We heteros only sleep with our spouses, and even then it’s strictly for procreational purposes, through a sheet with a hole in it.

They have their own dating websites which I understand to be extremely X-rated.

You can bet that Jan did a great deal of research to arrive to this conclusion.

Money talks. The rejected by e-harmony commercials were starting to work. Plus in this economy I doubt anyone can afford to reject any paying customers.

eharmony only did this because they were sued…

Clearly Jan has never spent any time perusing m4w on Craigslist Casual Encounters. Whole lotta hetero, probably ‘Christian’, evil drawers-down-in-my-dirty-bathroom pics up in there.

eHarmony used to pitch itself heavily on Christian wingnut radio a few years ago. NC Warren was a frequent guest on “Janet Parshall’s America” five years ago. I guess things have changed.

I could start a dating service that would beat eHarmony. I would ask two questions: Toilet paper over or under? Glasses in the cupboard up or down?. I’m sure things would go well if I matched partners according to the four possible combinations of answers to these two questions.

WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH THESE GLASSES DOWN PEOPLE!????!. Are you going to put the very rim of the glass, the part your lips touch, onto a shelf of a cupboard that might have been crawling with unobserved insects. Don’t be a fool, GLASSES GO RIGHT SIDE UP. I swear, If I had immediately dumped every glasses down woman I’d ever been involved with I’d be a happier man today

I commented on this issue at Sadly, No! and was accused of concern trolling and being a separatist, but I still wonder why anyone—meaning any straight or gay someone—would even want to use their services after they have been such assholes.  I don’t consider this much of a big victory for equality so much as a minor triumph of a boycott.  But I don’t really think the company should be congratulated (meaning: used) for doing the right thing just because they finally did it.  I say shun them for ever.

I understand that this was a painful loss for the stupid side, but I’m not sure the fight for equality is a zero-sum game and that it necessarily makes this a victory for the good guys.  My guess is that they could deal with the loss of gay business, but the non-hater non-customers among the straight population was what made them cave in to pressure.

Still, since there actually are plenty of alternatives for online dating services, I really wonder if the discrimination employed by eHarmony was and should be illegal.  (It’s definitely wrong, but I’m not sure it should lead to civil penalties against them.  To sum my opinion up: stupidity should be both an offence and it’s own punishment.)  Their service is based on some sort of scientific study to find matches, it was probably made only with heterosexuals, and I don’t have a huge problem with them saying their scientific matchups should only be applied to heterosexuals.  But I also realize how stupid they are to assume compatibility factors are determined by sexual orientation.

Still, I realize there are many businesses that discriminate on the basis of sex if not sexual discrimination.  For instance: brazilian waxes for men aren’t offered at every place that will gladly do so for women, I can choose a male or female to give me a massage, there are some yoga classes at the place I go to that are only for men or only for women.  Sometimes the client gets to choose to discriminate and sometimes the business does.  I know a manager at a lingerie store who still doesn’t know whether to allow men to try on the clothing.  Most women only want a female gynecologist, which certainly makes sense on a personal level but is still discriminatory.  I don’t know if I’d fully be able to trust a woman in regards to major decisions involving my prostate or external genitalia.  Plus, I’d be really hesitant to send my children to a daycare center staffed entirely by men.  And no matter how much that isn’t right, I think it’s right enough for me.  And I’m still unsure if I’m an asshole for thinking that.

Bacopa, I think my parents differ on glasses up/down—- when the kitchen was redone a year or so ago, the glasses got inverted, presumably because the person who put them in is a different person than the person who put them in when they bought the house 35 years ago—- and I know they differ on the TP issue, and yet they’re still together.

I may be the only person who doesn’t actually care about which way the roll goes, or at least is willing to adapt. I credit growing up in a mixed household, and then the holder in our bathroom fell out of the wall years ago so it’s current;y moot.

it’s possible to have a mixed relationship on the glasses up/down situation as long as there is agreement on the toilet paper over/under.

We of the Church of the Over-The-Top will destroy the Down-The-Wall-ist heretics.

What’s next? Eharmonics will have to provide dating for Islamosexuals?  How about for rabid zombies?  How about yappy little dogs? You Dimwitcracks think that everything should be equal and nice like but forcing me to date geys is against the Bill of Rites and some amendment of the Constitution.  Just stop tryin to make me gey.  Stop it!

I think there’s some difference between goods (like lunch at a counter) and services (like a dating compatibility algorithm or a pleasing massage) and somewhere in between those two the lunch counter comparison falls flat.  If the Klan or the Aryan Brothers wanted to make a dating service part of their websites, I think it wouldn’t be such a big deal if they were complete assholes about their posting criteria.  And I don’t think if Ms. Marcotte wanted to turn this into a dating site she’d hesitate to delete postings from a man who wanted “a bitch to wash my socks and suck my dick twice a day.  Yes, I don’t wear my shoes often.”

Here’s another summation of my way of thinking: Personal services are personal and can be discriminatory, while social services are social and thus subject to societal rules.  So restaurants can’t discriminate but private clubs and hair stylists can.  A rental home can’t advertise discriminatory practices, but if a landlord doesn’t advertise he’s free to only rent to those he wants to live in his properties.  Is it wrong?  Yes.  But is it something where the government needs to step in?  I’m not so certain.

Dana,

I think that eHarmony could have won rather than cave in, but it’s hard to say a company was oppressed by foes when it quit under the pressure of a lawsuit.  If it had lost the lawsuit, then there are appeals and such.  This is a case where a company quit rather than risk losing, their compulsion came from a lawsuit rather than a law, and I think they’d eventually have won.  Still, that business being a business, they caved because of cost to their business rather than the cost of their lawyers.

eHarmony wasn’t forced to change anything.  It chose to do so.  Under pressure, sure.  But the government didn’t for it to do so, the market did.

Glasses gotta go down because otherwise dust and dead bugs and other shit end up in the bottom of the glass if they sit in the cupboard for any extended period of time. And that’s gross, because its too easy to take one of those glasses, fill it up, and start drinking from it before noticing its full of dusty floaters.

Once I filled a dark cup with eggnog.  Only when I got to the bottom did I realize there was a dead (drowned?) wolf spider in the bottom.

Glasses and cups go DOWN.

Dana,

eHarmony is not a church. Nor is it a religion.

Although after I kept being matched up with guys who sounded like Montana survivalists, merely because I self-identified as Christian (and in spite of otherwise answering in ways that should have tipped off the algorithm that I was neither rural nor politically conservative), I’m not sure anyone should really want to use the service.

Dr Neil Clark Warren, the founder of eHarmony, is such an insipid looking and sounding guy that I want to throw something at the television whenever I see him.  That said, eHarmony was forced to change its policies due to a discrimination complaint. Y’all have pooh-poohed my concerns that legalized same-sex marriage would result in lawsuits against churches which refused to perform them, but, once again, we have another example of legal action being taken to compel an organization to extend services to cover homosexual couples.

I’m sorry, did I miss the part where a commercial dating service was a church?

As I recall, one of the issues with eHarmony was lack of disclosure. This was the whole point of the anti-eHarmony commercials: no one knew why they were rejected: they just were. If people were rejected after they paid some fee, then there’s probably some kind of fraud involved, too.

If eHarmony advertised itself flat out as a “Christian dating service” or a “dating service for evangelical fundamentalists”, would they be in trouble at all?

I should be torn on this. It’s a private business, it’s not like gay singles have no other (and cheaper) options, etc., but on the other hand separate but equal is unequal etc. I’m swayed by eHarmony ads touting their super-duper proprietary matching algorithm. There’s an inherent injustice in only letting us play on the slide.

Dorothy:  That’s new to me. When I read about the lawsuit, I wondered what the implications would be for dating sites that target members of a religion or ethnicity. I don’t really see a problem with something like JDate, for example, so should I have a problem with eHarmony?  The lack of disclosure seems like a good basis for distinguishing them.

Though even then, we don’t allow newspapers (or Craigslist) to publish discriminatory requests for roommates, even if the actual discrimination is legal. I wonder if we’d be better served with a requirement that companies can’t discriminate on the basis that their customers desire it (by prohibiting people from looking for same-sex couples, for example) but can allow individual users to set up their own filters. The downside there, of course, is that could homogenize the dating sites to the detriment of numerical minorities that established the safe-space to begin with.  eHarmony is a nasty company to be sure, but I honestly don’t know what the rule ought to be.

Dana:

Y’all have pooh-poohed my concerns that legalized same-sex marriage would result in lawsuits against churches which refused to perform them, but, once again, we have another example of legal action being taken to compel an organization to extend services to cover homosexual couples.

I fail to see any problem with this.

But, then again, I don’t share the libertarians’ ability to rationalize away the inherent conflict in claiming to be in favor of both freedom and discrimination.

It’s simple, Dan. People should be free to discriminate. The discriminated-against aren’t people. Or something like that.

“Glasses gotta go down because otherwise dust and dead bugs and other shit end up in the bottom of the glass if they sit in the cupboard for any extended period of time.”

Thank you.  It’s just me in this apartment yet I regularly accumulate enough dust to bathe an elephant.  It’s bad enough I have to wash my glasses; I’m not about to dust them, too.

“I commented on this issue at Sadly, No! and was accused of concern trolling and being a separatist, but I still wonder why anyone—meaning any straight or gay someone—would even want to use their services after they have been such assholes.  “

I think that’s a good point.  Those guys at S,N! are a little nuts.

Sorry, I always thought “church” was a commercialized dating service.  Last I heard these “church” thingies even married the people once they finished their courtship.

Why bother with eharmony christians?  Isn’t that why god gave you a church?  To meet more of your kind and procreate?

Just asking.

eHarmony never made its alleged Christianity clear in either the advertisments I’ve seen on television or in the numberous e-mails they sent me (a Unitarian for almost thirty years) attempting to get me to sign up for their supposedly foolproof service.  They are, however, explicitly a for-profit dating service, which right there lifts them out of the realm of religion and away from any protection they could have claimed as a religious entity.

I’ve commented on this elsewhere too and the disagreement has been strong. My take is that their product is matchmaking and it’s inherently related to sexual orientation. So while I think their reason for not providing an option for gays and lesbians stinks I’m not sure I see what’s wrong with providing a specific form of a product when there’s nothing like a monopoly situation and no tax dollars are involved —it’s a private business. The analogy I’ve made is that beef goes into hamburgers but we don’t force fast food joints to serve steak.

Substituting skin color in this situation isn’t a fair comparison because skin color has no inherent relation to matchmaking. Sure, it’s still a must consideration for some I suppose. But unlike skin color, there cannot be a point where sexual orientation can be excluded from consideration in attempts to successfully match two people.

I’ve been told that my thinking justifies denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. I don’t buy that.  Now I’m a huge romantic but marriage does boil down to a government product consisting of a certain tax structure and legal conveniences. The product is largely put forth because of the belief that   marriage, it’s current form being a union of two people who love each other, has a stabilizing effect on society, ideally fostering support structures (family) that ease expectation on a government, etc. (No doubt there’s much room for debate in that, or someone can express it far better than I can.) Gays and lesbians are arguing that this product, marriage, has no direct relation to sexual orientation—that regardless of gender the benefits the product promotes are the same. And again, the matchmaking process must factor sexual orientation. (I’m fine if everyone, straight and gay, had civil unions instead of marriages but it’s far easier just to fold everyone into an existing institution rather than trying to create a new one that’s essentially identical.)

Maybe I’m missing some sort of legal aspect here that makes it important to force singles services to serve both heterosexual and homosexual clients. Could be. I’m just a single gay man using these products, not a lawyer. And I don’t feel particularly inconvenienced having to find an environment/community existing specifically for matchmaking purposes that consists only of other single gay men.

Y’all have pooh-poohed my concerns that legalized same-sex marriage would result in lawsuits against churches which refused to perform them, but, once again, we have another example of legal action being taken to compel an organization to extend services to cover homosexual couples.

I know that people take eHarmony seriously, but has it actually become its own religion now?

Of course, the reason that eHarmony doesn’t advertise itself as a “Christian dating service” is that they won’t make nearly as much money that way.  It’s like the pharmacist who refuses to fill your birth control prescription because of his/her religion—if they told people up front that they didn’t stock birth control, they’d lose money, so they’ll deny it to women on an ad hoc basis so people who would shop at another store if they knew what the policy was will still come in.

It’s the usual “Christian” bullshit of wanting to be allowed to impose your morals on strangers without suffering any kind of loss or embarrassment.

Dana -

SSM has been legal a few years now in Canada. Nobody has even so much as attempted to force an unwilling church to perform one. Freedom of religion is freedom of religion, and that’s just the point: some churches DO want to perform SSM.

I thought in Christian Mythology daddy picks your husband and that’s it. Your set for life. Why do they need an online dating site?

“They have their own dating websites which I understand to be extremely X-rated.”
And this jackass assumes that ALL GLBT folk are interested in “X-rated” websites?  I don’t suppose it occurred to her they might steer clear of those for the same reason she would.
Bigot.

The most sensible and amazing solution to the toilet paper issue I’ve seen was a couple who finally gave up and installed two rollers in every bathroom. One went up, one went down, and there was always a spare roll right there for when one ran out. Went from heated arguments to wondering why everyone didn’t do this - even when there is no orientation argument.

Somehow, somewhere, there is a metaphor in that begging to apply to dating and marriage.

Personally, I’ve never seen the issue with eharmony servicing only straight couples. Their ads needed to be clearer on it, but that might be implicit in the fact that they only showed straight couples. By extension, gay sites would be required to include straights - and could eventually be interpreted to require proportional representation, effectively eliminating the gay aspect.

For me, the problem with churches and marriages isn’t the requirement that you be able to get a wedding service from everyone who provides them to anyone, but that we be able to get them at all. Then let public pressure and internal pressures encourage the changes in the churches, if they ever come. California’s system of letting anyone sign up for a one-time authorization to officiate a wedding seems eminently sensible. Make mandatory that city hall and other government employees not discriminate, have reasonable enforcement of equality for non-church situations like rental halls, and then let society gradually wipe out the bigots.

I have to put some of my glasses rim-down in order to fit them all in the cabinet, and boy does it drive me crazy.  Glasses belong rim-up, dammit.

Don’t care about the TP, though.

Also, y’all are evil, now?  Does that come with any cool superpowers?  Because I’d consider switching teams for a good superpower or two.

WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH THESE GLASSES DOWN PEOPLE!????!. Are you going to put the very rim of the glass, the part your lips touch, onto a shelf of a cupboard that might have been crawling with unobserved insects. Don’t be a fool, GLASSES GO RIGHT SIDE UP. I swear, If I had immediately dumped every glasses down woman I’d ever been involved with I’d be a happier man today

And yet you would allow the open end of the glass to be exposed, tempting the same unobserved insects to crawl inside, become trapped, and die?!  What’s worse—the idea that a bug might have touched a part of the glass your mouth is touching, or that there might actually be a dead bug in your glass? 

As far as I can tell, only bougie city folk who’ve never had any real exposure to actual (as opposed to imaginary) insects leave the glasses facing up.

(seriously, though - I do think glasses up/down is probably a city vs. country thing.  I never saw a cupboard with glasses up till I moved to the city.)  Also, my roommate and I are divided on that front, and it seems to be working out OK.  Though I once accidentally put the toilet paper upside down and he referred to it as “communist”.

Oh, and re E-Harmony—I’d be down with their desire to screen out ‘undesirables’  if they marketed themselves as as a conservative Christian dating site dedicated primarily towards arranged marriages, specifically frowning upon things conservative whackjobs are against, like homosexuality and interracial relationships.  Sort of like J-Date, but for ignorant fuckwits.  Though I’m pretty sure that goyim are allowed to sign up for J-Date, they just shouldn’t be surprised when they discover that nobody is interested in them because they chose J-Date specifically because they were looking for s a nice Jewish boy/girl.  I’m also pretty sure J-Date doesn’t discriminate against gay people.

Glass agnostic.  I put my glasses up if I want to and down when I want to.  But I never put them down when they’re wet, since that would get them funky.  If they’re up, they often get dusty (I have open cabinets) if they sit too long.  But it only takes a quick rinse before the wine starts flowing.

As for toilet paper, as long as the person who takes out the new roll actually manages to put it on the holder, it’s all good.  I have the manual dexterity to deal with either complex arrangement.

WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH THESE GLASSES DOWN PEOPLE!????!. Are you going to put the very rim of the glass, the part your lips touch, onto a shelf of a cupboard that might have been crawling with unobserved insects. Don’t be a fool, GLASSES GO RIGHT SIDE UP. I swear, If I had immediately dumped every glasses down woman I’d ever been involved with I’d be a happier man today

Bacopa on 11/23 at 08:04 PM

Ahhh Bacopa, it is not a G-up, g-down issue, it’s an entomological knowledge one.  You see, those critters that may have been walking on the shelf are not like mere mortals, confined by gravity to walking only on top surfaces.  Thier little fly feet can cling to inverted surfaces, too.  So, with glasses up, guess what gets into the glass as they cling above it? 

OK, now that I have all of you trying to remember what direction the cup you are sipping the a.m. java from was (store it in the dishwasher!!!) sorry, and have a nice day.

Opoponax,
Glasses down my whole life. City dweller my whole life, too. Don’t generalize too much. Many cities in many parts of the country are bug territory (nice temperate weather). Just replace the shelf lining every few years. My kitchen’s biggest problem is the vent hood is no longer working which means cleaning the kitchen a lot more often for grease, and the hood would be difficult to replace - old house. I also have too damn much china. I have FIVE full sets, one expensive set for fancy asian cooking, some Noritake stonewear for everyday, and three different patterns of nice bone china that were gotten on sale when the huge downtown department store closed in 1980. Quality stuff, too, Sold at 10 cents on the dollar. and my mother went nuts getting a four-place set of each. There was also a sixth china set, but it was an old Czech pattern that had too much lead.

Glasses down my whole life. City dweller my whole life, too. Don’t generalize too much. Many cities in many parts of the country are bug territory…

Oh, I’m not generalizing that only country people are glasses-down, and only city people are glasses-up.  I mean, I’m a glasses-down, and I currently live in a city, and will probably never live in the country ever again.  When I have children, they will be raised as urbanites - but since I’m a glass-downer, they’ll probably be glass-downers too.  I would guess that there is a whole generation of kids growing up in small towns in the Hudson Valley (for instance) who are the children of glass-up urbanites, and who will always be glass-up, no matter how countrified they get.

I just think that the fundamental difference has its source in a city/country divide.  I also think there’s a class dimension to it - yes, there are bugs in some urban apartments, but the kind of “city folk” I’m thinking of   are the sort for whom the idea of bugs is much more powerful than the reality.

In all honestly, though, I was mainly snarking, poking fun especially at the fundamental us vs. them mentality about something so trivial. Which does often get expressed through regionalism, class, and other ways we find to other each other.

“Maybe I’m missing some sort of legal aspect here that makes it important to force singles services to serve both heterosexual and homosexual clients.”

Because it hurts and frustrates people with whom we disagree.  Need there be another reason?  They’ve gone off and created a new dating website which distinguishes itself from the others, so that sandcastle is fair game.

“Here’s another summation of my way of thinking: Personal services are personal and can be discriminatory, while social services are social and thus subject to societal rules.”

You’re 3/4 of the way there - at common law, it is the “common carrier” doctrine, under which certain enterprises are considered to offer their services to the general public with few limitations or reservations.  Think passenger trains, cabs, and through expansion of the doctrine, public utilities, hotels, and certain restaurants.

Just fyi, I knew a non-Jew who had an advert up on JDate under the heading Goy-Toy, so while they target, they don’t discriminate. Got lots of responses, too.

Once I filled a dark cup with eggnog.  Only when I got to the bottom did I realize there was a dead (drowned?) wolf spider in the bottom.

At least you could see it in time. I had the most unpleasant experience in my life when I almost swallowed a dead roach. I still can taste it, bleh.

As for the toilet paper, it’s always been top for me, but lately I haven’t been caring because we’re lazy and leave it on the counter of the washbasin.

while they target, they don’t discriminate.

This is exactly what I mean.  If E-Harmony wants to bill itself at a conservative Christian dating site focused towwards long-term matchmaking, that’s fine.  What’s NOT fine is to say, “sorry,no queers allowed!”  Let the conservative Christian gay people sign up, discover that everyone else is straight and looking for a long-term/marriage sort of thing with a like-minded conservative homobigot.  It’s when you say “no queeihhhs allowed!” that things get fucked up.

Apparently, joining the eHarmony service requires filling out some sort of endless personal survey that boils down to one key question: is the potential member seriously interested in getting married? If a potential customer’s answers boil down to “no” in their algorithm, I’m told that they’re rejected for membership.

Given a core mission that would turn away customers in favour of promoting “traditional” marriage, it becomes clear why the Xtian fantasists behind eHarmony had a problem opening membership up to marriage-minded gays.

If they want to inject superstitious bigotry into their business model, that’s fine. But as an American-based business, they’re going to face certain consequences for that bigotry, both in terms of revenue and regulation.

Maybe I’m missing some sort of legal aspect here that makes it important to force singles services to serve both heterosexual and homosexual clients.

They’re a prominent brand (not a church, but a business) that’s institutionalised discrimination in an explicitly exclusive manner (i.e. no one but heteros can apply). eHarmony was already discriminating against non-marriage-minded people with their membership algorithm, but it was subtle and didn’t really cross the line. They could argue: “our successful formula is based on matching marriage-minded people with others” and get away with it because they were talking about “people.”

By stating that gays couldn’t (or, more accurately, shouldn’t) be marriage-minded by not even offering a fair opportunity for gays to take the survey and avail themselves of eHarmony’s successful formula, they opened themselves up to charges of discrimination.

Smart businesses that want to focus on a niche without regulatory hassles work like jDate or the hetero version of eHarmony: they leave membership open to all comers, but use marketing and other cues to make it clear that you won’t have much success if you’re not in the niche. It doesn’t always work perfectly (I’m told jDate has a lot of Asian women scouting for a nice Jewish husband), but it avoids regulatory hassles and bad PR.

Oh, and glasses down people? Your way puts stress on the rim instead of the base, you crazy fools!

“What’s NOT fine is to say, “sorry,no queers allowed!””

I don’t think they said “no queers allowed.”  I just think when you pick your sex and do the search thingie, you get a slew of the opposite sex.  I can’t say for certain, because online dating isn’t my thing.  I fail to see why one would both need to be on EHarmony and to bend it to the way they are bent.  It is kind of like going to the Mexican place and demanding duck confit.

I don’t think they said “no queers allowed.” I just think when you pick your sex and do the search thingie, you get a slew of the opposite sex.

If that were the case, or if eHarmony had just come out and said they were serving a Xtian fundie niche, there wouldn’t have been a problem. The issue was that the service automatically rejected you for membership if you weren’t looking for someone of the opposite sex, because being gay defined you (in eHarmony’s algorithm) as not being marriage-minded.

It’s really a business variation on the whole Xtian fantasist driven “definition of marriage” debate. I wouldn’t be surprised if the eHarmony ruling is brought up when Prop 8 is challenged.

I don’t think they said “no queers allowed.” I just think when you pick your sex and do the search thingie, you get a slew of the opposite sex.

Having followed this story for a while, and gone to the site to see for myself, the answer is that they just don’t do same-sex matches.  On just about every other dating site you choose your gender and the gender(s) of your potential dates.  The computer then spits out everyone they see as ‘compatible’ with your criteria.  E-Harmony only gives opposite-sex matches, and thus is pretty much pointless if you are gay or a lesbian and looking for same sex partners.  Great if you’re in the closet, I suppose, but not going to accomplish much if you’re out and looking for love.

And again, the problem here is that E-Harmony doesn’t specifically market itself as the Dating Site For Homobigot Fucktards, but as a general dating site for anyone.  There are tons of niche dating sites, for everyone from Mormons to Punjabis.  There’s a special dating site for liberals, for fuck’s sake.    You’re welcome to browse, but you may not find anyone who meets your criteria, or you may not get many bites if you’re not part of that niche.  The issue isn’t that the gays just aren’t finding any likeminded people on E-Harmony, but that E-harmony specifically refuses to facilitate same-sex matches.

Apparently, joining the eHarmony service requires filling out some sort of endless personal survey that boils down to one key question: is the potential member seriously interested in getting married? If a potential customer’s answers boil down to “no” in their algorithm, I’m told that they’re rejected for membership.

The weird thing?  Even though I’m bisexual and explicitly NEVER want to get married, when this story broke I went to the site, slogged through the whole thing, and eventually was accepted.  If this is the aim (and not just screening out undesirables in general), their system is an absolute failure.  Because while I might be an acceptable human being in the eyes of the Christian Right (middle class, white, college educated, from a European Christian background, etc), I sure as hell don’t have any interest in marriage.

The weird thing?  Even though I’m bisexual and explicitly NEVER want to get married, when this story broke I went to the site, slogged through the whole thing, and eventually was accepted.  If this is the aim (and not just screening out undesirables in general), their system is an absolute failure. Because while I might be an acceptable human being in the eyes of the Christian Right (middle class, white, college educated, from a European Christian background, etc), I sure as hell don’t have any interest in marriage.

I’ve read several articles on the company and interviews with the founder, and they all agree it’s precisely the aim and the key to eHarmony’s success. From a business viewpoint, it makes sense to have a membership base made up soley of customers who are already interested in helping you achieve your tangible and quantifiable definition of mission success (i.e. people getting married because they met on your dating site).

Outliers happen, but there may be going on here: perhaps their survey is flawed or easily gamed, or they’ve modified it against core values to get more members. I’ve seen similar situations at dot-coms with heavy marketing budgets, and the pressure must only be worse in a vertical like dating. Perhaps that’s why they took the risk of excluding same-sex searches and/or results to discourage homosexuals who slipped into the membership from sticking around.

I’m curious: did they come out and ask you your sexual orientation, or do they try to get at it via psychographic and demographic indicators? The people I know who’ve slogged through the survey (career-oriented white middle-class straights) were mostly rejected.

“If that were the case, or if eHarmony had just come out and said they were serving a Xtian fundie niche, there wouldn’t have been a problem.”

I’m not quite certain that your perspective is correct if you believe that matching men with women, and women with men puts a service into a “Xtian fundie niche.”

I haven’t seen the dockets in the case, but my recollection is that the matter was hashed out in “Mediation,” which is essentially an extrajudicial Settlement Conference in New Jersey, after which the Plaintiff was awarded 5K and his advocacy organization 50K, which essentially means that the value of the case could not justify the cost of litigating against a non-profit entity with donated legal services and the Attorney General. 

Had the value of the case been greater, I would have expected as-applied Constitutional challenges to the New Jersey statute at issue.

I’m not quite certain that your perspective is correct if you believe that matching men with women, and women with men puts a service into a “Xtian fundie niche.”

No, I believe that a service focused on a Xtian fundie niche excludes promoting homosexual relationships. That’s a critical difference from the way you phrased it. Do you know of any Xtian (as opposed to Christian) fundamentalist churches or businesses that support homosexual dating?

Again, the problem is that eHarmony claimed in their marketing they’re not a Xtian fundie niche—that their service offers potential success for any person. They got into the weeds in this case by deliberately excluding a specific class of person using their screening survey and search/result options.

I haven’t seen the dockets in the case, but my recollection is that the matter was hashed out in “Mediation”

Most civil cases like this get settled out. eHarmony did not want the hassle of a high-profile case that they had a good chance of losing, and the plaintiff and his supporters got what they wanted: a nominal cash award to cover fees and—the real goal—forcing eHarmony to acknowledge homosexuals as people.

Gays rights orgs and Xtian fantasists alike are wisely choosing their big setpiece battles, and Prop 8 seems to be the major focus in those areas.

Very good points all around…

Everyone knows that OKcupid’s algorithm is Epic Win, not to mention free.

Glasses go up if they come out of the dishwasher still wet. If I ran the dishwasher the or night or day before and have only just now gotten around to putting away the now dry glasses they go down to keep the insides clean. As for the rim, doesn’t everyone wipe out their cabinets during deep cleanings? A little dirt or spider poop never hurt anyone anyhow.

I didn’t realize that TP direction was ever a point of contention. Unless you have a cat that delights in pawing at the roll what does it matter?

“I believe that a service focused on a Xtian fundie niche excludes promoting homosexual relationships. That’s a critical difference from the way you phrased it. Do you know of any Xtian (as opposed to Christian) fundamentalist churches or businesses that support homosexual dating?”

You’ve simply framed the issue so that it yeilds a result that re-affirms your beliefs.  Life is heteronormative.  The Complaint alleged violations of New Jersey statutory law, with some provision authorizing a civil action – it really hasn’t much to do with the marketing of eHarmony at all, or claims of fraud and misrepresentation. 

I’m not certain where or when “supporting homosexual dating,” became the acid test, and when it became unacceptable to merely stay out of the way of homosexuals, wishing them on their merry way.  And this is really the nut of the thing – a reasonable person might have simply asked for a refund and gone about life to find something or someone that would make him happy and leave people alone.  When he found out that the service doesn’t match men with men – assuming that he didn’t know this before he used the service - what was the efficacy in persisting (knowing that the other men on the service were in search of women), other than to harass and coerce?

“They got into the weeds in this case by deliberately excluding a specific class of person using their screening survey and search/result options.”

I’m rather certain that the gay man who signed up received a set of matched women – so, in fact, the site generated for him the same or substaintially similar results that it would have for me.  They serve Vanilla and he wants Chocolate, and he’ll stamp his feet with his thumbs in his ears until he gets it. 

“Most civil cases like this get settled out. eHarmony did not want the hassle of a high-profile case that they had a good chance of losing,

I’m not in agreement with you that eHarmony had a “good chance of losing.”  I think that the cost of further litigation, in comparison with the value of the case became prohibitive.  There were unexplored Federal Constitutional issues providing complete defenses to eHarmony’s service and policies that would have rendered the New Jersey statute void as applied.  Cases settle because litigation is expensive and judges are lazy, not because the Plaintiffs are right.

“the plaintiff and his supporters got what they wanted: a nominal cash award to cover fees and—the real goal—forcing eHarmony to acknowledge homosexuals as people.”

Well, I suppose we’ve come to the point – some people and organizations need to have their beliefs challenged and readjusted by force of coercion.  Do you really believe that the suit changed the beliefs of Warren and the people who seek his services, or that the Plaintiff made them say “uncle” and gave others the impression that some homosexual activists and organizations are thugs?  Do you want to live in an America in which the law is used as a cudgel to assail political oponents and eliminate dissent?

You’ve simply framed the issue so that it yeilds a result that re-affirms your beliefs.

No, I framed the issue in context, stating facts. eHarmony is a mainstream dating service, marketed as being a good choice for any person seeking a romantic match, and thus implied that its services were extended to everyone. Their stated metric for mission success is number of member matches resulting in marriage. One way they achieve their numbers is by screening as much as they can for marriage-minded members.

eHarmony is also founded by Christian fundamentalists who are averse to homosexuals getting married. eHarmony incorporated several features in its screening and search process that excluded one class of end-user. That created an obvious conflict under commercial regulations.

Those are the facts in context. If eHarmony had resolved this conflict been more honest about its niche focus (as jDate and other such specialty dating sites are) the plaintiff would have had a nuisance case, easily brushed away. Instead, eHarmony now has to build and maintain a new site so that its talk matches its walk, and cover the legal fees of the plaintiff as well.

Life is heteronormative

Not as far as the state and most of the market is concerned. This company operates in the market as a general romantic matching service—are you saying that there’s no demand for such a service amongst homosexuals as well as heterosexuals? eHarmony certainly wasn’t, at least not in public.

The Complaint alleged violations of New Jersey statutory law, with some provision authorizing a civil action – it really hasn’t much to do with the marketing of eHarmony at all, or claims of fraud and misrepresentation.

It has a lot to do with the difference between marketing and functionality: eHarmony is marketed as described above, however its functionality deliberately and actively excludes and discourages the participation of homosexuals in its service.

I’m not certain where or when “supporting homosexual dating,” became the acid test, and when it became unacceptable to merely stay out of the way of homosexuals, wishing them on their merry way

The problem is, eHarmony wasn’t “staying out of the way.” Its marketing put forth the message of “everyone welcome,” while its actual S.O.P. enforced the message of “homosexuals stay out.”

And this is really the nut of the thing – a reasonable person might have simply asked for a refund and gone about life to find something or someone that would make him happy and leave people alone.

Reasonable people sometimes choose to rock the boat when there’s a just cause. Conservatives are about to find that out about liberals.

When he found out that the service doesn’t match men with men – assuming that he didn’t know this before he used the service - what was the efficacy in persisting (knowing that the other men on the service were in search of women), other than to harass and coerce?

The assumption you make is incorrect. If eHarmony had represented itself as a dating service for fundamentalist Christians, then he wouldn’t have filled out the survey. If eHarmony’s filtering survey had infallible and stealthy “gaydar” built in, he would have received the same polite decline of membership that marriage-averse heterosexuals do, and have been none the wiser. eHarmony apparently did neither, so the plaintiff and others like him only found out that homosexual matches weren’t permitted by the service when he tried to search.

I’m rather certain that the gay man who signed up received a set of matched women – so, in fact, the site generated for him the same or substaintially similar results that it would have for me.

He wasn’t given a choice to specify anything other than opposite sex matches. That’s unusual when the industry standard for general dating sites (e.g. Lavalife, match.com) allows the member to specify his preference in some manner (either with a search filter or a niche sub-site).

[continued]

I’m not in agreement with you that eHarmony had a “good chance of losing.”

Apparently you’re not in agreement with eHarmony’s management, either. A settlement is a compromise by both parties, each trying to avoid the risk of a trial. Our opinions on a possible court verdict may differ, but eHarmony obviously thought that not fighting this out in court made sense.

Well, I suppose we’ve come to the point – some people and organizations need to have their beliefs challenged and readjusted by force of coercion.

No, businesses need to be held accountable to their marketing claims and representations—even the implied ones. If an organisation’s beliefs include institutionalised bigotry despite representations of being open to all, they should be challenged and re-adjusted.

Do you really believe that the suit changed the beliefs of Warren and the people who seek his services, or that the Plaintiff made them say “uncle” and gave others the impression that some homosexual activists and organizations are thugs?

It forced eHarmony as a high-profile corporate entity whose mission success is defined by people getting married to acknowledge that homosexuals are people. I don’t care what Warren and other Xtian fantasists’ personal views are, but the practises of his company are a different matter. Perhaps he would have done better to go the non-profit religious route for eHarmony, and eliminate these kind of regulatory hassles.

Do you want to live in an America in which the law is used as a cudgel to assail political oponents and eliminate dissent?

I want to live in an America where the law does its best to assure that all law-abiding citizens have the same rights and standing, regardless of non-normative characteristics. Whether you like it or not, part of that law applies to commerce when one represents one’s business as being open to all.

The law is a tool. What you call a “cudgel” in this case, I see as a hammer performing a clearly needed repair. What you see as eliminating political dissent, I see as promoting diversity and equal access to products and services supposdely available to all.

I’m not sure if your critique of this case comes from a libertarian viewpoint or an anti-homosexual one, but either way its doesn’t change the facts and legal issues at hand. And I’m done repeating them.

I’m not certain where or when “supporting homosexual dating,” became the acid test, and when it became unacceptable to merely stay out of the way of homosexuals, wishing them on their merry way.  And this is really the nut of the thing – a reasonable person might have simply asked for a refund and gone about life to find something or someone that would make him happy and leave people alone.  When he found out that the service doesn’t match men with men – assuming that he didn’t know this before he used the service - what was the efficacy in persisting (knowing that the other men on the service were in search of women), other than to harass and coerce?

Flash back to circa 1960:

I’m not certain where or when “supporting civil rights for negroes” became the acid test*, and when it became unacceptable to merely stay out of the way of negroes, wishing them on their merry way.  And this is really the nut of the thing - a reasonable person might have simply gone to a different lunch counter, or perhaps brought their own lunch from home, some other solution which would make him happy and leave people alone.  When he found out that this lunch counter doesn’t serve negroes - assuming he didn’t know this before he attempted to eat there—what was the efficacy in persisting, other than to harass and coerce?

Do they not go through the whole “separate but equal” and “equal access to public accommodations” bit in law school these days, or what?  It is NOT acceptable to operate a business that directly discriminates against a group of people.  While in most of the country discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is still perfectly legal, the nifty thing about civil law is that it doesn’t matter whether any particular statute was violated. 

* Yes, I’m aware that “acid test” would be an anachronism in 1960.

“Do they not go through the whole “separate but equal” and “equal access to public accommodations” bit in law school these days, or what?”

You’re mangling a misapprehension of Constitutional Law with a misunderstanding of history.  And they teach the Law as it is written in the decisional authorities, which distinguish between acts of the state and private commerce and “common carriers” and other classes of business.  The bitchin’ thing about Brown is that it applied to the state acts of the Board of Education, a government entity.  Was there a Supreme Court decision on the facts of the lunch counter sit-ins?  As I recall – incorrectly, perhaps - the lunch counters were segregated de jure, and the proprietor didn’t have the option to serve all would-be patrons. 

“It is NOT acceptable to operate a business that directly discriminates against a group of people.”

From a legal persepective, this is absolutely false (as in, “never acceptable”), and absolutely false when the “group of people” is homosexuals.  And once again, eHarmony didn’t discriminate against homosexuals, it simply offers a service which generates matches which don’t wind the motor of this particular Plaintiff, who doesn’t like “innies.” 

“the nifty thing about civil law is that it doesn’t matter whether any particular statute was violated.”

Look, I like you, but this is a patently ignorant statement.  The case in question was brought by a New Jersey Plaintiff, with the New Jersey Attorney General riding shotgun, under the authority of a New Jersey statute in the Superior Court of New Jersey, alleging harm arising from eHarmony’s activities within the forum of New Jersey.  If the Plaintiff resided in Virginia, the law of Conflicts of Law say “no dice.”

“* Yes, I’m aware that “acid test” would be an anachronism in 1960.”

The “acid test” refers to the old manner of testing metal for gold content, which may still be in use, but is disfavored because it damages the piece.

Me, I bites me dubloons to assure they be gen-u-wine gold.

You’re mangling a misapprehension of Constitutional Law with a misunderstanding of history.  And they teach the Law as it is written in the decisional authorities, which distinguish between acts of the state and private commerce and “common carriers” and other classes of business.

AFAIK it is not currently legal in any US jurisdiction to operate, say, a whites-only restaurant.  You’re right, again, that not all states include sexual orientation in nondiscrimination statute, but I’m also right that in order to sue someone, no law necessarily has to have been violated.

Is this not the case?  Is this not what they’re teaching in law schools these days? 

The “acid test” refers to the old manner of testing metal for gold content, which may still be in use, but is disfavored because it damages the piece.

In my understanding, current use of the expression comes from Tom Wolfe’s The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test and refers to use of LSD within the hippie subculture during the mid to late 1960’s.  I’m not sure it was common parlance in the way you used it above circa 1960, though I guess that, sure, those two words had been strung together before in some context.  /pedant

Look, I like you, but this is a patently ignorant statement.

Ahem?  I thought the whole POINT of civil suits was that you could seek damages even if no actual statute has been violated.  Sexual harrassment, for instance, is not a criminal offense, and yet if my boss threatens to fire me unless I have sex with him, I can sue him and/or our company.  Isn’t that neat?  I’m starting to think, more and more, that you are most certainly NOT an attorney, since you apparently don’t know even the most rudimentary aspects of American legal theory.

“It is NOT acceptable to operate a business that directly discriminates against a group of people.”

From a legal persepective, this is absolutely false (as in, “never acceptable”), and absolutely false when the “group of people” is homosexuals.

*clears throat* It may be legal in many places, but that does not make it acceptable. It is unacceptable…even as regards OMG TEH GAYZ. Who, as stated above, are people too.

Can I just express my utter non-shock that the Ultimate Nice Guy TM is also pro-institutional-bigotry?

That said: Opo, you’re wrong about Acid Test. Wolfe appropriated the older term for his title.

“I’m starting to think, more and more, that you are most certainly NOT an attorney, since you apparently don’t know even the most rudimentary aspects of American legal theory.”

Now that’s not very nice.  Civil suits at law come in many different flavors – I assume you refer exclusively to the Law of Torts (and not the Law of Cotracts), or simply “personal wrongs” as the great Lord Justice Blackstone called them.  Typically, if A sues B, A must proceed upon a recognized legal theory of Tort law, such as assault or conversion.  These torts are most often prescrived by decisional authorities (see, “case law”) but may be prescribed by statute which establishes the elements of the cause of action (the acts or omissions which must have occurred and must be proven).  There are plenty of statutory causes of action, but a popular flavor, by way of example, could be Products Liability actions. 

You’re confusing criminal statutes with statutes authorizing tort claims and setting forth the elements of such a claim.  No worries, this is a bit obscure to the layman.

“You’re confusing criminal statutes with statutes authorizing tort claims and setting forth the elements of such a claim.  No worries, this is a bit obscure to the layman. “

I would add to this that a successful prosecution under a criminal statute will, in most cases, constitute a de facto tort claim at civil law.  For example, if A rapes B and is convicted, B may later bring a cause of action against B for battery and related Torts as to damages only by way of “issue preclusion,”  B having been found beyond a reasonable doubt to have battered “A” by raping her.

I’m going to try to use the sentence “They have their own dating websites which I understand to be extremely X-rated” in conversation at least once this week.

You’re confusing criminal statutes with statutes authorizing tort claims and setting forth the elements of such a claim.

Uh, no, I’m not.  I don’t at all think that discrimination is a criminal charge, or even that there are direct laws against discriminating against gay people in most states.  However, I am aware that you can sue someone for something like not providing equal access to public accommodations.  This is why there are no more whites-only lunch counters in the US south.

And, honestly, if you think that southern business owners caved to local popular demand to integrate, and that businesses that purport to serve a general audience are prevented from discriminating or segregating by social convention alone, you are even stupider than I thought.

And once again, eHarmony didn’t discriminate against homosexuals, it simply offers a service which generates matches which don’t wind the motor of this particular Plaintiff, who doesn’t like “innies.”

And once again, it represented itself as a service that could help anyone find a match that had a better probability of ending in marriage than results from direct competitors in the general on-line dating vertical (e.g. match.com or lavalife). But apparently, given the way the site functions, their definition of “anyone” excludes homosexuals as a class. That exclusion, in the context of the services it claims to extend to “anyone,” is known as “discrimination” in many states (and misrepresentation in most).

Private commerce is not exempt from anti-discrimination laws any more than it’s excluded from misrepresentation laws. eHarmony saw where an adverse judgment in NJ would lead nationwide, and killed two birds with one stone by settling in this way rather than being sued on various grounds in state after state.

And “innies”? I don’t know about gay guys, but no straight guy or girl I know has ever used the term “innie” to describe a vagina or a female. The only use of the word I’ve heard is to describe a bellybutton. In any case, this suit was brought in regard to homosexuals, including lesbians who seem to have a fondness for what you describe as “innies.”

I assume you refer exclusively to the Law of Torts (and not the Law of Cotracts), or simply “personal wrongs” as the great Lord Justice Blackstone called them.

An examination of Contract Law consequences might be interesting if eHarmony (as many Web sites do) makes end-users sign off on a one-sided Terms of Service agreement before using the site (that thumping sound you hear is eHarmony’s attorneys rushing to bury a clause in the TOS that says, politely: “if you’re a fag, you don’t have a hope in Hell of getting a match here”).

As for Torts, a legal scholar like yourself might be aware that, in the absence of explicit anti-discrimination laws, civil Tort claims regarding denial of a common right or public accommodation were historically used as an alternative remedy (especially during the Jim Crow era).  They weren’t particularly efficient for the court system, and were hit-and-miss for both plaintiff and defendant, which is why consistent anti-discrimination legislation in regard to race and religion started hitting the books.

Since many states don’t have anti-discrimination laws regarding homosexuals, and since (outside employment and access to education law) there’s no over-riding federal anti-discrimination law regarding homosexuals, Torts it is.

Can I just express my utter non-shock that the Ultimate Nice Guy TM is also pro-institutional-bigotry?

Ah, I knew the name seemed familiar. You can imagine how the presence of homosexuals throws off Propaganda’s understanding of the Nice Guy™/hot girl contractual obligation: what do those gay guys think they’re about, being nice to attractive girls without wanting to get into their “innies”; and what’s with all those hot lesbians not letting guys into their “innies” at all?

Between that thread and this one, Propaganda, you’ve told us quite a bit about yourself. And it’s not very flattering.

“However, I am aware that you can sue someone for something like not providing equal access to public accommodations.”

They’re statutorily prescribed.  Above, you seemed to believe that statutes referred only to laws prohibiting criminal behavior. 

“And, honestly, if you think that southern business owners caved to local popular demand to integrate, and that businesses that purport to serve a general audience are prevented from discriminating or segregating by social convention alone, you are even stupider than I thought.”

I don’t think I argued to that effect.

I see our little pal Horace is back with a new pseudonym but the same fake-legal analysis.

When he found out that the service doesn’t match men with men – assuming that he didn’t know this before he used the service - what was the efficacy in persisting (knowing that the other men on the service were in search of women), other than to harass and coerce?

When Dr. King found out that the lunch counter didn’t serve negroes—assuming that he didn’t know this before he sat down at it—what was the efficacy in persisting (knowing that the other customers at the counter were expecting to only sit with whites), other than to harass and coerce?

You guys really need to come up with some new arguments—these long-dead 50-year-old ones are really starting to stink up the place.

“Private commerce is not exempt from anti-discrimination laws any more than it’s excluded from misrepresentation laws.”

I honestly do not believe that we are engaging in the same conversation, in the same language, at the same time. 

I have the suspicion that you are conducting an argument with an individual in a dimension apart from the one in which I inhabit, said individual using my handle.

“When Dr. King found out that the lunch counter didn’t serve negroes—assuming that he didn’t know this before he sat down at it—what was the efficacy in persisting (knowing that the other customers at the counter were expecting to only sit with whites), other than to harass and coerce?”

I suppose the whole “common carrier” discussion didn’t stick. 

I wish we had never brought the gays over on boats in chains from Transylvania, dammit!

I have the suspicion that you are conducting an argument with an individual in a dimension apart from the one in which I inhabit, said individual using my handle.

Yes, I’m here in the reality-based dimension, where law school graduates and other interested parties understand the difference between common carriers and other sorts of businesses and—more importantly—can look at a given business and tell which it is.

I suppose the whole “common carrier” discussion didn’t stick.

No, it didn’t, and for good reason. As it happens, I know a bit about common carriage, so I’m interested in hearing exactly how you think it is (or is not) relevant to eHarmony’s potential liability, given the facts of the case. And no dilly-dallying about how the answer should be “obvious,” since you’re dealing with a bunch of “laymen” who need to bask in your brilliance.

After that you can use the same facts of the case to demonstrate how eHarmony was in no way excluding homosexuals from its service and/or how eHarmony always made it clear in its representations (including marketing campaigns and site TOS) that homosexuals weren’t welcome and would not be served—don’t worry, all the evidence is over there in your own narrow dimension.

I don’t think I argued to that effect.

Uhhhh, dude, your argument here seems to be that there is no legal basis for anyone to seek any damages from any private business establishment which seeks to discriminate against anyone for any reason, that such enterprises have every right to discriminate as they see fit, and that the only reason most businesses stopped openly and actively discriminating based on race, religion, and gender was because in the 60’s social mores changed and it was suddenly in bad taste.

So I don’t know what sort of effect you thought you were arguing to, but it certainly didn’t come across at all.

“The yaws of her distortion were nicely hidden by the smudge pots of her indignation.”

“No, it didn’t, and for good reason. As it happens, I know a bit about common carriage, so I’m interested in hearing exactly how you think it is (or is not) relevant to eHarmony’s potential liability , given the facts of the case .  .  .  how eHarmony always made it clear in its representations (including marketing campaigns and site TOS) that homosexuals weren’t welcome and would not be served—don’t worry, all the evidence is over there in your own narrow dimension.”

I just realized that you haven’t the faintest idea of the meaning of the doctrine of the common carrier nor how it applies in the context of exclusion.  The doctrine holds that certain businesses providing essential services under government license or authority may not discriminate.  Classic examples include passenger trains, taxicabs, and Public Utilities. During the Civil Rights era and beyond, the attempt was made to expand the doctrine to include establishments operating under a Liquor License or Certificate of Occupancy with differing results.  eHarmony is in no way a “common carrier” and its services are neither essential nor expressly authorized under government license or authority (i.e. a taxicab or bar).  Exposing eHarmony to civil liability for generating female matches for a self-described homosexual man is an aggressive departure from the established balance of law regarding discrimination. 

What I was arguing was that N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to 10:5-41 (the statute under which the case was brought) as applied in the eHarmony case (assuming that no settlement was reached and a judgment entered against the company) would not withstand a Constitutional challenge. (The case did not sound in fraud or misrepresentation, as you seem to imply.)  Entities do have rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, including the right to Speech, Free Exercise, and Assembly and Association – even if the speech is commercial.  Additionally, I believe that there would have been fertile ground to challenge the statute on the grounds of Federal Preemption under the Interstate Commerce Clause/Doctrines.

I’d caution that the facile attitude you display regarding the freedom of individuals to associate as they see fit and to exclude and discriminate in their private relations is a freedom that we may both enjoy.  Recall that this blog engages in commercial activity, whether or not it turns a profit.  I believe Robert Bolt put it best in the mouth of his Thomas More, in response to his son-in-law’s statement that he’d “cut down every law in England to get at the Devil:”

“ .  .  .  when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

“Uhhhh, dude, your argument here seems to be that there is no legal basis for anyone to seek any damages from any private business establishment which seeks to discriminate against anyone for any reason, that such enterprises have every right to discriminate as they see fit, and that the only reason most businesses stopped openly and actively discriminating based on race, religion, and gender was because in the 60’s social mores changed and it was suddenly in bad taste. “

You don’t read very carefully.  I was trying to help you see that there are counterweights to your aggressive anti-discrimination regime that encompas fundamental, Constitutionally protected liberties to the point that the anti-dsicrimination effort must yeild, of necessity.  There is a balance between the kind of private concern or service, government licensure and authority, and other fundamental liberty interests of the alleged “discriminator.”  In other words, discrimination is not so black and white as you wish to make it.

But, I’ve been convinced by the expressed opinions of most of those who have commented that the law and liberty are of no concern or moment.  The targeting of eHarmony was done for the singular purpose of disturbing the mental repose of people whom you believe that it is your duty to afflict, offend, and outrage.  Apparently, they don’t deserve the right to freely associate with others of like mind, to attempt to find common ground and grow relationships together, nor to freely express themselves in a private commercial enterprise because of your imperious and inerrant indignation.  This is mere destruction, deprivation, and hate, wrapped in a hollow claim of civil rights.

eHarmony is in no way a “common carrier” and its services are neither essential nor expressly authorized under government license or authority (i.e. a taxicab or bar).

Good—you get a cookie for that. My questions stands: why bring up common carriage at all in regard to this the case? More specifically, how does the fact that eHarmony is not a common carrier exempt it from various anti-discrimination statutes (such as NJSA. 10:5-1 et seq.) and misrepresentation statutes that apply to all private commercial enterprises in a given jurisdiction?

What I was arguing was that N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to 10:5-41 (the statute under which the case was brought) as applied in the eHarmony case (assuming that no settlement was reached and a judgment entered against the company) would not withstand a Constitutional challenge.

Oh, so now you’re adjusting the goalpost to the appeals level. Ok…

First, and as usual for you, your counterfactual assumption makes the whole debate pointless (hint for the future attorney: judges don’t like having the court’s time wasted).

eHarmony’s attorneys and business managers, on the other hand, apparently understood the consequences of taking this to trial (and then to Federal appeal, where misrepresentation cases from other states would make their appearances) a lot better than you do.

The Xtian fantasist founders also reluctantly understood the consequences of opening up that particular can of worms. It’s a testimony to your residence in some other Objectivist dimension that even believers in an Invisible Bearded Sky Man™ show more pragmatism about the law than you do.

But let’s entertain your counterfactual. The fact is, if you had been their crusading legal hero and they had taken this to trial in NJ, they very likely would have lost on the facts. A whole lot of other perfectly valid civil suits based on anti-discrimination and/or misrepresentation would have then popped up in other states. If eHarmony’s champion then urged them to appeal one or more of the suits, it would be a lose-lose for the founders regarding anti-discrimination: if they lost the appeal, state laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against gays would get the federal stamp of approval; if they won the appeal, you’d find a repeat of the civil rights era, with citizens and legislators questioning the use of Torts as an inefficient alternative remedy to commercial anti-discrimination laws.

Add in the fact that the legal costs of that fight would bankrupt eHarmony, and it’s fortunate for both the founders’ bank accounts and their immortal souls that they didn’t have a libertarian fantasist like yourself on their legal team. This way, they get to stay in the business of matching good marriage-minded Xtians, and both Jeebus and Mammon remain satisfied (the former might be a little peeved, but render unto Caesar and all that).

I’d caution that the facile attitude you display regarding the freedom of individuals to associate as they see fit and to exclude and discriminate in their private relations is a freedom that we may both enjoy.

I’d love to see you produce a quote from this or any other thread where I talked about this applying to private relations. Or are you one of those economic libertarians who confuses private relations with commercial transactions?

Wait, given the views you expressed in the Nice Guy™ thread, that’s probably exactly what you do.

Recall that this blog engages in commercial activity, whether or not it turns a profit.

Also recall that this blog is not making misrepresentations in regard to its commercial activities, nor is it denying access to said commericial activities on the basis of race, creed, colour, gender, or sexual orientation. If, when you’re inevitably banned, you chose to bring suit against Pandagon on this basis, you’d have your first (but by no means last) experience of being laughed out of court.

Oh, and continuing the parade of fail if this case was appealed, there’s also the possibility that an appeals court would refuse to hear it, at which point the Feds are saying that it’s a matter for the states. At that point, eHarmony would have to stop doing business in every state where it went to trial on an anti-discrimination and/or misrepresentation suit and lost.

You have served a useful purpose here, Propaganda, by illustrating what most successful businesspeople know: never willingly put a lawyer in charge of the company.

Allright, now it is perfectly clear that you haven’t the faintest fucking idea what you are writing about, yet you attempt to disguise your ignorance with sheer volume.  I did get a chuckle out of “I know a bit about common carriage,” imagining Peter Sellers playing a pompous, basement dwelling hipster.

And now I know you can’t answer my question about how common carriage is relevant here. Well, to be honest, I knew already. But it was fun messing with you.

“And now I know you can’t answer my question about how common carriage is relevant here.”

I already did, in order to illustrate the suit’s departure from established law.  Not to mention referencing an as applied Constitutional challenge, which you fully misapprehend both procedurally and substantively.  Add to this the hilarious bit about you informing me about settlements and mediation, when I participated in two Mediations in New Jersey as counsel last week, and have another scheduled for Monday.  Thanks for the tips, hipster.

I already did, in order to illustrate the suit’s departure from established law.

The suit was brought in NJ, on the basis of NJSA 10:5-1 et seq.. Is this not established law in that state? You really have to make up your mind about which court is deciding whether the suit is departing from established law.

Add to this the hilarious bit about you informing me about settlements and mediation, when I participated in two Mediations in New Jersey as counsel last week, and have another scheduled for Monday.

You wouldn’t know it from your “I’m sure eHarmony coulda won” rhetoric throughout this thread. Fortunately for your clients, they’re as easily cowed by your bluster as I am—that is to say, not at all. Which is why you probably ended up going into those settlement conferences, grousing all the way: “C’mon, we could still win…”

And also, what’s with the “hipster” insult? We’re not talking about fashion or art here, and sex is tangential. It’s almost as bizarre as the “innie” thing. Did some mean ol’ hipsters from Williamsburg tease you the last time you crossed the Hudson? I hear they’re pretty scary with their trucker hats (or whatever they’re wearing these days).

As I said before, you’ve painted quite a picture of yourself in these threads.

“The suit was brought in NJ, on the basis of NJSA 10:5-1 et seq.. Is this not established law in that state?”

It is State statutory law that may or may not implicate Federal Constitutional rights, as applied in this case had judgment been entered on the basis of the statute.  As applied.  As applied.  As applied.  Hope you got that. 

If the law authorizing a civil cause of action makes it unlawful (i.e., imposes civil liability) for a Defendant to exercise Constitutional Rights, either facially or as applied, the law is Constitutionally unsound.  The mention of the common carrier doctrine was to lead you to the analysis of more public > less public private enterprise, such that you might understand how eHarmony’s unwillingness to match men with men does not implicate an important right or access to a service bolstered by government participation and licensure.  You simply chose not to understand.

“You wouldn’t know it from your “I’m sure eHarmony coulda won” rhetoric throughout this thread.”

Settlement is a business decision that weighs the cost of continued litigation.  $55,000.00 is peanuts, compared with the cost of litigating a case through trial and appeals, and the cost of initiating a Constitutional challenge through the Federal Courts.  You’re obviously totally unfamiliar with this aspect of practice.

“And also, what’s with the “hipster” insult?”

Why does it hurt you so?  I had intended to make use of your iPod setup skills, and simply assumed.  The universe of epithets available to me is somewhat limited, given the circumstances.  I assure you that my ability to insult you, in person, is peerless. 

“As I said before, you’ve painted quite a picture of yourself in these threads.”

Well, it is a good thing that I just plain don’t give a rat’s ass what you think.

It is State statutory law that may or may not implicate Federal Constitutional rights, as applied in this case had judgment been entered on the basis of the statute.  As applied.  As applied.  As applied.  Hope you got that.

I got it. Ok, so we’re back to the Federal level. For the moment. I’m sure you’ll switch back to NJ in a moment.

If the law authorizing a civil cause of action makes it unlawful (i.e., imposes civil liability) for a Defendant to exercise Constitutional Rights, either facially or as applied, the law is Constitutionally unsound.

eHarmony is a corporate entity that was engaging in business practises that went against state laws in NJ and CA. I seriously doubt eHarmony would have gotten far in appeals, because higher courts stay away from this kind of case like the plague (see also same-sex adoption).

The mention of the common carrier doctrine was to lead you to the analysis of more public > less public private enterprise, such that you might understand how eHarmony’s unwillingness to match men with men does not implicate an important right or access to a service bolstered by government participation and licensure.

Well, that’s a pointless mention, since it’s obvious that eHarmony isn’t a common carrier. But again, that doesn’t exempt the company from NJ state law.

What I don’t understand is why you’re wasting our time with pointless digressions. I’m sure you’re used to hearing that from the bench. And speaking of purposeless…

Settlement is a business decision that weighs the cost of continued litigation.  $55,000.00 is peanuts, compared with the cost of litigating a case through trial and appeals, and the cost of initiating a Constitutional challenge through the Federal Courts.  You’re obviously totally unfamiliar with this aspect of practice.

I see we’re now pretending my previous comments at 11/24 01:23 PM and 11/25 12:53PM (comments you responded to) didn’t exist.

Why does it hurt you so?  I had intended to make use of your iPod setup skills, and simply assumed.  The universe of epithets available to me is somewhat limited, given the circumstances.  I assure you that my ability to insult you, in person, is peerless.

Because in person you have more at your disposal than your limited vocabulary of verbal insults? Being able to spit on a person or shoot him the bird doesn’t really constitute peerless repartee.

As for the hipster thing, it doesn’t really hurt me so much as puzzle me, especially now that you’ve brought iPods into it (I’m more of a smartphone guy). I don’t know any real hipster who’d consider me one of their own, but I guess out in the exburbs of Jersey the ability to plug in a USB cable and run iTunes is criteria enough.

Well, it is a good thing that I just plain don’t give a rat’s ass what you think

Well, all in good fun for me. You have to understand, I spend most of my time socialising and working with people like myself: well-adjusted, well-groomed and well-educated adults who are reasonably successful in their careers (including a lawyer who’s argued before SCOTUS)—you know, “hipsters.” So it’s always interesting to talk candidly with a chump like yourself—you know, the kind of so-called adult who uses the word “innie” to describe a vagina.

“I got it. Ok, so we’re back to the Federal level. For the moment. I’m sure you’ll switch back to NJ in a moment.”

It might surpise you to learn that that nifty Constitution thingie (you’ve pledged to be a “Constitution Voter” in an act of penultimate irony, I’m certain) - by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment – applies as against the several States, including New Jersey.  If a misguided State statute or act purports to restrict a Constitutional right, both the State and Federal Courts are obligated to brush aside the silly statute as if it never were.  Has something to do with that Supremacy Clause or something.  Kinda neat how that works, no? 

“eHarmony is a corporate entity that was engaging in business practises that went against state laws in NJ and CA.”

Firstly, that wasn’t adjudicated, meaning that no Court has made a finding to this effect or rendered a verdict.  Second, see “Constitutionally unsound,” supra.

“I seriously doubt eHarmony would have gotten far in appeals, because higher courts stay away from this kind of case like the plague (see also same-sex adoption).”

I have absolutely no idea where or how you have gotten this impression.  An as-applied Constitutional challenge is had in Federal District Court (trial level), and appeals to the Circuit Courts do not require a grant of permission.  Same thing with the New Jersey Appellate Division.  Additionally, this case – the Constitutional bit – presents an almost pure question of law which Appellate Courts just slurp right up.

“Well, that’s a pointless mention, since it’s obvious that eHarmony isn’t a common carrier. But again, that doesn’t exempt the company from NJ state law.”

Look approximately 30,000 feet above your head.  See the contrail?  The “point” left it on its way right over you.

“I see we’re now pretending my previous comments at 11/24 01:23 PM and 11/25 12:53PM (comments you responded to) didn’t exist.”

No – you simply have no experience or understanding of the costs of protratced litigation.  You’ve also pretended that there is no probability that Bash Back will be at Warren’s home with bullhorns on Sunday morning.

“Because in person you have more at your disposal than your limited vocabulary of verbal insults? Being able to spit on a person or shoot him the bird doesn’t really constitute peerless repartee.”

No, I’m substantially more “persuasive” in the flesh.

“but I guess out in the exburbs of Jersey the ability to plug in a USB cable and run iTunes is criteria enough”

Use your Google-fu and explore “multijurisdictional practice of law.”

“Well, all in good fun for me. You have to understand, I spend most of my time socialising and working with people like myself: well-adjusted, well-groomed and well-educated adults who are reasonably successful in their careers (including a lawyer who’s argued before SCOTUS)—you know, “hipsters.”

Oh yes, your friend can beat up my friend . . .  yawn.  I ridicule you not because of your claim of success (which is a subjective matter), but for your affected, poseur attitude – that is the essence of hipster to many of us who were here before your tut-tutting, gentrifying, know-it-all ass arrived. 

“So it’s always interesting to talk candidly with a chump like yourself—you know, the kind of so-called adult who uses the word “innie” to describe a vagina.”

I do believe that, in that case, I was speaking in the person of the Plaintiff, who is quite obviously not a fan of the vagina.  You see, my writing required a smidgen of literacy to fully comprehend it.  I’ll make the appropriate efforts to conform my writing to your level of reading comprehension in the future.  Reading the Hardy Boys Series, are we?

If a misguided State statute or act purports to restrict a Constitutional right, both the State and Federal Courts are obligated to brush aside the silly statute as if it never were.

And again you fail to specify which Constitutional right of eHarmony as a corporate entity is being restricted by the application of NJ’s “misguided” statute.

Firstly, that wasn’t adjudicated, meaning that no Court has made a finding to this effect or rendered a verdict.

The probable outcome was my opinion, and likely that of all the attorneys involved in the settlement. It’s based on the fact that eHarmony was taking active measures to exclude homosexuals from enjoying a service it was offering to all people.

I have absolutely no idea where or how you have gotten this impression.

By observing the behaviour of the Federal courts and through conversations with people like the attorney I mentioned. I could have seen it getting to the top of the state level, but a Constitutional challenge would have required eHarmony to do what you haven’t, and show one of those pure questions of Constitutional law forms a solid basis for the challenge.

Don’t feel too insecure about your failure to do so, though—eHarmony’s lawyers couldn’t, either.

No – you simply have no experience or understanding of the costs of protratced litigation.

Understanding, yes—I’ve heard plenty of horror stories from my clients. Direct experience, no, because I have competent attorneys and don’t let emotion get in the way of spoiling a deal or de-escalating a conflict.

No, I’m substantially more “persuasive” in the flesh.

So you’re a better speaker than writer. I can certainly believe this, not that it’s saying much.

Use your Google-fu and explore “multijurisdictional practice of law.”

Well, given the way you’ve presented yourself on this site, you can’t blame me for thinking you’re some plodding scribe from a third-tier law school—the kind who’s lucky to have clients outside his neighbourhood.

I ridicule you not because of your claim of success (which is a subjective matter), but for your affected, poseur attitude – that is the essence of hipster to many of us who were here before your tut-tutting, gentrifying, know-it-all ass arrived.

Ah, now this is what I was waiting for—the bitter resentment of the peasant mentality crawling forth. If you’ll indulge me and keep this thread rolling despite a clear lack of interest from others, I’d love for you to expand on the concepts of “us” and “here” in your above paragraph.

I’d also love to hear what behaviour you were “tut-tutted” about, and who destroyed the ethnic/class/heterosexual purity of your neighbourhood.

I do believe that, in that case, I was speaking in the person of the Plaintiff, who is quite obviously not a fan of the vagina

Yes, but the choice of “innies” was yours, Prop. Grown-ups would have gone through a lot of other terms, starting with “vagina” and trending downward, before they hit the rock-bottom of using a 5-year-old’s term like “innies.” But you went right for it. Fantastic.

Wow, Gracchus, thanks for the suggestion in the HIV thread that I come back and read the follow-up between you and PD. That was hilarious. Thanks!

PD, did they teach you in law school that hilariously bad insults (hipster? really? really???) and a lot of bluster and arrogance are equal to a decent, coherent argument? I’m so sorry for you.