TheAgitator.com
eHarmony
Thursday, November 20th, 2008I’m with my colleague Jacob Sullum on this one.
I’ll stand arm in arm with the gay rights crowd when it comes to demanding equality under the law. But forcing a private dating service to spend money to reconfigure its website and retool its matchmaking formula to accommodate homosexuals isn’t a civil rights issue. It’s petulant and silly.
Ultimately, it’ll also be counterproductive. Because if feeds into the (usually, but not always incorrect) claim that the gay rights crowd is forcing its lifestyle onto others. I won’t go so far as to say, as some on the right have, that heterosexuals should sue to force gay dating sites to set up separate sections for straights, because I don’t think gay dating sites should have to stoop to this bullshit, either. Freedom of association means that when private parties choose to associate with one another, some people will under some circumstances be excluded. Deal with it.
It’s too bad eHarmony caved.
Given what happens to anyone who raises any kind objection, no mater how soundly reasoned, to the gay rights lobby, I’m not surprised they caved.
As a gay man, I agree that it’s petulant and silly. It also hurts us when we are fighting for REAL civil rights. There’s no reason eHarmony should’ve been sued in the first place. The suit should’ve been thrown out.
It seems that whenever someone say and or does anything not pc.
We can expect an apologie or a reversal of the the former opinion or stance. I am all for Gay,Disabled,Minority,etc. equal rights. Equal not special. If the constitution was enforced then there would be no need for all this BS.
eHarmony is being sued in California in a class-action lawsuit over the exact same issue.
The simple fact is, the gay rights lobby DOES want to force its lifestyle onto others. You should know better by know that such is their entire motivation. They don’t want mere freedom, they want to shut down anyone who doesn’t accept them. Ultimately, it’s an anti-freedom agenda.
Same thing goes for the Christian lobby, they want to force their “lifestyle on the rest of the nation.
I would say it is more accurate to say that about the Christian lobby than the gay rights lobby. I don’ t think that this is a case of forcing a lifestyle on anyone. No one thinks everyone should be gay. It is a problem of people not getting the distinction between negative and positive rights. They think that having rights means being able to force someone else to give you something.
I may be mistaken, but I believe I saw eHarmony ads in the UK a year ago that were clearly marketing to gays…….
If they were able to figure out how to market to that segment of society in one corner of the Western World, but unable to in another, well, that just shows that they not only silly, but stupid, too.
@Sydney
Whenever I hear “want to force its lifestyle onto others” it usually means they don’t like that Will and Grace is on TV. Or they opened up their newspaper and saw a same-sex couple announcing their nuptials. Or don’t like the fact that I put a picture of my boyfriend on my desk. Usually nothing has ever been “forced” on you. You just don’t like the Gays and you want us silent because you don’t lose anything by it.
It reminds me of an old episode on LA Law in which Stuart Markowitz girlfriends mother had a problem with Jews even though not a single bad thing has ever happened to her from any Jewish person. After suffering the thousandth disparaging remark at some family event Stuart finally flipped and knocked over her China cabinet. He said “now you have something to be made at us about”. I am close to doing that to a relative or two of mine….
saying all that – this lawsuit is silly and absurd. But many of my leftist gay friends do honestly see it as a civil rights issue.
You should know better by know that such is their entire motivation. They don’t want mere freedom, they want to shut down anyone who doesn’t accept them. Ultimately, it’s an anti-freedom agenda.
This is exactly what bigots in the 50’s and early 60’s said when blacks demanded that they be treated equally under the law. It’s exactly what they said when they opposed laws allowing mixed race marriage. Sydney, you’re a blast from the past, man!
In the spirit of peddling ludicrous conservative fears I think that if eHarmony caved on this then we should also lobby for them to cater to people and animals who want to date too. Why should they be denied their chance at happiness?
Oh, and don’t forget people who want to marry their sisters (well, I guess you don’t need a matching service for that), and polygamists.
Rulings like this aim to advance tolerance, but usually do the opposite.
-It only confirms the homophobe’s worst fears that the gays will force their lifestyle upon them. Those who are agnostic are more likely to follow.
-For the gay community, it sends the signal that change should come through the courts rather than public opinion. That worked out so well in California, didn’t it?
-In the end, this ruling sets back public opinion, but doesnt give the gay community something it doesnt already have.
Once again the fundamental issue revolves around the abuse of language and its meaning, specifically “discrimination”. It is through the human process of discrimination that individual values are determined, pursued and attained. Indeed, it the very *function* of eHarmony to facilitate individual “discrimination”; the ability to find a compatible human partner based on race, religion, politics, hair color, favorite breed of dog, etc,…
The vital concept of ‘discrimination’ needs to be rescued here.
“I’ll stand arm in arm with the african americans when it comes to demanding equality under the law. But forcing a private dating service to spend money to reconfigure its website and retool its matchmaking formula to accommodate blacks isn’t a civil rights issue. It’s petulant and silly.”
Put in those terms we see that Radley’s argument is petulant and silly.
The exact same “freedom of association” arguments to defend discrimination against racial minorities for decades. Or are you arguing that businesses don’t have to accept black customers?
It is clear that discrimination in “public accomodations” can’t be tolerated in a free society because it the result is limits on the freedom of groups. The only question here is whether or not eHarmony is a “public accomodation”. If it is then it shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate.
Now, now folks, it doesn’t have to be an either/or scenario. Both religious right organizations and certain groups in the gay community are trying to force themselves on people.
The worst part to me, as a gay marriage supporter, is that this is exactly what the Yes on 8 folks were warning folks about out here. They had signs that said “Vote Yes on 8 to support free speech.” This really isn’t helping at all.
The exact same “freedom of association” arguments to defend discrimination against racial minorities for decades. Or are you arguing that businesses don’t have to accept black customers?
Correct me if I’m wrong, since I was born in 1970, but by my understanding the businesses that refused service to blacks were generally in areas where the local constabulary would not have appreciated their doing otherwise. Absent government interference, marketplaces will tend to do away with irrational discrimination (though to be sure they may not always do so quickly). I would suggest that while it may be useful for the government to nudge markets in a direction they’re going anyway, for the government to force the markets will often do more harm than good.
Imagine, for example, that five years before Jackie Robinson came on the scene, Major League Baseball had passed a rule requiring every team to have at least one black player. Would Jackie Robinson ever have received any attention? Or would teams have simply gotten in the habit of hiring some token person to fill the ‘black player’ spot, and never bothered to look whether they could actually find anyone that could play well.
It was difficult for Jackie Robinson to break into baseball, but because of that, he got some attention and respect. Even people who were prejudiced against blacks would realize that Jackie Robinson must have been pretty incredible to be hired despite his color.
Likewise, the greats of jazz became accepted in white social clubs not because anyone demanded ‘fairness’ in hiring, but because they were good enough performers that even white audiences wanted to see them so badly enough that they were willing to go into black areas to do so. Had there been a law that white social clubs had to hire a black performer for a night each week, the clubs would have put on a ‘black performer night’, but likely wouldn’t have lured any audience. And with no audience, clubs would have had no incentive to find good performers to fill that time.
Free association works. Not always as quickly as some might like, but with far less friction. Forced association reinforces negative stereotypes, and removes the incentives for groups to earn respect.
Actually Sydney is sort of right.
If a person wants to be a bigot, then they should be allowed. If they want to run their business that way, then fine. By the same token you are allowed to shun them both in terms of business and in terms of social interaction. You can heap scorn on them and tell them you don’t like their views.
The problem is that the government looks at all the federal monies flowing into state and local governments, the commerce clause and feel that they can tell people how to do things with their private property and affairs. Not only can this work in favor of one group (blacks, gays, etc.) it can also work in precisely the opposite direction (again, blacks and gays come to mind).
I have to say I find the inconsistency amusing. Syndey writes a post and gets quite a few negatives. Will flips it to the Christians and gets quite a few positives yet, they are different sides of the same coin (well a hyper-dimensional coin given all the special interest groups).
That being said, I don’t think the “gay lobby” wants to force its lifestyle on anyone else. I don’t think they want to force people to be gay. But there is an element within that community that sure does want to force people to accept them even if they don’t want too. Freedom of thought, speech and association are meaningless if you think that the idea of forcing people to accept others is the right way to go.
bobzbob,
Uhhhmmm no. You seem to have missed an important point. The racial discrimination against blacks and other people of color (misegenation was illegal for quite some time) was codified in law. That is, it was something the government enforced. The freedom of association says basically, “You get to hang with whomever you want, and nobody can stop you, not even the government.” So if you wanted to start a business that catered to the gay life style (dating, job placement, etc.) you can. You could also create one for blacks, or hispanics, or even…yes whites. If you believe in the concept of freedom of association.
If you don’t like this idea, especially the last one, then you don’t believe in the freedom of association. Since it is a form of freedom, it logically follows you are, at least to some degree, anti-freedom.
eHarmony didn’t cave. They found a way to expand into a new, profitable, market without offending their core of customers, adn get rid of some litigation at the same time. Good business all around.
I agree and disagree.
I completely agree that forcing through legislation or civil threats is wrong. A business should be able to run itself however it wants.
Where I disagree is whether it’s “petulant and silly” to want a company to treat people equally. I full agree it’s eHarmony’s right to ignore homosexuals, I just happen to think it’s stupid. And therefore I wouldn’t want to use such a company.
so bobzbob,
You’re implying that someone who creates a service to target a specific market based with a specific marketing plan is invalid? So what you are saying is that this merchant should be forced to create a product specifically for whites right? I mean *fair* is *fair* right? We don’t want to discriminate against anyone right?
If a person wants to be a bigot, then they should be allowed. If they want to run their business that way, then fine. By the same token you are allowed to shun them both in terms of business and in terms of social interaction. You can heap scorn on them and tell them you don’t like their views.
I agree 100% with this. Where Sydney was wrong was when he said this:
The simple fact is, the gay rights lobby DOES want to force its lifestyle onto others. You should know better by know that such is their entire motivation. They don’t want mere freedom, they want to shut down anyone who doesn’t accept them. Ultimately, it’s an anti-freedom agenda.
While the lawsuit that inspired this post shows that there are some homosexuals who want to shut down people who don’t accept them, it’s ridiculous to say that this is what the “gay rights lobby” wants, because the “gay rights lobby” is made up of a variety of individuals who have different goals. The one goal they’re in agreement on is equal protection under the law, which they don’t have right now. To suggest that all homosexuals want to “shut down anyone who doesn’t accept them” is bigoted and baseless.
“The exact same “freedom of association” arguments to defend discrimination against racial minorities for decades. Or are you arguing that businesses don’t have to accept black customers?”
Yes, I am defending that right for business owners. Also the right not to accept white customers, fat customers, skinny customers, people with glasses, people without glasses, Ad infinitum…….
If the right of freedom of association does not include the freedom not to associate, it is worthless.
How is a libertarian like a homosexual?
He has an appendage stuck in an orifice of the same gender.
How is a libertarian unlike a homosexual?
Its his appendage and his orifice.
Yes the appendage is his head and the orifice is … you get the picture.
Libertarians are in denial. They think that culture is completely divorced from personal freedom and that a culture without constraints (i.e. no culture) is a free one.
Hmmm Why does an image of Pol Pot keep jumping into my head?
Demanding that nobody discriminates against you is one thing, while demanding that everyone caters to you is another thing. It’s ludicrous for gays to demand that heterosexual world has a duty to find dates for them and to then enslave people to facilitate their social life.
It’s not just the right to conduct business as they choose, it’s the right to work to excel in that business. What eHarmony wants is no different than other contractors who only want to work on a fixed spectrum of projects at which they excel. A plumber shouldn’t be asked to work on electrical projects, .
It was my understanding that eHarmony is explicitly in the matchmaking (read marriage) business, and are not in the “It’s OK to look” business. If you sign up with eHarmony you had better be ready to settle down. As such they’ve held back on working with gay couples because they a) don’t think their current “compatibility method” will be as effective for gays as it is for straight couples and b) Marriage between gay couples, and even civil unions are still a twitchy business. If they want to do this, and can do so without it backfiring, they will have to have to do research that will produce results on par with their straight successes (if they are all the ads say they are). If eHarmony’s street cred is making matches that work for the long haul is sacrificed for a rush job just to make angry gays happy, that would work to the disadvantage serious gays wanting a long-term match (not a hookup, affair, or a friend with benefits), not to mention eHarmony as a business. I can see it now: “if you’re straight and want marriage or are just gay and want a quickie in a bathroom stall, just call us!” I don’t think so.
Thug rule, baby.
I DON’T patronize a business here in my town because the ower is an avowed racist. He makes great BBQ, but I will not buy any nor will my wife. We are both white, but will NOT give this man ANY of our money.
That is what freedom is about.
When it comes to actual legal rights such as those given to gays through civil partnerships I don’t have a problem with it. But to call marriage a right is, regardless of what one may wish, inaccurate. It’s a priviledge. If it were a right then no one would need a license for it. The fact that I need a license to drive makes it a priviledge, not a right.
The trouble I have, and this post hits it right on the head, is the intrusion of the state into religious belief and practice. If gay marriage could be legalized in such a way that religions would not be forced to accept or perform those marriages it might not be a problem. After all, some religions accept gay marriage and would be more than happy to perform it. Just as some dating websites accept gays (and some cater specifically TO gays) and are happy to provide them service.
But this eHarmony suit shows that even if the gay lobby could accept that compromise, there will always someone out there who is going to force the issue. Someone is going to use the courts to try to force churches to perform gay marriages, even though those churches believe it to be a violation of their beliefs.
I happen to belong to a church that believes that ANY sexual sin disqualifies one for marriage. We must uphold a specific level of morality to be allowed to marry. If someone forces us by law to grant marriage to one group of “sexual sinners” that directly contradicts and inhibits our practice of religion.
I for one don’t hate gays–heck I hardly even give them a passing thought. But if the choice is between “discriminating” against a specific group by not granting a priviledge they desire and protecting my right to worship and practice my religion then I’ll cast my vote in favor of protecting my religion every time.
“It’s petulant and silly.”
No it is not just petulant and silly. This is Tyranny no more no less.
Congrats Steve, I believe you got my point.
Nobody has made this argument, at the least I don’t hold this view. How you can get to this position from what I as well as others have written is beyond me. However, I will defend quite vigorously your right to be an idiot.
Because you are an idiot. But don’t worry, it is your right to be one.
To those taking the side of the plaintiffs; I ask what do you think about Curves, an all women health club? Do you think they should be forced to allow men as members? Is that not in the same vein?
[...] on Wednesday.” (Reuters, Nov. 19, FoxNews.com)(via Friedersdorf, see also Mataconis, Sullum, Balko). Earlier coverage: Jun. 1 and Jun. 8, 2007; Mar. 26, 2006 (married man wants listing). More: [...]
This reminds me of when I was serving on my college’s student senate and a woman of color came to the senate and wanted us to send letters to local businesses to tell them to carry “ethnic” hair products because she could not find any in the city and was concerned it was a discrimination issue. I was sympathetic, but at the same time why was it our problem? This city was around 98% white.
I guess what I am saying is that certain aspects in the market are there not necessarily because there is discrimination, but because that is what the market dictates.
I firmly believe that ANY consenting, mentally competent adult should be able to marry another regardless of sex or genetic relationship.
It seems to me that the “gay lobby’s” approach to this issue has been wrong from the beginning. I agree with them that the right to marry is a fundimental human right that should not require a law to protect.
However, it should also not have taken constitutional ammendments and federal laws for women and blacks to have the right to vote. But it did.
The fact is that the “inalienable rights” that we take for granted
had to be established via debate and voting and secured by war.
If you want your rights recognized and secured, do it the way it should be done: via the ballot box. The more you attempt to get your desires imposed by judges, elected or not, the more ammunition you give to the ‘religious lobby’ to take those rights away permanently via laws or constitutional ammendments.
I believe that a majority of people could be convinced to vote in favor of a pro-gay marriage law. But it will take some effort. But that’s how it’s supposed to work in this country. Stop being lazy, take your message to the people.
As a straight man I shake my head as I do not under stand this fight for “civil rights”. If no man or woman can marry a person of the same sex where is the violation to any ones rights?
Also, why when given civil unions and all rights, for legal proposes, do so many gays still demand a redefinition of marriage. Damit…I’m married, to a women and thats what marriage is Man and Women.
GTFOI
Will claims:
Same thing goes for the Christian lobby, they want to force their “lifestyle on the rest of the nation.
Um, no. The “Christian lobby” wants to be left alone. No Gay agenda forced on them, or their kids. The Gay lobby wants to force their agenda on everyone else.
It’s pretty damn clear who real libertarians shoudl be supporting. Hint, it’s not the people who want to use the schools to force their idea of “tolerance” on everyone else.
Randy,
“I’ll stand arm in arm with the gay rights crowd when it comes to demanding equality under the law.”
Ah, so you think gay men should be able to marry women, just like straight men? Or have you redefined “equality under the law” to mean “I have to get whatever I want, no matter what”?
#31 Steve Verdon
Well I did give you the reason you can’t see it but if you don’t want to take it out then how can help you?
Greg Q, The christian lobby most certainly wants to be left alone, they also want to force their views on the rest of the people.
Novel idea perhaps, but why don’t we just not have government involved in marriage at all? I’ll happily attend a church that issues a certificate with only spiritual significance to those it deems morally fit. Anyone else wanting such a certificate can find someone willing to give it to them. All the rest can be handled in contracts, and I don’t see why anyone would be opposed to homosexuals and whoever else entering into marriage-like financial contracts (thinking of wills, property rights, and whatever else marriage financially entails).
Oh, and I think once you add “lobby” to any particular cause, you get bad things happening, no matter who or what. It’s taxpayer money and power of government force they are fighting for, after all. It corrupts.
The “Christian lobby” wants to be left alone. No Gay agenda forced on them, or their kids. The Gay lobby wants to force their agenda on everyone else.
This is the same reasoning that fundamentalists use all over the world to prevent people from having equal rights. In Iran, they don’t want liberals “forcing their agenda” on people by being able to hold hands in public or mingling with people of the opposite sex, so they make it illegal to do so.
It’s the same reasoning that people who were against mixed-race marriage and for government-backed segregation used back in the 50’s. They didn’t want to have the belief that blacks were equal to whites “forced” on their kids at school or other public buildings.
Also, why when given civil unions and all rights, for legal proposes, do so many gays still demand a redefinition of marriage.
Why do you need the government to say what a marriage is or isn’t? How does allowing homosexuals to marry actually affect you? (I’ve never, ever gotten an answer to that question.) And why can’t you just live and let live?
@#28 Tom-
You are incorrect sir, churches would NOT be forced to preform same-sex marriages if they did not believe in them if gay marriage were legal. Just as I cannot currently demand that the Catholic church or Orthodox Jews recognize my “traditional” marriage now. I don’t live up to any of their standards for marriage, but I am in a legally and civilly recognized marriage.
@Greg Q-
Who is Randy? More to the point of your comment, gays currently CAN marry women. In fact, it happens quite often because of the bigotry in our society that forces many gays into the closet and into such denial that they suppress their sexuality and marry a woman, often with tragic results. How do you think the poor wives and children of Ted Haggert (sp?) or Larry Craig felt when they discovered very publically their spouse/father was gay?
And there is no “gay agenda”, it’s a figment of some peoples imagination.
As a gay man, I agree that it’s petulant and silly. It also hurts us when we are fighting for REAL civil rights.
Hell yes — that’s what got Prop 8 passed: the Yes campaign highlighted precisely this sort of thing in their ads, and the No campaign didn’t address it.
There’s a very good reason for that: that’s what the Left does — erode individual rights wherever possible. They are simply not credible as defenders of any “fundamental right”. so when they went that way with their ads, I knew they were dead, even before the polls started shifting.
And lo and behold, what is that knife in California gays’ back? The sword of democracy, no less — the one the Left loves to wield against individual liberties wherever possible.
It’s pretty clear, especially with Prop 8, that gays need to realize that democracy is no friend of liberty — that contra the Left, some things should not ever be subject to a vote. But if they start thinking like that, they might wander off the plantation and realize that the Left is not their friend. Hence, all the scapegoating of churches etc…. it’s the Two Minutes Hate writ long, designed to direct gays’ anger at the usual scapegoats lest they discover that the Left is not their friend.
It is a problem of people not getting the distinction between negative and positive rights. They think that having rights means being able to force someone else to give you something.
The discinction to be made is that there are no such things as “positive” rights. These are not rights, but their antithesis — unchosen moral obligations on the part of whoever must provide the “something”. Freedom means freedom from unchosen obligations (such as those imposed by force).
In their typical Orwellian fashion, the Left sells as positive “rights” what are in fact the antithesis of rights: moral duties. Any and all alleged rights to a product or service necessarily constitutes a duty on the part of those who must provide it.
This is not changed by ascribing the duty to society at large, either; there is no such entity as society apart from its individual members. If you have a “right” to something, someone somewhere just lost the right to not provide you with it.
“This is the same reasoning that fundamentalists use all over the world to prevent people from having equal rights.”
That doesn’t make it any less valid, in cases where the people pretending all they want are “equal rights” are, in fact, actually trying to force their agenda on others. As is the case with the eHarmony lawsuit. Gays already have the right to seek partners over the internet, but what they are actually doing with these lawsuits is trying to force private organizations who are not yet catering to them to do so, and to do so to themselves exclusively.
Adolf Hitler had a moustache too. Doesn’t stop me from wearing one.
All I see in this whole thing is an opportunity to make money. Why not GayHarmony.com?
Sorry your post is devoid of reason. It does however have an amusing joke.
That doesn’t make it any less valid, in cases where the people pretending all they want are “equal rights” are, in fact, actually trying to force their agenda on others.
When gays actually have “equal rights,” then it might be valid. But right now, the only argument is that gays should be treated unequally under the law because they’re asking for special rights, like forcing businesses to cater to them. That’s like saying that local governments should have been able to segregate blacks and whites and prevent blacks from marrying whites because affirmative action (which I oppose) was sure to follow.
I agree that no business should be forced to cater to everyone. How about we condemn special rights while at the same time supporting equal rights?
And what does it mean, “…trying to force their agenda on others?” Were people who fought to get women the vote “…trying to force their agenda on others?” Are the liberals in Iran and Saudi Arabia and China who believe in freedom of speech and religion “…trying to force their agenda on others?” Maybe they are.
Maybe it’s not such a bad thing when “the agenda” is freedom.
Les,
I don’t think anyone is opposing equal right in terms of laws and government policy. So, sure I whole-heartedly agree.
Yes. However, that is a different story. Again it is an issue of equal before the law–i.e. having the same rights. It is not the same as saying that in private matters women should be treated identically as men.
Of course, but this isn’t about freedom, but about coercing a private company to do something that one group doesn’t like. That isn’t freedom since it violates another freedom (freedom of association). It is anti-freedom. People are quite free to provide a gay version of eHarmony and call it whatever they want (well within the strictures of copyright laws, etc.).
For example, suppose I’m a complete throwback and decide I don’t like black people and decide I don’t want them in my house or on my property. I should be able to excercise that right. Same when I own a business. Of course, people are free to call me all sorts of things and not patronize my business or not visit my house.
Freedom is sometimes unpleasant. Sometimes you have to let the jerk with abhorrent views speak. You don’t have to listen though.
Steve,
I’m not communicating well. It’s one of the many things wrong with me.
I am in complete agreement with you regarding the freedom of people to choose who they do business with and associate with. Indeed, freedom is sometimes unpleasant.
But there are some folks that suggest that homosexuals don’t deserve equal protection under the law because some homosexuals want special rights, and that’s what I was clumsily disagreeing with.