Quote :

"You don't have to assume this. This is EXACTLY what their algorithm does. Exactly. It's only taken me posting the same damn information 4 times for you to finally get it. They don't have to match homosexuals with other homosexuals. It's perfectly legal if their algorithm simply won't be able to find any matches. That has never been my argument, as again, it's only taken you two pages of textual diarrhea to figure out for yourself."

Wow. Either you are intentionally being obtuse or you simply just are that limited in your thinking.

Because I'm pretty sure the effective outcome to homosexual customers under this scenario would be exactly the same - the site would be useless to them. In fact, this would be a pretty retarded thing to sue about overall - "eHarmony won't provide me a service of matching me with partners whose gender I have no sexual interest anyway!" Put this way, do you realize what a dumb case this is to argue over?

Which seems to indicate that this is not the point. I highly doubt any gay person cares if they get rejected before being matched with opposite-sex partners. Nor does it in any way make sense for them in their settlement to provide a same-sex matching service.

Put your way, this isn't a civil rights case - it's a nuisance lawsuit. And anyone with half a notion of sense understands that yours is not the argument at hand.

Quote :

"You call me out for blustering, when you just wrote like 12 paragraphs filled with absolute non-sense?"

I love how what you either can't or won't bother to read the argument, dismissing it simply as "non-sense," even though you stop to count it.

Fortunately, at least everyone else in this forum can see a bluster for what it is.

Quote :

"So you see, even though you continue to bitch and moan about competition, and all the other nonsense and irrelevant superfluous crap to try and back your incorrect position, the law very simply states otherwise."

I know this is hard for you, so perhaps you should just stay back in Tech Talk, where complex issues involving the word "should" are never discussed. But you see, this debate is about how the law "should" be applied. Few people here are arguing about whether or not NJ law does apply, but whether laws like this should.

Stop and think about that one for a moment before spouting off to us just how smart you are. Again. It might make all that "superfluous crap" being discussed make a little more sense.

Quote :

"eHarmony excludes homosexuals from their service explicitly. A priori, if you want to use that term to make yourself feel better. It doesn't exclude them because it can't match them, it doesn't exclude them because they don't have the interface to match male-male or female-female. It excludes them because they are homosexual. This is publicly available information, that you can track down from a half hour of googling."

I think this issue has long since been settled since you got here last. But thanks for playing.

Quote :

"It is against New Jersey state law to do this, as well as almost every other state's laws."

New Jersey is the first state where this type of legal challenge has been successfully applied. It is noteworthy that is has been tried several times in California, but went nowhere. (Google is serving up stories dating back to 2006 and 2007 about several gay individuals trying.)

Quote :

"To be legally compliant, they do not have to cater to homosexuals. They simply have to remove the exclusionary practice from their site. It's perfectly fine to let them sign up, and provide 0 matches because their business logic doesn't have the ability to match homosexuals."

And again I ask then - what is the point of this remedy? It solves no social problem at all, and makes your whole complaint about discrimination trivial and petty.

In other words, instead of rejecting gays before they run the search, it effectively rejects them - as it does hetero outliers - after it goes through the motions of the search. Namely, because up until now, they didn't provide homosexual matching.

So, one scenario boots them before the algorithm, the other boots them after. How is this exactly solving a problem which keeps you awake at night and animates you enough to point a finger at others while shouting "bigotry!" The outcome is effectively the same: nobody gains anything.

In this case, the pre-exclusion works exactly as I had stated before - a data trigger; a pre-filter to the algorithm. But if you're not going to provide any matches, and you know this to be so, why pretend? To get around shallow interpretations of the law and people with itchy trigger fingers who like to yell "bigotry!"

I somehow doubt everyone takes as narrow of a view of this particular case as you.

Quote :

"Competition has nothing to do with it. Free association has nothing to do with it. Your assumptions about their business practices were at best ill-informed and at worst completely unchecked assumptions that you continued to mold and modify throughout your posts as you backpedaled. You are wrong."

Let's go back to that word "should" again. Because all that junk about "Free association" and "competition" have to do with that "should" word again - as in, "how should the law interact with society?"

How quick you are once again to declare anyone who disagrees with you "wrong" without even bothering to understand the argument at hand.

11/23/2008 10:46:19 PM

Quote :

"To be legally compliant, they do not have to cater to homosexuals. They simply have to remove the exclusionary practice from their site. It's perfectly fine to let them sign up, and provide 0 matches because their business logic doesn't have the ability to match homosexuals. "

And like I said, this just seems stupid. If their algorithm doesn't match people of the same sex, it's all ok, but since they just filter them out at the beginning its somehow wrong. Either way, someone makes the decision at some point in the process to not provide same sex matching, but the legality of this is entirely dependent on where in the code this decision lies.

Quote :

"It is unlawful for a person to refuse to buy from, sell to, contract or otherwise do business with an individual because of the individual's race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, marital status, domestic partnership status, liability for service in the Armed Forces of the United States, age, sex, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability or because of race, creed, national origin or other protected characteristics of the person's spouse, partners, employees, business associates, suppliers or customers."

Do you suppose that a marriage counselor would run afoul of this law for refusing service to dating couples? Or are they safe because their business is specifically in counseling married couples?

If they would be safe, why then can't eHarmony claim they are in the business of providing matching services for straight people?

11/23/2008 10:51:51 PM

Quote :

"b) It is against New Jersey state law to do this, as well as almost every other state's laws. "

Not North Carolina's state law. Our discrimination laws don't protect sexual orientation. I would wager more than half the other states don't protect it either.

11/24/2008 12:11:58 AM

Quote :

"Wow. Either you are intentionally being obtuse or you simply just are that limited in your thinking."

No, I completely understand the point you have repeatedly reiterated, I fundamentally disagree with you.

Quote :

"Which seems to indicate that this is not the point. I highly doubt any gay person cares if they get rejected before being matched with opposite-sex partners. Nor does it in any way make sense for them in their settlement to provide a same-sex matching service."

Funny, at least one guy did, and he won a settlement and as a result the company took swift action to provide an alternative service. Hmm.

Quote :

" So, one scenario boots them before the algorithm, the other boots them after. How is this exactly solving a problem which keeps you awake at night and animates you enough to point a finger at others while shouting "bigotry!" The outcome is effectively the same: nobody gains anything. In this case, the pre-exclusion works exactly as I had stated before - a data trigger; a pre-filter to the algorithm. But if you're not going to provide any matches, and you know this to be so, why pretend? To get around shallow interpretations of the law and people with itchy trigger fingers who like to yell "bigotry!" I somehow doubt everyone takes as narrow of a view of this particular case as you. "

There isn't a law about outcomes. The outcome is superfluous the argument at hand. If the outcome is the same, then so be it. You are making a classic slippery slope defense:

If a discriminatory practice MAY not have any different effect than a non-discriminatory one, then it's okay? The problem with this is as soon as discrimination becomes an argument of degree of violation, it's virtually impossible to enforce in a consistent, repeatable way. Which would be vastly more expensive and time-consuming to all parties. Which refutes yet another of your attempts to legitimize eHarmony's actions.

Here's an example for you:

A white man and black man walk up to a McDonald's drive-thru late at night. The black man gets to the window and the cashier says "I'm sorry sir, we cannot serve you because you are black". The black man is turned away, ashamed and embarrassed. The white man gets to the window and the cashier says "I'm sorry sir, we cannot serve you because you are not in a vehicle". The white man is turned away, pissed off because he doesn't have any food.

The same EFFECTIVE result. Neither man would have received service because of the policy of no walk ups at a drive-thru. But the black man was excluded a priori because of his race. That is discrimination, and the black man has ever right to sue over it.

You can argue degree of violation for a lot of offenses. And if this case had gone to trial I would absolutely see your point in determining the severity and penalty of eHarmony's violation. But it would not be a basis for rejecting the case entirely.


More tactics to change course. If everyone believed bigotry is ok, does that make it right? No, it just means there are a lot of bigots.

11/24/2008 12:22:26 AM

Quote :

"The same EFFECTIVE result. Neither man would have received service because of the policy of no walk ups at a drive-thru. But the black man was excluded a priori because of his race. That is discrimination, and the black man has ever right to sue over it."

Why is it ok to discriminate against people not in cars?

11/24/2008 12:26:27 AM

Quote :

"Not North Carolina's state law. Our discrimination laws don't protect sexual orientation. I would wager more than half the other states don't protect it either."

The states banning sexual orientation discrimination in some form or another are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Which works out to about 47% of the US population. So, for any national business, this would be something to keep in mind. To note, not all of the states with legislation have provisions for discrimination of business to consumer. But being that this thread is about New Jersey, where there is this provision, I didn't find it worthwhile to go look at the other 19 states to check.

^There were many reported cases of people walking up to drive-thru's, then proceeding to injure, rob or assault the cashiers. In a vehicle, it's much safer for the employees.

[Edited on November 24, 2008 at 12:50 AM. Reason : .]

11/24/2008 12:38:02 AM

Quote :

"How would you feel if it excluded blacks? (not saying I agree with this)"

you mean like some golf courses still do?

and some clubs?

private institutions man...

not that it's right at all of course, but still....

11/24/2008 12:47:41 AM

Quote :

"No, I completely understand the point you have repeatedly reiterated, I fundamentally disagree with you."

Which would be fine if you were even addressing the argument at hand in the prior post. Instead, you were prattling on about how you were right and everyone else was wrong and stupid. Right.

Quote :

"Funny, at least one guy did, and he won a settlement and as a result the company took swift action to provide an alternative service. Hmm."

Let's play this game, then. If his only problem was pre-exclusion, then why was the agreed-upon remedy an alternate service, rather than simply removing the pre-exclusion with no provided matching?

Hmmm... it's almost as if that's not the actual problem, here.

Quote :

"There isn't a law about outcomes. The outcome is superfluous the argument at hand. If the outcome is the same, then so be it. You are making a classic slippery slope defense: If a discriminatory practice MAY not have any different effect than a non-discriminatory one, then it's okay? The problem with this is as soon as discrimination becomes an argument of degree of violation, it's virtually impossible to enforce in a consistent, repeatable way. Which would be vastly more expensive and time-consuming to all parties. Which refutes yet another of your attempts to legitimize eHarmony's actions."

This has nothing to do with a slippery slope argument. My argument is that your framing of this case is a moot point.

They didn't provide matching for homosexual partners. Ergo, what would be the point of even running homosexual applicants through the algorithm when they weren't willing to provide a service to them? Such that they can say they "complied" with the letter of the law while delivering no social benefit?

Your framing of this problem makes absolutely no sense.

Quote :

"The same EFFECTIVE result. Neither man would have received service because of the policy of no walk ups at a drive-thru. But the black man was excluded a priori because of his race. That is discrimination, and the black man has ever right to sue over it."

Except this isn't exactly what was going on. eHarmony didn't provide a service to begin with - period. Your whole framing of this issue is that eHarmony took a shortcut - they don't provide a service, and therefore they short-circuited their algorithm for people they're not providing that service for.

I don't think it's a wild guess to say that gay men aren't interested in being paired with women, and vice versa.

To wit:

-eHarmony's service is based upon matching compatible partners
-eHarmony did not provide matching for homosexual partners
-Thus, by definition, eHarmony provided no services of value to homosexual applicants
-Given the above, eHarmony short-circuited their matching algorithm and simply rejected said applicants, namely because by definition, they would have no matches of interest to provide for them.

Your complaint is entirely in the fact that eHarmony did short-circuiting. Yet any complaint of discrimination towards this point makes absolutely no sense, especially not in the settlement. Otherwise, why would eHarmony settle in this fashion? They could have just as easily made a trivial modification to drop the pre-exclusion, run gays through the matches, then boot after the algorithm, and settled your complaint.

In other words, your particular framing makes this issue a moot point.

Thus, a reasonable person might be lead to conclude that your framing of this issue is incorrect. The issue that eHarmony did a pre-exclusion for a service they don't offer is trivial - the complaint here is in the fact that they don't offer this service. Hence, the resolved settlement.

11/24/2008 12:48:01 AM

Quote :

"Except this isn't exactly what was going on. eHarmony didn't provide a service to begin with - period. Your whole framing of this issue is that eHarmony took a shortcut - they don't provide a service, and therefore they short-circuited their algorithm for people they're not providing that service for. I don't think it's a wild guess to say that gay men aren't interested in being paired with women, and vice versa."

Yes it is. McDonald's doesn't offer a walk-up late night service to begin with. But if they deny the black man because he is black, BEFORE denying him because he isn't in a vehicle, that IS a discriminatory practice.

Your framing of the argument makes the assumption that eHarmony's algorithm cannot match same-sex couples, and that it would result in a waste of time for homosexual men. The inherent problem is in that assumption.

Because homosexuals are rejected before being matched, they, nor anyone else except eHarmony KNOWS what would happen if they weren't. The only way we would be able to ascertain that information for sure would be through court discovery, which eHarmony avoided by settling.

Quote :

"To wit: -eHarmony's service is based upon matching compatible partners -eHarmony did not provide matching for homosexual partners -Thus, by definition, eHarmony provided no services of value to homosexual applicants -Given the above, eHarmony short-circuited their matching algorithm and simply rejected said applicants, namely because by definition, they would have no matches of interest to provide for them. Your complaint is entirely in the fact that eHarmony did short-circuiting. Yet any complaint of discrimination towards this point makes absolutely no sense, especially not in the settlement. Otherwise, why would eHarmony settle in this fashion? They could have just as easily made a trivial modification to drop the pre-exclusion, run gays through the matches, then boot after the algorithm, and settled your complaint."

-Your third point makes the assumption that the a priori exclusion of homosexuals was due to a lack of capability in their system to handle same-sex couples. You have no interior knowledge what would happen in the absence of the a priori exclusion, so you cannot base logic on this point
-Your fourth point is thus also incorrect, because of the basis on a potentially false assumption to your previous point.

They would settle in this fashion to retain the trade secrecy of their algorithm. By offering an alternative service for homosexuals, they retain their competitive advantage and conform to the equality laws of New Jersey.

11/24/2008 1:04:34 AM

Quote :

"Yes it is. McDonald's doesn't offer a walk-up late night service to begin with. But if they deny the black man because he is black, BEFORE denying him because he isn't in a vehicle, that IS a discriminatory practice."

I'm fairly sure it'd be awfully difficult to establish discrimination in this case if this was the only case of discrimination - black folks walking up to the drive-through. The fact is, eHarmony didn't provide a particular service - at all. I don't see how it serves any social good for them to go through the motions to not provide a service.

Quote :

"Your framing of the argument makes the assumption that eHarmony's algorithm cannot match same-sex couples, and that it would result in a waste of time for homosexual men. The inherent problem is in that assumption."

Actually, I'm not even being that stringent. Let's assume it can. What I am assuming is the known facts at hand - eHarmony wouldn't provide that service at the time - for whatever reason. Maybe their algorithm can't do it. Maybe they really are just bigots. We'll never know, really.

But that's not important, either. The fact is, they didn't offer a service of matching same-sex partners at all. Whether they could have is both unknown and at this point immaterial - they fact was, they weren't until this point willing to offer this service.

Quote :

"Because homosexuals are rejected before being matched, they, nor anyone else except eHarmony KNOWS what would happen if they weren't. The only way we would be able to ascertain that information for sure would be through court discovery, which eHarmony avoided by settling."

Which, when you think about it, is probably the most likely reason they settled in the first place - to avoid anyone peeking at their proprietary algorithm.

Quote :

"-Your third point makes the assumption that the a priori exclusion of homosexuals was due to a lack of capability in their system to handle same-sex couples. You have no interior knowledge what would happen in the absence of the a priori exclusion, so you cannot base logic on this point"

Again, no. We needn't even be so specific - we simply take the known fact that they didn't provide this service. The algorithm may or may not have been able to do it. eHarmony claims it wasn't able to - which, as you and others have pointed out, would have been scrutinized in a discovery process. We don't know, but it doesn't really matter.

So, they don't provide a same-sex matching service, ergo they don't run homosexuals through their algorithm. This of course makes the assumption that self-identified homosexuals don't wish to be matched with opposite-sex partners, which perhaps some may quibble with - but I think is a fairly safe assumption.

Quote :

"-Your fourth point is thus also incorrect, because of the basis on a potentially false assumption to your previous point."

No, the only assumption here is that they won't, not that they can't. They did not provide same-sex matching (whether due to volition or incapability) prior to this suit, therefore they short-circuited their algorithm.

Assume they didn't short-circuit. The likely outcomes then are as follows - zero matches (like a hetero outlier (boot)), or matches of opposite-sex partners (useless). We had good indication that eHarmony would not provide same-sex matches - either because they couldn't or simply didn't want to.

Neither of these provides a useful improvement. And again - are we to believe that the plaintiff or the NJ courts would be peachy-keen with a resolution that provided this as an outcome - i.e., no or useless matches for homosexual applicants?

Quote :

"They would settle in this fashion to retain the trade secrecy of their algorithm. By offering an alternative service for homosexuals, they retain their competitive advantage and conform to the equality laws of New Jersey."

Again though - let's assume your framing is correct for a moment. All they would have to do, according to you, would be to drop the pre-exclusion, and then let the algorithm do whatever - including booting homosexuals after the match algorithm, or providing them with useless matches.

This was not the settlement. If it were simply about complying with the law per your framing, there's no reason this would be a part of the legal settlement. They might do it of their own volition, but then, why weren't they doing it in the first place?

Which, again, implies that it was part of the settlement because removing the pre-exclusion was deemed an insufficient remedy.

11/24/2008 1:24:28 AM

^The McDonalds example still stands. The only difference is a black man is protected in every state, whereas a gay man is only protected in a few.

My point on simply dropping the exclusion was in assuming the same thing you were assuming. That is, without the exclusion, there would simply be 0 matches.

However, there are MANY ways around that for a user. And again, it doesn't make a difference what the outcome of removing the exclusion is. It matters that it was in place at all. Fortunately for all involved, by settling out of court, the discriminatory practice in question is resolved in the best possible way: company keeps it's trade secrets, consumer not only gets included but is now also catered to, and yet more choice enters the marketplace.

Quote :

"Actually, I'm not even being that stringent. Let's assume it can. What I am assuming is the known facts at hand - eHarmony wouldn't provide that service at the time - for whatever reason. Maybe their algorithm can't do it. Maybe they really are just bigots. We'll never know, really. But that's not important, either. The fact is, they didn't offer a service of matching same-sex partners at all. Whether they could have is both unknown and at this point immaterial - they fact was, they weren't until this point willing to offer this service. "

So I am making the opposite end of the assumption. You assume they don't provide the service for technical/market reasons. I assume it's for sexual discrimination. The circumstantial evidence behind the founder, user base, and supporting organizations of the site points toward the latter assumption having potential validity. Which is very pertinent to the claim being made. The fact they weren't willing to offer the service is exactly why the guy's case had validity.

Quote :

"Again, no. We needn't even be so specific - we simply take the known fact that they didn't provide this service. The algorithm may or may not have been able to do it. eHarmony claims it wasn't able to - which, as you and others have pointed out, would have been scrutinized in a discovery process. We don't know, but it doesn't really matter."

Yes you HAVE to be more specific. Without discovery, it cannot be discerned whether their exclusionary practice was warranted by technical limitations, to save non-target users from wasting time, or an act of discrimination. You are right in that now it doesn't matter because the offending practice has been resolved.

Quote :

"No, the only assumption here is that they won't, not that they can't. They did not provide same-sex matching (whether due to volition or incapability) prior to this suit, therefore they short-circuited their algorithm. Assume they didn't short-circuit. The likely outcomes then are as follows - zero matches (like a hetero outlier (boot)), or matches of opposite-sex partners (useless). We had good indication that eHarmony would not provide same-sex matches - either because they couldn't or simply didn't want to. Neither of these provides a useful improvement. And again - are we to believe that the plaintiff or the NJ courts would be peachy-keen with a resolution that provided this as an outcome - i.e., no or useless matches for homosexual applicants?"

Won't is exactly the point of the suit. Won't they because they are bigots, or because they don't have the capability? We don't know, the guy who sued wanted to know, they settled, alternative provided.

Assume they didn't short circuit. You would see gay men signing up as men and women, in order to be matched giving the bounds of the system. This has happened in the past on other sites that didn't have explicit options for same-sex searches. Now I can see why eHarmony would reject homosexuals for that, because it would be circumventing the intended functionality of their system.

But that would provide a large amount of improved service for homosexuals. So there are more possible outcomes than the 0 match, or the hetero only matches.

[Edited on November 24, 2008 at 2:04 AM. Reason : .]

11/24/2008 1:59:15 AM

Quote :

"My point on simply dropping the exclusion was in assuming the same thing you were assuming. That is, without the exclusion, there would simply be 0 matches. However, there are MANY ways around that for a user. And again, it doesn't make a difference what the outcome of removing the exclusion is. It matters that it was in place at all."

But why? This is my question - why should this be our bone of contention? The equality arguments fall apart at this point - eHarmony, up until this point, wasn't going to offer a service to these people - either because they couldn't or simply wouldn't.

I don't see the point of agitating to remove the pre-exclusion as the sole remedy. As to whether or not they should be compelled to offer relevant services to same-sex partners as well as hetero partners is up for debate - but I just don't see what social equity issue is resolved by exclusively forcing them to drop the pre-exclusion for a service they didn't offer as the only remedy. Neither did the plaintiff.

Quote :

"So I am making the opposite end of the assumption. You assume they don't provide the service for technical/market reasons. I assume it's for sexual discrimination. The circumstantial evidence behind the founder, user base, and supporting organizations of the site points toward the latter assumption having potential validity. Which is very pertinent to the claim being made. The fact they weren't willing to offer the service is exactly why the guy's case had validity."

I don't think we even need to assume why they don't offer the service - that's my point. They claim one set of reasons, circumstantial evidence belies another. The fact was, they didn't.

On this point we seem to agree - this appears to be why the case went forward - eHarmony refused to offer the service. My contention is that this is what the court would have likely found went afoul of the law - the fact that they didn't offer the service, for whatever reason.

Quote :

"Yes you HAVE to be more specific. Without discovery, it cannot be discerned whether their exclusionary practice was warranted by technical limitations, to save non-target users from wasting time, or an act of discrimination. You are right in that now it doesn't matter because the offending practice has been resolved."

Let's put it another way, then. Let's assume the algorithm was fully capable of same-sex matches - eHarmony just didn't want to provide that service (we'll just assume they were bigots who would put ill-formed principles before profits).

Now, the question remains - would there still be a complaint if eHarmony just refused to perform same-sex matching? Again, we'll assume they can - but they don't want to provide that service. So, they only provide opposite-sex matches - despite a technical ability to do otherwise. In our hypothetical, gay folks aren't pre-screened, they just run through and get zero relevant matches.

Again - are we to believe that this practice would have gone unchallenged, particularly given the nature of this suit and its resolution? It seems like this entire claim of discrimination has turned upon eHarmony turning away a class of people before the algorithm, despite their not providing a service for these people to begin with (same-sex matching).

If they're never going to provide the service of value, why is it an issue then if they turn said folks away before running the algorithm? Again, unless not providing the service is what at issue. And why provide the alternative service as part of the settlement if the a priori screening was the only offending issue?

Quote :

"Assume they didn't short circuit. You would see gay men signing up as men and women, in order to be matched giving the bounds of the system. This has happened in the past on other sites that didn't have explicit options for same-sex searches. Now I can see why eHarmony would reject homosexuals for that, because it would be circumventing the intended functionality of their system. But that would provide a large amount of improved service for homosexuals. So there are more possible outcomes than the 0 match, or the hetero only matches."

I guess I don't understand your example, here. Assuming eHarmony was only providing opposite-sex matches (i.e., that their algorithm was only setup to provide these, or they only showed opposite-sex matches and suppressed same-sex matches), what would be the point of this exercise? To see if zero matches were found as an openly gay male versus as a female, thereby demonstrating either a flaw or a suppression? I'm confused as to the intent, here.

11/24/2008 2:27:55 AM

Quote :

"Noen: The states banning sexual orientation discrimination in some form or another are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin."

Red Fucking Herring

now you're attempting to intentionally confuse state benefits specific to housing and employment in a very limited, public sphere with a goddamned private dating website.

you really suck at this. go back to tech talk.




[Edited on November 24, 2008 at 2:39 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2008 2:38:27 AM

http://lezmatchmaker.com/

i'm suing.

this is exclusionary practice.

11/24/2008 11:25:58 AM

Why not just use the site as it was intended?


...please?

11/24/2008 11:27:31 AM

pics or it didn't happen

11/24/2008 11:38:24 AM

Quote :

"Red Fucking Herring now you're attempting to intentionally confuse state benefits specific to housing and employment in a very limited, public sphere with a goddamned private dating website. you really suck at this. go back to tech talk."

We are only discussing New Jersey here. No red herring. moron postulated about other states, I pointed him to the other states with SOME kind of consumer protection so he could investigate if he wanted.

Quote :

"But why? This is my question - why should this be our bone of contention? The equality arguments fall apart at this point - eHarmony, up until this point, wasn't going to offer a service to these people - either because they couldn't or simply wouldn't. "

The equality arguments do not fall apart there. If the reason they were not offering a service to same-sex couples was because of a bigoted viewpoint, then that is an illegal act by NJ law. It makes absolutely no difference whether, after the removal of that exclusionary practice, the site specifically caters to homosexuals.

Quote :

"but I just don't see what social equity issue is resolved by exclusively forcing them to drop the pre-exclusion for a service they didn't offer as the only remedy. Neither did the plaintiff."

It's treating a homosexual as a non-equal citizen. The plaintiff never would have had an argument if they didn't have the exclusionary practice in place to begin with.

Quote :

"If they're never going to provide the service of value, why is it an issue then if they turn said folks away before running the algorithm? Again, unless not providing the service is what at issue. And why provide the alternative service as part of the settlement if the a priori screening was the only offending issue? ... I guess I don't understand your example, here. Assuming eHarmony was only providing opposite-sex matches (i.e., that their algorithm was only setup to provide these, or they only showed opposite-sex matches and suppressed same-sex matches), what would be the point of this exercise? To see if zero matches were found as an openly gay male versus as a female, thereby demonstrating either a flaw or a suppression? I'm confused as to the intent, here."

The point is, people use tools and services all the time for things outside the bounds of original intent. Other same-sex targeted matching services have, in the past, been used this way so that homosexuals were included. This wasn't accommodation by the business, it was ingenuity of the consumer. The pre-exclusion of homosexuals nullifies the capability of the consumer to use a service to suit their needs.

It's basically a difference of offense versus punishment to me. If you park legally, no worries. If you are over your time limit on the meter by a fraction of a second, you get hit with the full force of the enforcement law. A similar thing seems to have happened here (in my eyes).

My opinion is that, because it made it to court, the NJ attorney general laid down the hammer. Reading the settlement it really took eHarmony to the cleaners in terms of legal obligations to remain out of court. They are also being sued similarly in California, though I imagine that suit will be dismissed because of the settlement terms of this one.

Quote :

"http://lezmatchmaker.com/ i'm suing. this is exclusionary practice. "

On the front page, you can immediate search for "I am a man searching for a woman" and it will show you heterosexual results.

11/24/2008 2:02:19 PM

Quote :

"The equality arguments do not fall apart there. If the reason they were not offering a service to same-sex couples was because of a bigoted viewpoint, then that is an illegal act by NJ law. It makes absolutely no difference whether, after the removal of that exclusionary practice, the site specifically caters to homosexuals."

But this still makes no sense. If eHarmony wanted to go on the line of mustering a technical argument (again, ignoring the circumstantial evidence here and relying solely upon their public statements), by this logic, discrimination is okay - because it's technical.

Motivation for exclusion seems like a murky and insufficient standard, here. Again - why else was the remedy for eHarmony to start a spinoff site? I don't think the pre-exclusion was the only issue found legally questionable per NJ law, here. Otherwise, there was no reason for this to be part of the settlement.

Quote :

"It's treating a homosexual as a non-equal citizen. The plaintiff never would have had an argument if they didn't have the exclusionary practice in place to begin with."

If eHarmony booted every homosexual who ran through their algorithm regardless or simply refused to provide a same-sex matching service, I'm pretty sure these same people would still be upset, and for the same reason.

Look, this whole "non-equal citizen" argument doesn't seem to carry a lot of weight, here. eHarmony chose not to offer a service - same-sex matching, and therefore provided no means of accessing said service. They pre-excluded because, by their logic, there was no reason to run through people who by definition would be guaranteed rejection - because they weren't providing a service for them.

It'd be like Curves for Women rejecting my membership application. Doesn't matter if I have stellar credit and the ability to pay - they don't offer any services to me, as a man: they're a women's gym. It doesn't mean it's bigotry or I'm a second-class citizen - it means that by definition, they offer no services for me: processing my application would be a waste of time.

Quote :

"The point is, people use tools and services all the time for things outside the bounds of original intent. Other same-sex targeted matching services have, in the past, been used this way so that homosexuals were included. This wasn't accommodation by the business, it was ingenuity of the consumer. The pre-exclusion of homosexuals nullifies the capability of the consumer to use a service to suit their needs."

I guess I still don't understand the case, here. If eHarmony wants to block attempts to use their service in a manner other than intended, that is their right and they're well within the law on that particular point. The issue that ran them afoul of the law, according to you, is that they pre-dumped same-sex match applicants. Had they simply post-dumped them, this wouldn't be an issue, according to you. But whether or not the law protects the right of individuals to exploit a site outside of its given parameters is not really at issue, as I see it.

Again, though- this logic makes no sense in light of the settlement: otherwise, to be in compliance with the law, they'd have simply had to alter the pre-exclusion condition. Instead, they have been mandated per the settlement to go far beyond that, and setup a parallel service that up until now they've shown no interest in providing.

Quote :

"It's basically a difference of offense versus punishment to me. If you park legally, no worries. If you are over your time limit on the meter by a fraction of a second, you get hit with the full force of the enforcement law. A similar thing seems to have happened here (in my eyes)."

Which would account for punitive damages and lawyer's fees, but not for the actual resolved settlement. Again, assuming the case turned solely upon the pre-exclusion criteria, it makes no sense for the parallel service to come up in the settlement - it is essentially irrelevant. The fact that it did appear is again evidence that this case was about more than simply whether or not one could search for matches as an openly homosexual individual.

11/24/2008 2:25:52 PM

Quote :

"^There were many reported cases of people walking up to drive-thru's, then proceeding to injure, rob or assault the cashiers. In a vehicle, it's much safer for the employees."

Nice dodge, but why don't you try to actually answer the question. Why is it not ok to discriminate against skin color, sexual orientation etc, but ok to discriminate against people based on other things (like being ugly for instance, or being an asshole).

11/24/2008 4:08:42 PM

^Serving black people doesn't depend on anything other than having the food available. Let's bring back that kosher example.....if a Hassidic Jew drives up to a drive through and orders a kosher meal then they're not going to get served because McDonalds doesn't serve kosher food. Now if that person was really hungry and said, 'fuck it, gimmie whatever you've got' the drive-thru person isn't gonna say, "Well, I'm sorry, we don't serve kosher jews", he's gonna say, "OK, enjoy your meal". Now if when driving up there was a big sign on the window that said, 'We don't serve kosher food' then the Jew is probably going to be glad they didn't waste their time waiting in line....OR they will decide that it doesn't matter cause they're hungry.

So when a gay person goes to eHarmony, they are effectively 'waiting in line for the drivethru' only to find out once they get to the order window, that they don't have gay people to match them with so unless they want to order a straight match, they're not going to get what they want. The fact that they don't have the gay option at the very beginning of the questionnaire is actually something they should be happy about because it would suck if you filled out a long ass survey and THEN be told it was all for shit.

And as for the example about the country clubs...there is a CC near where my parent's place is in AZ that doesn't have ANY Jews or Black people. As a matter of fact Charles Barkley had wanted to join the place a while back and was denied so clearly the CC didn't give a shit about negative PR. And clearly the people who belong there are quite happy being with their 'own kind' and don't see it a good thing to mix with anyone else. Same goes for eHarmony.

11/24/2008 4:53:13 PM

Quote :

"It'd be like Curves for Women rejecting my membership application. Doesn't matter if I have stellar credit and the ability to pay - they don't offer any services to me, as a man: they're a women's gym. It doesn't mean it's bigotry or I'm a second-class citizen - it means that by definition, they offer no services for me: processing my application would be a waste of time."

I'm pretty sure that, at least in NJ, Curves is in violation of the LAD.

11/24/2008 5:48:30 PM

Quote :

"Nice dodge, but why don't you try to actually answer the question. Why is it not ok to discriminate against skin color, sexual orientation etc, but ok to discriminate against people based on other things (like being ugly for instance, or being an asshole)."

Gonna have to take that question up with civil liberties groups. I could actually see merit in anti-ugly, but being an asshole is your own personal choice. You choose to be an asshole, and suffer the repercussions of your choice.

11/24/2008 5:52:15 PM

Quote :

"^Serving black people doesn't depend on anything other than having the food available. Let's bring back that kosher example.....[blah blah]....OR they will decide that it doesn't matter cause they're hungry."

If you want the appropriate correlation to Jewish people, it would be by replacing "black" with "Jew".

Quote :

"So when a gay person goes to eHarmony, they are effectively 'waiting in line for the drivethru' only to find out once they get to the order window, that they don't have gay people to match them with so unless they want to order a straight match, they're not going to get what they want. The fact that they don't have the gay option at the very beginning of the questionnaire is actually something they should be happy about because it would suck if you filled out a long ass survey and THEN be told it was all for shit."

No they aren't. They go to order, and are first asked "are you gay?". Then are refused service. No choice or say in the matter.

What if you had a take a huge dump, but all the women's restrooms were out of order and a guard was standing at all the men's restrooms. You walk up, he asks "are you a woman?" and you say "HELL YES I AM ABOUT TO SHIT MY PANTS". To which he replies "Sorry, these are men's rooms, you can't go in". You should be happy he didn't give you the choice to go use a men's toilet rather than shitting your pants.

Quote :

"And clearly the people who belong there are quite happy being with their 'own kind' and don't see it a good thing to mix with anyone else. Same goes for eHarmony."

And clearly those people need to be publicly outed for their blatant racism.

11/24/2008 6:02:05 PM

So I just went to mypartner.com and tried to find me a match....and wouldn't you know it but they apparently don't even have an option for what gender I want? Isn't this the same shit as eHarmony?

11/26/2008 2:28:11 PM

Yep, and I'd say you'd have a case if you were a straight NJ resident who wanted access to their services.

11/26/2008 6:04:16 PM

^But eHarmony was found not to have violated any NJ laws.....

11/26/2008 6:06:47 PM

i still am confused as to why anyone can tell anyone else who the hell they have to offer their services to. forgive me, but that is wrong. continue

11/27/2008 5:52:30 PM

11/27/2008 7:14:51 PM

WHAT OF WHITE'S ARE YOU SERVING?

11/27/2008 8:05:01 PM

Quote :

"Since homosexuality is a normal, healthy, natural orientation, just like heterosexuality, it doesn't make sense for homosexuals to be excluded."

does not compute

homosexuality is not a natural orientation...it's a choice

11/27/2008 8:05:48 PM

yeah, well, that's where you're wrong.

and while people such as yourself may never personally accept it, people like you who believe these fallacies are doomed to become a tiny group who are ridiculed and ostracized by the rest of society.




[Edited on November 27, 2008 at 11:06 PM. Reason : ]

11/27/2008 11:05:25 PM

^
100% correct, sir.
It's like these guys (TKE-Teg and Ansonian) are still using rotary phones..... they're trapped in the past. Funny, but sad. Did you notice how neither has really contributed anything substantial to the thread? They can't.



[Edited on November 28, 2008 at 9:24 AM. Reason : (oh, and I didn't strawman BridgetSPK. Thanks for the defense aaronburro.)]

11/28/2008 9:17:24 AM

Quote :

"yeah, well, that's where you're wrong."

proof? nope, you don't have any.

Quote :

" "

I knew someone was gonna play the old jim crow card. And, guess what, if someone wants to be an idiot and exclude darkies from their restaurant, then let em. Let other people gobble up that market share

11/28/2008 1:48:49 PM

Quote :

"I knew someone was gonna play the old jim crow card. And, guess what, if someone wants to be an idiot and exclude darkies from their restaurant, then let em. Let other people gobble up that market share "

That might work now, but it wouldn't have worked back in the days.

Quote :

""yeah, well, that's where you're wrong." proof? nope, you don't have any. "

The vast majority of the research points to it NOT being a choice, and i've never actually heard of ANY research that suggested it was mostly a choice. So... you're wrong.

11/29/2008 12:05:31 AM

[Just to be clear here -- it's your position that businesses shouldn't actually have to abide by the law?]

I think people are getting confused with hiring practices......that would be illegal. But a business should be able to offer/sell/buy/trade/etc...whatever they want to.

And everyone ends up settling in a lawsuit just b/c it's cheaper than drawing the trial out. They were basically pressured into it.

If he really wanted eharmony to start a homosexual offer then whatever happened to simply emailing them or a petition??? I'm sure they would have done it but to be so hostile about it is stupid and it makes him look bad. No different than the christians that go off on every single childrens movie or book. Or the politicians who bomb all the time. Or the woman who sued mcdonalds for her coffee being too hot. She would have complained if it was luke warm! There is no pleasing people.

Just melodrama! Realize your own hypocritcy sometimes.

11/30/2008 3:32:34 PM

Quote :

"If he really wanted eharmony to start a homosexual offer then whatever happened to simply emailing them or a petition??? I'm sure they would have done it but to be so hostile about it is stupid and it makes him look bad."

eHarmony has been openly hostile about accepting gays, and they continue to be. I'm sure this is just to make their supporters in the religious community content (because I doubt they care that they'll be making money from the gays) though.

Quote :

"Or the woman who sued mcdonalds for her coffee being too hot."

Sheesh, this case actually has LOTS of merit, if you read up on what the issues were.

[Edited on November 30, 2008 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ]

11/30/2008 4:41:54 PM

^^ I can't recall if you're an alias/troll or just a fucking retard, but do you really think this is the first time anybody's asked eHarmony to end their discrimination against homosexuals? Really? It just hadn't occurred to anybody beforehand?

11/30/2008 4:45:32 PM

^ I don't think she's an alias or troll, just a n00b.

She hasn't learned the difference yet between facts, assertions, and opinions, and doesn't seem to have the finely honed logical reasoning skills a veteran Soap Boxer would have .

11/30/2008 4:47:47 PM

Quote :

"That might work now, but it wouldn't have worked back in the days."

It could have worked then, but there were some things that needed to be changed, especially the practice of not lending to blacks. I can see that being wrong, even though a bank is generally, by definition, a private entity. But, I can make an exception for even that, as the bank is supported by an FDIC guarantee, and thus should be subject to gov't regulations. Anyway, it most certainly could have worked then, but it obviously might not have occurred as fast as it did. However, the ends don't justify the means, even in that case. I think we would have been better off if we allowed it to happen more slowly with private businesses, because that would be overwhelming public disapproval of bigotry, and that, to me, would be far more effective at stamping out such bigotry than any gov't laws could hope to achieve. Damn, what a run-on sentence

Quote :

"The vast majority of the research points to it NOT being a choice, and i've never actually heard of ANY research that suggested it was mostly a choice. So... you're wrong."

Of course the research points to that. No gov't will fund any study to show that homosexuality is a choice. Shocker, most research tends to come to the conclusion desired by its funders. That and the fact that we desire to make nothing anyone's fault today makes me skeptical of such research.

11/30/2008 9:43:56 PM

Quote :

"Of course the research points to that. No gov't will fund any study to show that homosexuality is a choice. Shocker,"

Woah there salisburyboy...

Quote :

" most research tends to come to the conclusion desired by its funders."

Do you have proof of this? Of the existing research, what flaws do you find to indicate biases?

Quote :

"That and the fact that we desire to make nothing anyone's fault today makes me skeptical of such research. "

I'm thinking it's mostly your trolling nature, or plain irrationality that causes you to disbelieve the studies.

11/30/2008 10:22:10 PM

Twin studies show that sexual orientation cannot be purely genetic. Identical twins have the same genes, yet sometimes different orientations. What research suggest homosexuality isn't a choice? (And what does that even mean?)

This recent fixation on the gay gene strikes me as the wrong strategy. "Look, I know being queer kinda sucks, but it's not my fault, okay?" While it might dissuade a few would-be bigots, that's not the path to liberation.

11/30/2008 10:57:58 PM

^ genetic != congenital

11/30/2008 11:11:15 PM

^ What's your point?

Also, how do you handle the queers who say they chose the lifestyle? Gloria Anzaldúa would be one example.

11/30/2008 11:21:10 PM

^ a very small minority of gays say it's a choice for them, I just ignore the ones who say they DID choose, like I would a straight person who claimed they specifically chose to be straight.

11/30/2008 11:26:07 PM

^ Do you have a poll handy? Also, I'd like to see these studies claiming t3h gh3y isn't a choice. (Again, whatever that means.) I say it's mostly cultural, along with everything else related to sex and gender. Various historical societies thought men should be attracted to boys. Look the Greeks of long ago. Environment and genes together determine our behavior.

In short, straight people can be cured.

11/30/2008 11:34:16 PM

^ You can pick any study on this issue to find these theories.

If you're still a student, you should have online access to various journal databases through the library.

If you're not a student, I suppose I could dig up some pdfs for you.

[Edited on November 30, 2008 at 11:38 PM. Reason : ]

11/30/2008 11:38:01 PM

^ I don't have library access anymore, sadly. Is nothing out there on the open web?

11/30/2008 11:42:17 PM

^ i'm sure there is but it's been getting harder to find stuff with Google considering how broad of a topic this is...

11/30/2008 11:44:16 PM

There's plenty of misguided propaganda on the subject, no doubt about that. With few exceptions, only queer haters attack all the gay gene nonsense. Politics makes strange bedfellows, as always.

11/30/2008 11:46:53 PM

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XgL89Ve48t4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA195&dq=homosexuality&ots=jV9rUg2qA5&sig=3N_BmpsGK8CdD5mWmtzvLLGxPII#PPA196,M1

Here is an older study that discusses yet even older studies, but it touches on homosexuals identifying themselves at early ages, usually against hostile backgrounds.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=info:CQRS8kob2DoJ:scholar.google.com/&output=viewport&pg=1

This study (also quite old) seems to show that identical twins are highly concordant for homosexuality too.

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 12:01 AM. Reason : ]

11/30/2008 11:53:33 PM