One of the professional Christian set, Jan LaRue of the Culture and Media Institute has published a whiny, hand-wringing diatribe about the eHarmony settlement—the Christian-owned matchmaking company recently agreed to provide a dating service for same-sex couples.
To LaRue, this “caving” is beyond the pale.
New Jersey resident Eric McKinley, 46, a self-described homosexual, decided to sign up for the California-based eHarmony.com online dating service in 2005. He says he couldn’t get past the first screen, “because the pull-down menus had categories only for a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man.”
So naturally the aggrieved McKinley ignored the plethora of “gay” on-line dating Web sites and filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (NJDCR).
The claim makes as much legal sense as if McKinley had sued Victoria’s Secret because it doesn’t sell jockstraps. But after three years of litigation, the Christian-owned dating service caved, announcing on Nov. 20 that it would establish a same-sex dating service early next year. In the face of intimidation litigation, eHarmony chose to settle, rather than defend its rights under the U.S. Constitution or cease doing business in New Jersey.
The surrender followed a finding by the NJDCR of probable cause to believe that McKinley was unlawfully discriminated against because eHarmony didn’t provide same-sex matches. If McKinley’s intimidation litigation continues its trajectory, New Jersey may have the first Victor/Victoria’s Secret.
While the homosexualists get beaten up by Jan, she slams eHarmony with equal vigor:
Apparently the certainty of losing is more compatible than the possibility of winning. Contrary to some media, eHarmony wasn’t “forced” or “compelled” to comply with McKinley’s demands; eHarmony surrendered to his demands.
...Since married people are expressly prohibited from using or registering to use eHarmony’s singles service and the (LAD) prohibits discrimination based on marital status, how long will it be before some budding adulterer sues because eHarmony doesn’t facilitate that swinging option? Will it expand its new “Compatible Partners” to include ménage á trois types, spouse swappers, sadomasochists, cross-dressers and transgenders?
Intimidation litigation is what’s happening to privately owned businesses, especially Christian-owned businesses, churches, and para-church organizations when state anti-discrimination laws, which were meant to end discrimination based on immutable characteristics like race, are amended to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”
And there you have it—the dishonesty of this position is breathtaking. People of LaRue’s ilk didn’t mind, back in the day, when it was A-OK to discriminate based on race. How tired is it to see LaRue equate sexual orientation and gender identity to sexual practices. Yawn. This bizarre need by the fundies to play victim is absurd.
------
Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.
One could argue that sexual orientation is a hell of a lot more immutable than religion. Just sayin’.