Woman sues dating website for discrimination - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

RedHot25 · 06-01-2007, 10:46 AM

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...01?hub=SciTech

The lawsuit claims that by only offering to find a compatible match for men seeking women or women seeking men, the company (eHarmony) was violating state law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

"Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age," Carlson said in a statement.

....

"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," a company statement said. "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."

Warren is a clinical psychologist who has written several books about dating and relationships.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 06-01-2007, 10:55 AM

Well, as a matter of fact, it probably is discrimination, in a technical sense. But I have to admit that I don't see the sense in suing, when there are a ton of dating services that DO offer what she was looking for.

This seems to me to be one of those times when the best thing to do is vote with your wallet. If there's enough demand, eHarmony would have to adapt to the changing needs of the market or lose out to the competition.

And there's always craigslist.....

Metro Gnome · 06-01-2007, 11:14 AM

What some people don't seem to understand about early, legitimate equal rights and sufferage movements is that "discrimination" was being enforced by law so that people (be they minorities or women) were being denied basic human rights by their governments at the point of coercion (laws, jail, etc). This is the only time "discrimination" should be a legal issue and one worthy of protestation.

In this case, no one is forcing this person to use this business so the issue is moot. Don't like that they don't offer same-sex matching? Don't use them. But you can't go around forcing private businesses to bend to your personal whims and needs. Hell, if this individual wants a same-sex dating website, she should start one herself, rather than bitching about someone elses.

Of course, that takes risk and effort. Coming off as some sort of human rights activist is much more en vogue (and easier to do) anyways.

CaptainCrunch · 06-01-2007, 11:18 AM

What a stupid lawsuit, I hope that the judge gets up from his bench, goes down and gives the plaintiff a good swift kick between the cheeks.

Its a service they don't offer, period, it has nothing to do with discrimination, they picked a demographic and they cater to it.

It would be like me bringing suit against 7-11 because they don't carry Hustler magazine (and no I'm not making a connection here between porn and alternate lifestyles). Its discrimination because they're not catering to a product that I want but thier other customers don't.

Just because eharmony dosen't offer same sex relationship products dosn't mean that they have a problem with it, or are disgusted by it, they just don't freaking offer it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to see if eharmony offers me the chance to search on man seeking woman + woman, because if its not there, I'm so going to sue.

Maritime Q-Scout · 06-01-2007, 11:21 AM

I'm gonna sue SportCheck because they don't sell DVD players, clearly discrimination against the minority of people who don't have the ability to watch DVDs.

CaptainCrunch · 06-01-2007, 11:23 AM

I think that the Judge should have the right to immediately find for the defendant and award them damages of 10 million dollars.

Table 5 · 06-01-2007, 11:33 AM

I think I'll go sue Out Magazine and Logo for not offering heterosexual alternatives in their programming. Hell, I think I'll go down to Chelsea and demand that all the gay gyms hire some hot girls to instruct me.How dare they discriminate!

Table 5 · 06-01-2007, 11:37 AM

I tried fotze, but I couldnt think of any. Whats the gay hangout in Calgary anyways? The Manhole?

Burninator · 06-01-2007, 11:44 AM

I am going to file a lawsuit against Spa Lady. They won't let me in the door, let alone get a membership. That's textbook discrimination, but I don't see any guys filing lawsuits or picketing out front.

BlackEleven · 06-01-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fotze

The Manhole is the best gay bar name ever though. Hilarious.

There's on in Montreal called Hard Cox. Gave me a good chuckle anyway.

RougeUnderoos · 06-01-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It would be like me bringing suit against 7-11 because they don't carry Hustler magazine

Don't bother. They have a lot of lawyers and can drag that kind of thing on forever. Trust me.

GreenTeaFrapp · 06-01-2007, 12:13 PM

I'm going to sue Edo Japan and Manchu Wok because they won't serve Canadian food, only foreign food.

Locke · 06-01-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fotze

The Manhole is the best gay bar name ever though. Hilarious.

hahaha...that one is pretty good though...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

There's on in Montreal called Hard Cox. Gave me a good chuckle anyway.

Got to give them creativity points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

I'm going to sue Edo Japan and Manchu Wok because they won't serve Canadian food, only foreign food.

They actually have been sued for discrimination several times because they refuse to hire non-asian staff. They actually won every time because they claim its part of the style and process of doing business of their respective chains. They dont want some 16 year old white kid serving their fried rice and chicken kung-pao. I dont have a problem with that, hell, that would be a horrible job for anyone that didn't speak Japanese anyways.

Locke.

SeeGeeWhy · 06-01-2007, 12:37 PM

Kitbash

bluejays · 06-01-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I'm gonna sue SportCheck because they don't sell DVD players, clearly discrimination against the minority of people who don't have the ability to watch DVDs.

Now that's dumb. As a brown guy, I clearly have a better lawsuit. I'm going to sue SportChek because they don't carry cricket bats and that means they obviously don't want us brown minorities to shop there and partake in the sport we love.

Now only if somebody could explain to me how the sport of cricket works?

Locke · 06-01-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fleury

Now only if somebody could explain to me how the sport of cricket works?

You're on your own pal. I have always thought that it was a bunch of guys, be they Indian/Australian/English who just go out to a field for a few days and gesticulate wildly while wearing sporting equipment and hope no one calls BS or shenanigans.

"No one's caught on yet that we have no idea what we're doing, but we've gotten away with this for so long we cant quit now."

Locke.

flip · 06-01-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I'm gonna sue SportCheck because they don't sell DVD players, clearly discrimination against the minority of people who don't have the ability to watch DVDs.

exactly. or im gonna sue source adult video because they don't sell disney movies.

Jayems · 06-01-2007, 06:15 PM

I wonder if any of the homosexual websites she visits barr straight people. But that doesn't matter anyway, its a one-way street.

FlamingLonghorn · 06-01-2007, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

There's on in Montreal called Hard Cox. Gave me a good chuckle anyway.

In Austin we have a ton, but the best name is The pit

blankall · 06-01-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro Gnome

What some people don't seem to understand about early, legitimate equal rights and sufferage movements is that "discrimination" was being enforced by law so that people (be they minorities or women) were being denied basic human rights by their governments at the point of coercion (laws, jail, etc). This is the only time "discrimination" should be a legal issue and one worthy of protestation.

In this case, no one is forcing this person to use this business so the issue is moot. Don't like that they don't offer same-sex matching? Don't use them. But you can't go around forcing private businesses to bend to your personal whims and needs. Hell, if this individual wants a same-sex dating website, she should start one herself, rather than bitching about someone elses.

Of course, that takes risk and effort. Coming off as some sort of human rights activist is much more en vogue (and easier to do) anyways.

you arer 100% correct on this. The charter of rights and freedoms does not apply to actions by private (non-government) parties.