- Blog
- Bios
- Boards
- Classifieds
- DIY
- Gallery
- Vendor Reviews
- Shop Weddingbee
Weddingbee boards
Not a problem hon! Even I had to look up the statistics to be certain that I was quoting the right number of states. I don't really think it's well known that so many states actually have done this. My state, Iowa, has not, but my hometown made sexual orientation a protected class. I know your heart was in the right place, and I think everyone has had some valid arguments on both sides of this discussion. I just wanted to make sure misconceptions didn't enter the discussion.
I've never posted before, but a lot of these comments have a misguided view of the law. Just because you're a private company does NOT mean that you can do whatever you want. The signs that businesses post above their doors -- "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" -- are not really accurate. Restaurants cannot refuse to serve people based on their race, or a host of other things.
These kinds of laws are known as "public accommodations laws." They date back from English times; in England before the American revolution, innkeepers and tavernowners similarly were prohibited from discriminating and were required to keep their doors open to the general public.
eHarmony's actions are NOT legal simply because they are a private company. Legally speaking, the question is whether or not eHarmony held itself open to the general public. If so, it is illegal in NJ and CA for it to discriminate against gay people. We won't really know the answer to whether it's really a "public accommodation" since the suit was settled. But there are very very good arguments that it is, based upon the fact (observed by many commenters) that eHarmony does not explicitly exclude anyone from their audience.
You can read a very brief description of California's public accommodations law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act
New_Image2.JPG (243.9 KB, 123 downloads) 1 year old New_Image.JPG (150.8 KB, 100 downloads) 1 year old 
Glad to hear this!
They weren't being direct about their discrimination, they were simply not finding matches for a whole list of people. I tried it out with a few friends one night and we were all rejected! Gay, Straight, and the BIG one: Not Christian!
It's a Christian site plain and simple. And look, they own Wedding Bee!
@Harper, the good news is that although eHarmony owns Wedding Bee (and Project Wedding), promises were made when the sites were sold to eHarmony that eHarmony would not interfere with the editorial policies of the sites. And as far as I can make out, those promises have been kept. Not only is there an lgbtq board here, but I have felt welcome on all of the other boards, as well. (Just as well, really, since I'm a Jewish encore 50-something diy bride in an international lesbian interfaith marriage.) Mrbee and mrsbee have made clear their own support of same-sex marriage. And over on Project Wedding, I recently took first place in the DIY Wedding Challenge 2010. Whatever the policies of eHarmony, this is clearly a safe place for nonChristian people, gay or straight.
I personally do not agree with the ruling of this lawsuit. There are plenty of dating websites that only allow jewish members, african-american members, LBGT members, etc., so me as a straight, white, non-religious woman would not be partnered up (or in some cases even allowed to register) with my choices in a mate, yet if I tried to invoke this same lawsuit I would be treated as a racist right-wing lunatic. It just doesn't make any sense why it works one way, but not the other.
I am not here to argue, but wanted to chime in with a few ideas...
Consider where many tailored sites are going with their business ventures. They are helping specific groups find other people who also consider themselves within those specific groups. Usually, those groups happen to be minorities - such as people who are Jewish, African-American, LGBTQ, etc. If someone who is a member of these groups wishes to use a general site like eHarmony, they can choose that instead of the specific site. Except the LGBTQ group. The difference here is that while all the other minority groups are able to choose between general and specific sites, LGBTQ folks cannot. No one is telling people who are Jewish or African-American that they MUST use a "special" site. I understand that LGBTQ people are not yet a federal suspect class, but with the Prop 8 trial coming to a close and with appeal in our immediate future, please consider where that federal law is going. The courts know that. And besides, for all we talk about the technicalities of the law, relegating people to the periphery of society because they are different is wrong. It's wrong.
It is not viable to say that a gay person can use eHarmony, they just can't find another gay person there - it dovetails with the argument that gay people can marry legally, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Frankly, that is a laughable argument. That being said, to my knowledge, there has never been a site that specifically barred straight people from services. LGBTQ sites tend to be very inclusive, because people (even people who identify as straight) may wish to explore different sensual experiences in their lives. Sexuality can be a spectrum for us all. Maybe it's time we embraced that, and saw that respectful love and sex are joys.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to hug a conservative.
When my dad was first looking for a dating site, he went to eHarmony and was appalled that they didn't offer same-sex matching.
BTW, my dad is straight, but he refused to support a dating site that didn't support all couples. Bless him :)
You must log in to post.
| Visit our sister sites | eHarmony Online Dating |
eHarmony Advice Dating Advice |
Project Wedding Wedding Songs |
JustMommies Pregnancy Calendar |
Create the honeymoon of your dreams.
