Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you have any case law showing that businesses can discriminate as long as there are other businesses which don't?
The question is whether what CM did constitutes discrimination, or whether it just constitutes choosing not to offer a particular service. I can see arguments in both directions, especially since gays-only dating sites exist and appear to not be made to be inclusive of straights, and especially since CM is marketing their services to a select group based on religion, and no one is complaining about either of these. CM's parent company even runs another dating site specifically for Seventh Day Adventists. Are they supposed to open up to all Christians? All religions? Everyone?
This smells of a law that is well intentioned but was drafted to selectively address discrimination from certain directions only. The California anti-discrimination law that applies in this case says you can't discriminate in any way for any reason including religious ones. So CM was guilty of far more than not offering services to gays, but of not offering services to Muslims, Rastafarians, Hindus, etc. And other sites are guilty of not offering services to straights.
I think the whole thing needs to be re-evaluated for violating the Law of Unintended Consequences -- lest further hilarity ensue.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
let's drop the slippery slope argument
This is the most immoral decision this country ever had!
The American revolution started for less reasons than this
the slippery slope was when Illinois foolishly decriminalized homosexual behavior back in the 60's, leading it down a slippery slope that has America has turned into the evil empire!
forcing perversion of the worst order on people is extreme evil!
Getting a bit opinionated? A Trump supporter we take it?
Your examples of the insurance biz illustrates the facts.
If it meets the definition of "discrimination", then it is "real" discrimination.
"The Law" determines nothing but the criminality of that, or anything else.
Whether it is or isn't legal, whether there will or won't be penalites or punisment, has NOTHING to do with it being "Real Discrimination". That is based upon definition, and definition ONLY.
What this obsession you have with lawyers, and the law, is...and why you would ever think they determine anything beyond what is legal in a particular jurisdiction...I have no idea.
They define nothing but the legality of an act...not the act itself.
And cut it out with the "bovine excrement" dumbstuff you keep putting in your posts...it adds nothing to the debate but exactly that.
More bovine excrement from an individual whose history proves they argue to be "right." You need to learn that it is more important to be effective than "right."
No, the insurance business discriminates---we won't insure red cars is discriminatory according to your Merriam definition---but what is considered UNFAIR discrimination has, through the decades, been the decision of courts and lawyers. There are no negative consequences to your definition of discrimination---until, and only until, a law or court states differently. So you may wish to proclaim that not insuring red cars is discriminatory, but until you get lawyers involved nothing occurs to prevent it.
No one claims insurance companies are discriminatory for charging different rates for young single people versus young married people. And they do--by a significant amount. If people wanted equally fair they would have to get lawyers involved. And the answer is simple--liability insurance could be sold via a charge on gasoline. It would do away with the one out of seven drivers that drive uninsured and cost everyone else money with uninsured motorists premiums. Because whoever uses gas --boats (more dangerous than you might think) motorcycles, and those from other countries like Mexico who may drive without insurance, would all be paying for coverage and unable to avoid participation.
It makes far more insurance sense than what we have. Yet law lets us discriminate by groups in ways that frequently lump individuals into categories they don't belong in given individual situations. Gas pump liability insurance--at least on some basic level --- would allow those who wished more to buy specific policies to do so while preventing cheaters from avoiding participation. But we won't because it is far more profitable to dictionary discriminate for the insurance companies.
How does this fit in with CHristianMingle? They could have learned from Eharmony's 2005 experience and created a separate company within their company for gay people. They didn't.
Want to know other things you can do that are perfectly legal on dating websites and other social media? You can make fun of fat people or bald people. Not discrimination at all even though it may be morally repugnant to many.
How does one change that fact if they don't like it?
More bovine excrement from an individual whose history proves they argue to be "right." You need to learn that it is more important to be effective than "right."
No, the insurance business discriminates---we won't insure red cars is discriminatory according to your Merriam definition---but what is considered UNFAIR discrimination has, through the decades, been the decision of courts and lawyers. There are no negative consequences to your definition of discrimination---until, and only until, a law or court states differently. So you may wish to proclaim that not insuring red cars is discriminatory, but until you get lawyers involved nothing occurs to prevent it.
No one claims insurance companies are discriminatory for charging different rates for young single people versus young married people. And they do--by a significant amount. If people wanted equally fair they would have to get lawyers involved. And the answer is simple--liability insurance could be sold via a charge on gasoline. It would do away with the one out of seven drivers that drive uninsured and cost everyone else money with uninsured motorists premiums. Because whoever uses gas --boats (more dangerous than you might think) motorcycles, and those from other countries like Mexico who may drive without insurance, would all be paying for coverage and unable to avoid participation.
It makes far more insurance sense than what we have. Yet law lets us discriminate by groups in ways that frequently lump individuals into categories they don't belong in given individual situations. Gas pump liability insurance--at least on some basic level --- would allow those who wished more to buy specific policies to do so while preventing cheaters from avoiding participation. But we won't because it is far more profitable to dictionary discriminate for the insurance companies.
How does this fit in with CHristianMingle? They could have learned from Eharmony's 2005 experience and created a separate company within their company for gay people. They didn't.
Want to know other things you can do that are perfectly legal on dating websites and other social media? You can make fun of fat people or bald people. Not discrimination at all even though it may be morally repugnant to many.
How does one change that fact if they don't like it?
Get a lawyer.
Again with the "bovine excrement" dumbstuff. Indicative of the mentality level you are functioning on.
What the "consequences" are (legal or otherwise) has nothing what-so-ever to do with what is or isn't discrimination. MOF, many times people administer "consequences" on the spot...directly to the "discriminator". I've done that myself on several occasions, and have seen it done many times...no lawyers or Law needed.
Most often...discrimination occurs (like with the insurance industry, person to person, or group to group) with no penalties or consequences...legal or otherwise.
Regardless...what "real" discrimination is, is determined by definition...and NOTHING else.
That you are unable to "get that", notwithstanding.
Sorry for dropping out of this . I live 1.5 miles from the scene of the Dallas police ambush . A discussion about a couple of gay guys complaining they can't use a dating site just isn't worth the effort anymore .
Again with the "bovine excrement" dumbstuff. Indicative of the mentality level you are functioning on.
What the "consequences" are (legal or otherwise) has nothing what-so-ever to do with what is or isn't discrimination. MOF, many times people administer "consequences" on the spot...directly to the "discriminator". I've done that myself on several occasions, and have seen it done many times...no lawyers or Law needed.
Most often...discrimination occurs (like with the insurance industry, person to person, or group to group) with no penalties or consequences...legal or otherwise.
Regardless...what "real" discrimination is, is determined by definition...and NOTHING else.
That you are unable to "get that", notwithstanding.
Oh, I get it alright. YOU measure out consequences when YOU believe discrimination has taken place.
It's what I said before--your love of being "right" is so important to you that YOU are the arbiter of right and wrong, good and bad. In other words, YOU know better than the laws of the land.
Well, YOU may be entirely correct--it appears more and more real life is resembling Hollywood. Met out your own justice, determine for yourself what type of morality, if any, you wish to embrace.
Yet Christianity, ignored by the vast majority of so-called "christianity," teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves and take their well being into account rather than our own. You do represent the kind of selfish, me-first "christians" that are constantly concerned about THEIR rights. And you don't have to claim to be a christian in order to be so self-absorbed. That's what CHristianMingle is all about--their morality and what THEY consider unfairly discriminatory. Unlike you, they have learned a lesson about "discrimination."
But you are done as far as I'm concerned. The best way to undermine selfish people is to ignore them. You are now only the second person in three years going on my ignore list for basically the same "I am right even if I'm wrong" message. I should have grasped that with your "Ireland is a bunch of duds" message on that other thread. I'm slow, but not impassive to that kind of selfish "I am God" speech (which often translates into even more selfish actions.
Yet Christianity, ignored by the vast majority of so-called "christianity," teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves and take their well being into account rather than our own.
you know how the Talmud interprets the verse "you should love to your neighbor as yourself" as applied to homosexuals?
when the COURT executes them for homosexual behavior you should give them a nice death.
anything Jesus says regarding this verse and homosexuals is coming in this context. in the Jewish world he was trying to convert this was the prevailing view at the time!
PS: not that care what he said or thought about anything, however if he sided with the liberal view of things you would think he would have preached against the only society at the time that had a death penalty for homosexual behavior!
Oh, I get it alright. YOU measure out consequences when YOU believe discrimination has taken place.
It's what I said before--your love of being "right" is so important to you that YOU are the arbiter of right and wrong, good and bad. In other words, YOU know better than the laws of the land.
Well, YOU may be entirely correct--it appears more and more real life is resembling Hollywood. Met out your own justice, determine for yourself what type of morality, if any, you wish to embrace.
Yet Christianity, ignored by the vast majority of so-called "christianity," teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves and take their well being into account rather than our own. You do represent the kind of selfish, me-first "christians" that are constantly concerned about THEIR rights. And you don't have to claim to be a christian in order to be so self-absorbed. That's what CHristianMingle is all about--their morality and what THEY consider unfairly discriminatory. Unlike you, they have learned a lesson about "discrimination."
But you are done as far as I'm concerned. The best way to undermine selfish people is to ignore them. You are now only the second person in three years going on my ignore list for basically the same "I am right even if I'm wrong" message. I should have grasped that with your "Ireland is a bunch of duds" message on that other thread. I'm slow, but not impassive to that kind of selfish "I am God" speech (which often translates into even more selfish actions.
Have a nice life in that dream world.
I'm not surprised that you would hide from an opposing view over YOUR desire to be "right".
But then...ur the guy that says slavery was not discriminatory until it was deemed illegal. As if...one would be taking an "I am God" attitude, and "insisting on being right" by making a self-determination based upon reason and fairness that it was discriminatory regardless of whether "The Law" sanctioned it or not.
I'm in no "Dream world"....I deal in reality, and a pragmatic fact-on-the-ground assessment of things.
I do not need "The Law" to tell me that an act like enslaving others is discrimination against them...that "Lawyers" and "The Law" at some time, in some jurisdiction, may be so evil to legally allow it, notwithstanding.
You might need "Lawyers" and the "The Law" to hip you to what is discriminatory, but most don't...nor do I.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
Sorry for dropping out of this . I live 1.5 miles from the scene of the Dallas police ambush . A discussion about a couple of gay guys complaining they can't use a dating site just isn't worth the effort anymore .
Horrible crime. Just like the shooting of Philano Castile was a horrible crime.
In both cases a bad guy with a gun shot a good guy with a gun. In one case the bad guy was wearing a uniform, in the second, the victims were.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
