Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

EHarmony Not only for Str-8 People

goin on 4T

MVP
Platinum
EF VIP
The eHarmony Shakedown
By Michelle Malkin
November 21, 2008

Congratulations, tolerance mau-mauers: Your shakedown of a Christian-targeted dating website worked. Homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable "right" to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony. What a landmark triumph for social progress, eh?

New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks -- heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide. "Men seeking men" has now been enshrined with "I have a dream" as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.

Neil Warren, eHarmony's founder, is a gentle, grandfatherly businessman who launched his popular dating site to support heterosexual marriage. A "Focus on the Family" author with a divinity degree, Warren encourages healthy, lasting unions between men and women of all faiths, mixed faiths or no faith at all.

Don't like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Internet that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it.

No matter. In the name of tolerance, McKinley refused to tolerate eHarmony's right to operate a lawful business that didn't give him what he wanted. He filed a discrimination complaint against eHarmony with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights in 2005.

To be clear: eHarmony never, ever refused to do business with anyone. The company broke no laws. Their great "sin" was not providing a politically correct service that a publicity-seeking gay plaintiff demanded they provide. For three years, the company battled McKinley's legal shakedown artists -- and staved off other opportunists as well. The dating site had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman, and by a married man who ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.

This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a rib-eye, or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. But rather than defend the persecuted business, the New Jersey attorney general intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model.

The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users, pay McKinley $5,000 and fork over $50,000 to New Jersey's Civil Rights division "to cover investigation-related administrative costs." Oh, and that's not all. Yield, yield to the grievance-mongers:

Additional terms of the settlement include:

-- eHarmony, Inc. will post photos of same-sex couples in the "Diversity" section of its website as successful relationships are created using the company's same-sex matching service. In addition, eHarmony, Inc. will include photos of same-sex couples, as well as individual same-sex users, in advertising materials used to promote its same-sex matching services;

-- eHarmony, Inc. will revise anti-discrimination statements placed on company websites, in company handbooks and other company publications to make plain that it does not discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation";

-- the company has committed to advertising and public relations/ marketing dedicated to its same-sex matching service, and will retain a media consultant experienced in promoting the "fair, accurate and inclusive" representation of gay and lesbian people in the media to determine the most effective way of reaching the gay and lesbian communities.

I have enormous sympathy for eHarmony, whose attorney explained that they gave in to the unfair settlement because "litigation outcomes can be unpredictable." The recent mob response to the passage of Proposition 8, the traditional marriage measure in California, must have also weighed on eHarmony management's minds. But capitulation will only yield a worse, entirely predictable outcome: more shakedowns of private businesses that hold views deemed unacceptable by the Equality-at-All-Costs Brigade.

Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their businesses. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways.

---

Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is [email protected].
 
hmmm werent ariel & pudd monk planning an eharmony venture last nite on here? wierddd!
 
Good. Imagine websites that didn't allow non-whites to use their dating site and allowed to advertise on tv. Glad such overt discrimination is not allowed in cyberspace. Gay Marriage is coming whether bigots like it or not.

r
 
Just so I'm clear on this...

It's a private website and they are now forced to cater to geighs? nothing against geighs, got a few geigh friends but wtf is going on today
 
Just so I'm clear on this...

It's a private website and they are now forced to cater to geighs? nothing against geighs, got a few geigh friends but wtf is going on today

My guess is they are arguing that an web site is a public site and should therefore be accessible to anyone.

But I'm just totally guessing here.
 
If I had represented e-harmony I would not have struck that settlement. I'm very much in favor of gay rights, but e-harmony is a PRIVATE business geared toward hetero dating. There are niche dating sites out there that cater to Jewish couples, black couples, etc. Equal protection applies to government actions. What is next? I have to make sure to get a homosexual, a jewish person, a muslim person, and a asian kid to all attend Devin's next birthday party? lol
 
My guess is they are arguing that an web site is a public site and should therefore be accessible to anyone.

But I'm just totally guessing here.

Everyone's house is accessible to the public as well... If what I said is true, I would honestly take that to the highest court in the land and wouldn't stop my battle until I win.
 
If e-harmony would have admitted that it is a CHRISTIAN site, the Attorney General would have backed down. I guarantee it. Religion is a protected class. That sort of trumps the sexual orientation card historically and legally. lol.

Why would a gay man want to advertise on a site full of tight ass Christians anyway? He would be the only gay guy on there. lol.
 
Based on my experience with litigation (came from long line of self-employds) I am thinking that based on that bullshit settlement the only reason that E-harmony did finally yield is because it just wasn't financially smart for them to continue to fight the suit.

Ms Snackycakes, unless you agreed to represent E-harmony pro-bono (which I am thinkin you would LOL) you would not have had the option to *not settle*. You would be an employee of E-harmony and it would be your job to do what THEY TELL you to do, as long as their directives are legal. The best that you could do, as an attorney, is to refuse to represent the client further, in essence to "fire" your client - which is well within your rights to do and I am thinkin that is what you meant.

Either way, unless someone has been sued by just ONE relentless dumbass who either has pockets that are waaaaay too deep or a large organization willing to do the suing pro bono. Guess what? Regardless of how frivolous the litigation they can keep coming at you again and again and again. Unless you have the money (regardless of how UNFAIR and UNJUST IT IS) you either sit down, STFU, pony up and pay or move to another country. Regardless of what ya'll have been raised to believe this is THE REAL definition of "Truth, Justice and The American Way."

BTW - I think the law suit is total bullshit. If the guy wanted to e-meet other like-minded partners then why THE HELL didn't he just go to one of the many gobs of sites where he could have done *just* that?
 
Everyone's house is accessible to the public as well... If what I said is true, I would honestly take that to the highest court in the land and wouldn't stop my battle until I win.

I believe private dwellings don't get hit with the requirements public places have.

First of all, I think this is yet another example of our out-of-control tort system. But it will never change, largely because it's a money-making scheme for lawyers.

But here's how someone could argue against e-harmony. It's a social networking site, right? I'd argue it's no different than a Starbucks on a Saturday night or a public gym on "singles night". Basically it's a publicly-accessible place for people to meet and greet each other. Well if I owned a Starbucks and noticed that several gay people started showing-up on my social night, I don't think I could legally throw them out, could I?

E-harmony's only chance would be to declare themselves some kind of private club that is members-only subject to approval, but I think even that runs into problems. Golf courses and strip clubs tried to do something like that to be exclusionary and I don't know how well its working.
 
Based on my experience with litigation (came from long line of self-employds) I am thinking that based on that bullshit settlement the only reason that E-harmony did finally yield is because it just wasn't financially smart for them to continue to fight the suit.

Ms Snackycakes, unless you agreed to represent E-harmony pro-bono (which I am thinkin you would LOL) you would not have had the option to *not settle*. You would be an employee of E-harmony and it would be your job to do what THEY TELL you to do, as long as their directives are legal. The best that you could do, as an attorney, is to refuse to represent the client further, in essence to "fire" your client - which is well within your rights to do and I am thinkin that is what you meant.

Either way, unless someone has been sued by just ONE relentless dumbass who either has pockets that are waaaaay too deep or a large organization willing to do the suing pro bono. Guess what? Regardless of how frivolous the litigation they can keep coming at you again and again and again. Unless you have the money (regardless of how UNFAIR and UNJUST IT IS) you either sit down, STFU, pony up and pay or move to another country. Regardless of what ya'll have been raised to believe this is THE REAL definition of "Truth, Justice and The American Way."

BTW - I think the law suit is total bullshit. If the guy wanted to e-meet other like-minded partners then why THE HELL didn't he just go to one of the many gobs of sites where he could have done *just* that?
I'm certian that is why they settled. Plus, the judge may have awarded even more to the man than they settled for. For example, they could have made them put the gay ads on their primary site.

What I meant is that I would not have advised to settle that one. I think legal precedence is on their side. I would probably would have advised my client to play the religion card, but I would have to look into that further. I think it would have been a very successful strategy for staving off these people.
 
I believe private dwellings don't get hit with the requirements public places have.

First of all, I think this is yet another example of our out-of-control tort system. But it will never change, largely because it's a money-making scheme for lawyers.

But here's how someone could argue against e-harmony. It's a social networking site, right? I'd argue it's no different than a Starbucks on a Saturday night or a public gym on "singles night". Basically it's a publicly-accessible place for people to meet and greet each other. Well if I owned a Starbucks and noticed that several gay people started showing-up on my social night, I don't think I could legally throw them out, could I?

E-harmony's only chance would be to declare themselves some kind of private club that is members-only subject to approval, but I think even that runs into problems. Golf courses and strip clubs tried to do something like that to be exclusionary and I don't know how well its working.
I would argue that it isnt a public place. It is a private business. When you sign up they do deny certain applications etc. (I don't like it, but don't see how it isn't their right to do so)

Now a truly public place must allow equal access. We had so much trouble with this in law school because we had LOTS of really far out radical groups wanting to take up our school courtroom to get their message out. So, the school had to basically not let anyone speak or they had to deal with the influx of a million different groups demaning equal time.
 
That's exactly what I would argue as well. Private website is a private business. Memberships can be sold and that would make it private, no?
 
Either way, unless someone has been sued by just ONE relentless dumbass who either has pockets that are waaaaay too deep or a large organization willing to do the suing pro bono. Guess what? Regardless of how frivolous the litigation they can keep coming at you again and again and again. Unless you have the money (regardless of how UNFAIR and UNJUST IT IS) you either sit down, STFU, pony up and pay or move to another country. Regardless of what ya'll have been raised to believe this is THE REAL definition of "Truth, Justice and The American Way."

I'm watching this happen in the spinal implant business as we speak. Pedicle screws -- basically a bone screw with a swiveling head -- sell for $1,200 to $4,600 each (you need four of them). It's very simple stuff, and there are a few major suppliers and 95 little guys out there. Well if you're going to sell something that generates $4,000-$10,000 per procedure in profit, you've got to keep the little guys out. So what they do is just file one lawsuit after another. It's working like a charm too. We only do trauma implants, so we're just spectators to this train wreck. But it's funny listening to people complain about health insurance costs when IP attorneys are helping jack-up the cost of some relatively simple metal screws to 100x or more of their fair market cost.
 
I know. Dang...lol.

As an aside, when I was still in law school i clerked for a firm that defended some sexual harassment suits. One of the cases I jumped up and down and threw a FIT when they settled it. I wanted us to litigate it. The woman really WAS treated like shit by the men at this company. They were assholes, but it was all people equal or inferior to her. She NEVER said anything to anyone in managment and condceded that managment didn't know.

This was not the first sexual harassment settlement she had obtained, so one would think she would know that it isn't something the company is allowing if you don't every tell them about it.

Anyway, she got a big payday because they were worried that the jury would hear all the nasty things the employees did to her and demand that the COMPANY pay her for her troubles.
 
Here's about $5,000+ worth of screws. They are roughly an inch long.

xia_titanium1.jpg
 
That's exactly what I would argue as well. Private website is a private business. Memberships can be sold and that would make it private, no?

I think it's like a private club. If you establish a criteria that is defensible you can then provide a membership and restrict access based on membership. Don't all-white golf clubs pull it off by having members vote on prospective new members?
 
Another case that my colleagues didn't want to settle was against a nurse. She was crossing in the crosswalk. She had the right of way and was walking across. Other cars were stopped at the red light, but our genius client went barreling through and ran over her. She had stitches that looked like frankenstein all over her body. You should have seen the pictures of her in the hospital. I don't see how she lived. Well, she claimed that her career as a nurse was OVER because she could no longer lift anything. My dumb colleagues at the time wanted to take THAT case to a jury! Holy shit! I threw a fit to settle at the top of policy limits and be done with it. They eventually did just that.
 
Here's about $5,000+ worth of screws. They are roughly an inch long.

xia_titanium1.jpg
Jesus. Now that is a dishonest payday for some lawyers. No doubt.

People criticize me for what I do, but someone has to enforce mortgages or no one would give mortgages anymore. however, using the legal system to thwart free enterprise and line your own pockets. That is what is really wrong.
 
I'm watching this happen in the spinal implant business as we speak. Pedicle screws -- basically a bone screw with a swiveling head -- sell for $1,200 to $4,600 each (you need four of them). It's very simple stuff, and there are a few major suppliers and 95 little guys out there. Well if you're going to sell something that generates $4,000-$10,000 per procedure in profit, you've got to keep the little guys out. So what they do is just file one lawsuit after another. It's working like a charm too. We only do trauma implants, so we're just spectators to this train wreck. But it's funny listening to people complain about health insurance costs when IP attorneys are helping jack-up the cost of some relatively simple metal screws to 100x or more of their fair market cost.

That is taken right out of the play book of Andy Grove the master mind that made Intel so great and took AMD out a the knees during the 90's; even though AMD actually had a superior processor. Back then his book was a good read!
 
That is taken right out of the play book of Andy Grove the master mind that made Intel so great and took AMD out a the knees during the 90's; even though AMD actually had a superior processor. Back then his book was a good read!

Loser pays tort reform would fix a lot of that.
 
Ah come on what fun would that be! The attornies that make up the laws would never allow such a thing! Not in an Obama world!
 
Ah come on what fun would that be! The attornies that make up the laws would never allow such a thing! Not in an Obama world!

The legal industry would never go for it. It's too easy to say: "What about the little guy???". But if something like loser-pays tort reform was implemented, a secondary market for insuring cases would spring-up overnight. So a black-and-white case of discrimination or harassment might only need $100 to insure. But some ridiculous, far-fetched scheme to extort money from an employer may be uninsurable. That would be a quick way to discover the real legitimacy of a lawsuit.
 
Our company just finished a lawsuit. We were getting sued by a guy who's company we bought that promised us up to $50m is sales in three years. LOL After 9 months and zero revenue we kicked him to the curb. So he suid us for like $3M. We counter sued, etc... Ended up giving him $25k to go away.
 
Our company just finished a lawsuit. We were getting sued by a guy who's company we bought that promised us up to $50m is sales in three years. LOL After 9 months and zero revenue we kicked him to the curb. So he suid us for like $3M. We counter sued, etc... Ended up giving him $25k to go away.

Ahhh... the glorious milestone-driven earn-out company purchase plan.

Good stuff!
 
Lol @ bikinimom lecturing snackycakes on her ethical obligations to her clients.

LOL Not at all. Unfortunately I know WAY TOO MUCH about the law being a lay-person myself.

I was just wanting to clarify specifics for people who aren't lawyers and who don't have all the (unfortunate) experience that I have in many types of law: civil, family, criminal.

You know, when I was a kid up until just before I went to college I'd always wanted to either become a shrink or a lawyer. Knowing what I know now about myself, I would have been a damned FINE lawyer, but for the fact that I have morals. (No offense to snackycakes or stefka)
 
Why anyone would sue over a site as shitty as E-harmony is beyond me, but for the publicity.

I don't know ANYONE that like that site personally, and we are all very experienced E-daters, all of us... or should I say WERE. ;)
 
It would have a massively beneficial impact on society. People don't realize the hidden costs of our overly-litigious system.

Agreed...

Everyone is so damned sue-happy "just because they can."

Being sued in civil/family court is just insanely expensive (whether you did something improper or not - you WILL get fleeced). Whereas heaven forbid you are ever convicted of a crime that you did not commit. Then you get fleeced AND you get your life ruined.

My housekeeper put some polish on our wood floor in the dining room. The Old Grump slid across it shortly thereafter and said, "Honey could you say something to Mary about the floor? WTH did she put on it that made it so slippery?"

My answer? "Hell if I know. I don't clean the floor. You think I am going to know what the housekeeper cleans the floor with?... more importantly, what would possess you to even ask me such a thing?"

Old Grump = "What was I thinking? You're right hunnee."

Then I slip slide across the floor and think to myself, "Damn, I REALLY have to say something to Mary about what she put on the floor."

Housekeeper (who is a 50 yr old woman) goes flying the other day. I mean both feet fly out from underneath her, she lands on her behind and hits the back of her head into the wall.

How sad is the thought that the FIRST THOUGHT that entered my mind is, "I hope she's ok because the last thing I need on top of all the other legal bullshit is to get sued by my housekeeper."

THAT is sad. :(
 
Eharmony is stupid if they wont allow gays

Gays are where all the money is...horrible business plan IMHO
 
You know, when I was a kid up until just before I went to college I'd always wanted to either become a shrink or a lawyer. Knowing what I know now about myself, I would have been a damned FINE lawyer, but for the fact that I have morals. (No offense to snackycakes or stefka)


Says the stripper?

What was your LSAT score? Did you even go to college, let alone a competitive one?

lol



:cow:
 
Top Bottom