complain when they start lobbying and overtly supporting candidates.

After all, no taxation without representation.

"You see a need for a gay Christian dating site? Start one." Irony, in that the yahoo behind the suit would have made far more $.

By the way, please be careful if you insist on using the phrase, "you cannot legislate morality".

Actually, you can, and we do all the time. Look at the laws which follow "thou shalt not"s and their derivatives. I suggest that a little more care should be put into describing the situation, which in most cases means, "you can't effectively enforce this law, thereby wasting time and money, and you're diluting the effectiveness of other laws".

There are too many laws. It's because we pay legislators to legislate.

You make the church pay taxes, you can't complain when they start lobbying and overtly supporting candidates.

*That doesn't bother me in the slightest.

What about establishments with the "we reserve the right to refuse anyone service" signs? And this isn't so much comparable to not letting certain people in an establishment, as to being able to decide what services you offer. A restauranteur may not be able, legally, to keep from serving blacks. Fine. But black people can not insist he put okra on the menu. And that's just what this gay guy did.

If churches start paying taxes, this country will go right in a hurry. As Amy likes to point out, churches have the wealth. And they sure will be getting something for it if they have to pay taxes. Liberals can't outspend the religious in this country, most of whom just don't toss large amounts of it at politics right now.

We'd just have to do away with tax-exempt status period. All charities pay, everyone pays. Because if you didn't, churches would gain exemption under charity group status, since as a whole they do tons of charity work. See the catholics and medical care, for starters. Soup kitchens, food pantries. No shortage of ways to get teh exemption really.

Amy, don't ban me, but this blog entry needs the bloggers to lighten up. I'll tell them a story...

There was an older lady, in the nursing home, that lost her husband and needed a man. She decided to dress up as a super hero, and find an old man in the home to service her. She dressed up, almost naked, but in a cape. She knocked on a door. The man didn't answer. "he's old, so he's deaf', she thought. Next room, same thing. Though he answered the door, he did not pursue her.

Third door, she knocked, and an old naked gentlemen answered the door. She looked at him, threw open her cape, and said "here I am, Super Pussy". He looked at her, and said, "I'll take the soup!"

Please tip your waitress, thank you and good night. And all of you, please lighten up.

My favorite comment about this was that it was just like going into a vegetarian restaurant and getting mad they won't give you a steak. This is just an example how the illuminati is pulling us to an "all equal, when we feel like it" society.