eHarmony settles gay discrimination suit

[ccharles000]

(Trenton, New Jersey) Online dating service eHarmony has agreed to stop discriminating against gays and lesbians. The company has long refused to provide services to gays.

In 2005 New Jersey resident Eric McKinley filed a formal complaint with the state Division on Civil Rights. For more than three years, eHarmony vigorously contested the allegations of the complaint.

On July 23, 2007, however, the Director of the DCR issued a Finding of Probable Cause that eHarmony had violated New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination.

The company then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the finding.

Although the state has not issued a ruling on the motion, eHarmony said Tuesday it had reached a settlement with the Attorney General’s Office.

Under the settlement in which eHarmony admits no wrongdoing the company agrees to create a new service for same-sex matching by March 31, 2009.

The company said it would call the new service Compatible Partners.

It also agreed to pay the Division on Civil Rights $50,000 to cover administrative costs and to pay McKinley $5,000 plus give him a free one-year membership to its new service.


http://www.365gay.com/news/eharmony-settles-gay-discrimination-suit/

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. The 700 Club doesn't show many commercials

So when you see an ad on that show, odds are pretty good that the company in question is 100% on board with the agenda of the religious reich. And eharmony fits that description. I'm surprised they didn't accuse McKinley of "anti-Christian bigotry".

[anigbrowl]

2. I have mixed feelings about this...

I don't think much of eHarmony, but on the other hand nobody's forced to use it. On the other hand, I doubt there'd be much sympathy if I sued gay.com because they wouldn't help me hook up with a hot chick (I am male). I'm also not sure how this really changes anything since the 'Compatible Partners' service sounds like a separate service rather than part of eHarmony.

Seems to me they're quite within their rights here. That said my attitude about civil rights is that they they pertain to relations between the individual and the state, not the individual and private companies. You don't have an automatic right to service from a private company that doesn't cater to you, in my opinion.

[antigone382]

3. If that's the case, there should still be "whites only" lunch counters.

Sure, private companies are supposedly "private," but most of them (even the small ones) receive tax breaks and subsidies from the government, and for that reason alone they should be prohibited from discriminating against particular members of society.

[anigbrowl]

4. OK, but why won't gay.com hook me up with a chick?

Theoretically speaking...I don't think Mrs. Browl would be too happy if they actually did. The only thing I can think of is that his complaint is centered around the idea that eHarmony's compatibility meter is magic and he wants to benefit too...but I don't find that too convincing. Then again maybe that's why the settlement was for such a small amount, more of a 'please go away and bother someone else' payment.

[Bluebear]

5. Because eharmony purports to match love interests, not a "chick" for you.

The argument is that "love matches" could be straight or gay, and their stock in trade is this "compatibility test" that matches personalities, and not expressly for sex.

[anigbrowl]

7. OK, this is in the information I was trying to find.

I really didn't care to read through all the court filings/articles.

[readmoreoften]

6. When eharmony changes its site to straight.com your strawman will have good point.

[jrockford]

8. There technically can be - but the commerce clause had been broadly applied regardless

of whether the companies are receiving tax breaks