Private Company Forced to Offer Gay Dating Service (McCain, lawyer, gay people)

[lammius]

Ok, I'm a huge proponent of gay rights, but this ruling is dumb. I've always known eHarmony hasn't allowed gay ads. I've not used their service for that reason (the other reason being I don't like online dating services anyway). It's the same reason I don't go to a website that only sells hats when I'm shopping for a sweater. Wow, bad analogy, but you get my point. Haha.

[uggabugga]

Originally Posted by Kereczr

Even I think this is lousy....

kudos to you. this is ridiculous.

[uggabugga]

Originally Posted by Agapeaum67

It is amazing and disappointing but not surprising that in our society still are many blind,unloving humane beings whose unjust opinions and ideas can discriminate with harsh,violent actions to the gay community.

err... how does not offering a gay dating service constitute a 'harsh, violent action'?

[01Snake]

Originally Posted by KevK

The key word is they AGREED. Nobody forced them to do a thing. They chose to switch rather than fight.

Okay, they were FORCED to AGREE. The threat of legal action and the enormous cost to fight it left them with no choice. I'd hardly say they are simply agreeing to allow the ads.

[uggabugga]

Originally Posted by KevK

The key word is they AGREED. Nobody forced them to do a thing. They chose to switch rather than fight.

did you miss the part involving a lawsuit? lawsuits are expensive, and there's no guarantee of a win. even if they were to win, they've got lawyers to pay.

the key word is FORCED.

[bibit612]

It's always sad when a few spoil it for the many. I'm sure there are more homosexuals out there who want to live their lives quietly and want to be left alone. This attracts more negative publicity in an already controversial issue.

[GregW]

If a business offers a service to the general public it accepts the responsibility for providing the service to ALL of the public. Gay people are part of the public with all the rights and responsibilities of any citizen. If the dating service does not want to serve ALL of the public they can go out of business.

This was a good and reasonable ruling.

[GOPATTA2D]

Hmm, well there is a Presbyterian church just down the road...maybe I'll sue them them and force them to adopt my religious beliefs. I mean, they are discriminating against me.

How tragic that the homos use religious tolerance as an example of the "rights" they should be afforded, but would never dream that the above example is correct. Tolerance is one thing; they want more.

[GOPATTA2D]

Originally Posted by GregW

This was a good and reasonable ruling.

If you're a homo or liberal who thinks this way it might be.

If you are a Christian-based, conservative business who has just caved into the PC-left out of financial necessity, its a bad one. The vocal minority just forced group R to adopt the value-system of group H. How ironic that group R is chastised and ridiculed if they attempt to force their value system on group H.

Another political double-standard: Homosexuals.

[cousinsal]

Here in Boston, some idiot male attorney sued "Healthworks for Women" because it was discriminating against men, since it was only a health club for women.

He could have gone to ANY other gym, but he was just trying to make a point, since he was a lawyer. Everyone thought he was a jerk. I doubt he ever even WENT to Healthworks.

In this case, again, someone was trying to make a point that it's discrimination, even if they didn't want to use the service. As a gay person, I wouldn't want to use the service if there was hostility toward gays. If they really didn't want to serve gays, I'd go to a gay service.

No one can have their own group anymore, whether it's all heterosexuals, all men, all women, all gays, etc. because it will be called discrimination, even if it makes no sense.