eHarmony Bows to Pressure

queen-of-hearts-4eHarmony Bows to Pressure

In another tyrannical power grab through the courts, gay activists force this Christian dating service from the private sector to provide a service it was unequipped to provide, and possibly against the morals of it’s owners to provide.  It’s shocking to me that there are any judges or lawmakers of this free land that would think tyranny of the few is a good idea.  Would I be able to go to a liquor establishment and order a malt sundae?  Were I afflicted with money to burn could I force the issue?  The answer is no, because you and I, citizens x and y  are not as equal under the law as interpreted here, as citizens Q, who happen to be gay.

There ought not be a protected, higher class of people, yet time and again, the courts seem to be finding that there are citizens among us who are more equal under the law than the rest of us.

–Beetle Blogger

Fox News: Online dating service eHarmony has agreed to create a new Web site

— “Compatible Partners” — for gay and lesbian users, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General announced.

Created as part of a settlement with Eric McKinley, a gay man from New Jersey, the Web site will provide services for users seeking same-sex partners by March 31, New Jersey Division on Civil Rights Director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo said.

eHarmony, which was founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren in 2000, said the settlement was triggered by a Law Against Discrimination complaint filed by McKinley against the online service on March 14, 2005. As part of the agreement, eHarmony will pay McKinley $5,000 and will provide him a one-year complimentary membership.

eHarmony — which was not found in violation of the law — also agreed to ensure that same-sex users will be matched using the same or equivalent technology used for its heterosexual clients. It will also post photographs of same-sex couples in its “Diversity” section of its Web site and in advertising materials.

“Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business, we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case,” eHarmony legal counsel Theodore Olson said in a statement. “eHarmony looks forward to moving beyond this legal dispute, which has been a burden for the company, and continuing to advance its business model of serving individuals by helping them find successful, long-term relationships.”

“With the launch of the Compatible Partners site, our policy is to welcome all single individuals who are genuinely seeking long-term relationships,” eHarmony Vice President of Legal Affairs Antone Johnson said in a statement.

The New Jersey settlement is not the first lawsuit filed against eHarmony for failing to accommodate sex-same users.

Linda Carlson, of California, sued the online dating service in May 2007, alleging it discriminated against gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Carlson said she tried to use the Web site a month earlier to meet a woman, but was refused based on her sexual orientation. When Carlson wrote to eHarmony to complain, the company refused to change its policy, according to the lawsuit filed on her behalf in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  –article continued here: eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service After Lawsuit–Foxnews

Reuters–eHarmony Sued for Excluding Gays

Thu May 31, 2007 7:10pm EDT

By Jill Serjeant

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – 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.

Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a “men seeking men” or “women seeking women” option.

They were seeking to make it a class action lawsuit on behalf of gays and lesbians excluded from the dating service.

eHarmony was founded in 2000 by evangelical Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren and had strong early ties with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family.

It has more than 12 million registered users, and heavy television advertising has made it one of the nation’s biggest Internet dating sites.

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.

According to the lawsuit, Carlson, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area, tried to use the site’s dating services in February 2007. When she was denied access, she wrote to eHarmony saying that its anti-gay policy was discriminatory under California law but the company refused to change it.

“Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age,” she said.

Carlson’s lawyer Todd Schneider said the lawsuit was “about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love.”

Carlson’s lawyers expect a significant number of gays and lesbians to join the class action, which seeks to force eHarmony to end its policy as well as unspecified damages for those denied eHarmony services based on their sexual orientation.

See the rest of the article here:  eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays–Reuters



  1. Mel said,

    November 20, 2008 at 2:32 am

    Dear BeetleBlogger,

    I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy and appreciate your blog! This latest analogy using “Alice in Wonderland” is such a perfect analogy for what we’re currently experiencing. Thank you for providing such great information and wisdom, coupled with a few laughs here and there. I look forward to reading what you have new each day, and have passed the word on to others about your excellent blog. Please continue on your great work, we certainly appreciate your extensive efforts!

  2. November 20, 2008 at 2:37 am

    […] the complete story read here, Beetle researches the heck out of this […]

  3. Ben said,

    November 20, 2008 at 4:01 am

    The interesting thing is, that they probably dont have a test for LGBT compatability hence why they didnt have the preference available. I see nothing discriminatory about that. its just business.

  4. beetlebabee said,

    November 20, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    Thanks Mel. Spending time steeped in beetle thoughts is the highlight of my day.

  5. beetlebabee said,

    November 20, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    Ben, I think you’re exactly right on that one. They never argued moral objection to a gay matching service, but given the focus on the family link, I bet they were targeted for reasons beyond just convenience for the gay community. They were very clear that their business model was based on compatibility research for hetero couples and that they had no comparable model for the other side. I don’t think quality of compatibility was what these litigants were concerned with though.

    The more I understand this fight, the more it becomes clear that this is not about innocent differences of opinion for some. For some, and perhaps for many, it is very much about controlling and dominating in the arena of ideas, and the courts are the weapon of choice.

  6. debbie said,

    November 20, 2008 at 9:27 pm

    I think McKinley is the same guy I read about in my local paper. After winning the suit he was quoted as saying he would consider joining. That statement alone has made me question the validity of any gay lawsuit. It ‘s not about what they want, but what company can they bring to their knees. I also see that according to these litigates, there is an apparent need. Why doesn’t someone from from the LBGT(is there a right order?) fill the void? Is there really a business opportunity someone is missing?

  7. Mary Ane said,

    November 20, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    you forgot the Q and I think there are some other letters too.

  8. Shoes said,

    November 20, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    Although Bolthouse founder, William Bolthouse Jr., sold his stake in Bolthouse in 2005, the company was recently boycotted because he donated $100,000 to put 8 on the ballot. The company was not involved and had no knowledge of this contribution at the time. (He does lease land to the company.)

    The “Californians Against Hate” boycott was basically groundless since the company did not participate in any pro-Prop 8 activities, but it wasn’t called off until after Bolthouse implemented a “diversity program designed to support inclusiveness in its dealings with all stakeholders including the LGBT community” and extended medical benefits to same-sex partners of gay employees.

    L. A. Times account:,0,4032084.story

  9. mommyspy said,

    November 21, 2008 at 12:48 am

    So, let me get this straight. If a company doesn’t have the product or service I want, instead of going to the store that does have it… we just sue store #1 ???? What is going on here? The problem seems to be a judiciary that either has their head screwed on crooked, or they have an agenda and care nothing about the constitution or free enterprise.

  10. clay said,

    November 21, 2008 at 1:02 am

    This is so beyond outrageous. How can a court find any justification for this, whatsoever? Why isn’t this considered a frivolus lawsuit and it is thrown out? I the article it said that eharmony caved in because the lawsuit was consuming their time?

    Doesn’t these kinds of lawsuits open wide the door to all Kinds of rediculous selfish lawsuits? Can a sue a restaraunt for discriminating against Dr. Pepper drinkers, when they only have a Coke distributor. I was born with a preference for Dr. Pepper. (My mom drank it when pregnant. Can I sue the airport for discriminating against my right of free speech to talk about, yell about my suitcase bombs? What if I have Turrets syndrome?


  11. debbie said,

    November 21, 2008 at 1:40 am

    Is there some kind of precedent being set here?

  12. waltzinexile said,

    November 21, 2008 at 10:57 am

    Actually, this is a matter of supporting precedent, not setting it.

  13. C Smith said,

    November 23, 2008 at 9:24 pm

    I support same -gender marriage. But disagree with the lawsuit. There are many gay on-line dating services that do not have offerings for heterosexuals. There are also african-american, asian and jewish dating sites. E-Harmony is a private company and should not have had to comply.

  14. C Smith said,

    November 23, 2008 at 9:24 pm

    It would be a different story if gay dating sites were not allowed to exist at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: