Dating site ChristianMingle settles discrimination lawsuit. Now LGBT will be allowed to list. (atheist, versus)
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.
This is ridiculous, their "product" is the site, just like a hair salon's product IS the stuff they are selling (and money changers do) in their salon. Their "service" is helping people meet up (if even just virtually), just like a hair salon's service is to provide hair products (and a roof) and cuts.
Again, has ANYONE stopped to think and research and question and tell me if Oral Roberts University has to accept gays officially? The answer is No, because they don't rely on government money. ChristianMingle seems to rely on Government and THUS must follow government laws related to funds, etc. Their primary motivation is money just like most desperate capitalists who merely shroud themselves in Religion so that they can sleep at night or have a simple and entertaining structure to their lives, mind you I say most, some capitalists see a niche market to capitalize on in the very stubborn and strict religious peoples (Oral Roberts U).
Where did you see that CM receives government money ? Not saying they don't , but I wonder why a dating site would be getting government funds .
CM seems to have run afoul of CA law and not actually fed law . And the objections being made here , at least by myself and GR , are not religious based . It's a contention that no actual discrimination took place simply because a business did not offer to ANY customer the service the gay men wanted . Again, this is not one bit different than claiming a strip club that has only women dancers discriminates against gay men because they don't also provide male strippers , or your newsstand discriminates if it sells Playboy and Playgirl but doesn't sell gay porn . Choosing to NOT carry a service or product is not discrimination .
Having said that , this is the result of a segment of Christianity abusing gays for decades or centuries . When the downtrodden get the upper hand , they almost always seek revenge instead of settling comfortably into getting along .
You think Christians who happen to be gay lobbying to be able to participate on Christian Mingle counts as "revenge?"
That's pretty ridiculous.
Wanting equal access to things and not being treated as a marginalized, second-class citizen is simply a basic human rights endeavor.
But I do agree with your point that after centuries of being systematically discriminated against, criminalized and having borne the brunt of hatred, bigotry, idiocy and intolerance, it would feel pretty good to make the move towards acceptance and equal treatment.
And how many members? Are these sites as large as ChristianMingle? Even I have seen ads for ChristianMingle, and I couldn't care less. I've never heard of these sites you list.
And how many members? Are these sites as large as ChristianMingle? Even I have seen ads for ChristianMingle, and I couldn't care less. I've never heard of these sites you list.
You think Christians who happen to be gay lobbying to be able to participate on Christian Mingle counts as "revenge?"
That's pretty ridiculous.
Wanting equal access to things and not being treated as a marginalized, second-class citizen is simply a basic human rights endeavor.
Not ridiculous at all . I have no doubt from talking to the gays I know that there is an element of revenge among militant gays . These guys had a number of sites that DID provide gay dating services , but they went past them to the ONE site they could find that didn't , and therefore didn't have any large number of gay men on the site they could have connected with , and went after them . Payback, pure and simple . These guys were gunslingers looking for a gunfight .
Aren't you asking why these two particular plaintiffs brought a lawsuit? Is it not comprehensible that two single gay Christians might like to use the largest Christian online dating site? Isn't it possible that what they are seeking is to interact with and possibly date other single gay Christians?
Not ridiculous at all . I have no doubt from talking to the gays I know that there is an element of revenge among militant gays . These guys had a number of sites that DID provide gay dating services , but they went past them to the ONE site they could find that didn't , and therefore didn't have any large number of gay men on the site they could have connected with , and went after them . Payback, pure and simple . These guys were gunslingers looking for a gunfight .
Why not? Do you blame the police going past law abiding citizens in looking for the criminals? I can't see what's your problem.
Where did you see that CM receives government money ? Not saying they don't , but I wonder why a dating site would be getting government funds .
CM seems to have run afoul of CA law and not actually fed law . And the objections being made here , at least by myself and GR , are not religious based . It's a contention that no actual discrimination took place simply because a business did not offer to ANY customer the service the gay men wanted . Again, this is not one bit different than claiming a strip club that has only women dancers discriminates against gay men because they don't also provide male strippers , or your newsstand discriminates if it sells Playboy and Playgirl but doesn't sell gay porn . Choosing to NOT carry a service or product is not discrimination .
Well there are plenty of tax benefits for CM filling as a business. But your analogies are nothing like this situation. If a strip club asked someone at the door if they are gay (in order to turn them away) then it would be the same. If a newsstand sells Playboy, but you must say you are straight in order to get it, then perhaps it would be a good analogy.
judge ruled that practice to be in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which states that “business establishments” have to have “full and equal accommodations” for everyone, no matter their sexual orientation.
According to Wikipedia
Quote:
Legal interpretation and effects[edit]
The California Supreme Court has repeatedly "interpreted the [law] as protecting classes other than those listed on its face".[6] For example, even prior to the 2005 addition of sexual orientation to the law's list of covered classes, the Unruh Act had been "construed as protecting gays and lesbians from arbitrary discrimination".[6]
The California Supreme Court also decided that the act outlaws sex-based prices at bars (ladies' nights): offering women a discount on drinks, but not offering the same discount to males. In Koire v Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal 3d 24, 219 Cal Rptr 133, the court held that such discounts constituted sex stereotyping prohibited by this Act.[7]
California courts recently held that a private school's admissions office was not covered by the Act, because it was not a business. (A school had expelled two students who were perceived as bisexual.) "Although the fact the School is nonprofit is not controlling, this does mean it should not be deemed a business unless it has some significant resemblance to an ordinary for-profit business." Doe v. California Lutheran High School Ass'n, 170 Cal.App.4th 828 (2009).[8]
However, schools may be businesses for the purpose of the Act when they are engaging in commercial activities. "For example, the Court noted that the School would not be permitted to discriminate in its nonmember transactions, such as in the sale of football tickets, because of the Unruh Act. Thus, while private religious schools' admissions and disciplinary practices may not be subject to the Unruh Act, schools should be aware that other business transactions may still be."[9]
Under these definitions, Oral Roberts would not be seen as a "business" unless it acted monetarily (such as selling football tickets or denying/postponing student payments based on protected status), they could discriminate freely in their acceptance and discipline, however.
Well, conservatives love "State's Rights" and states are allowed to do whatever they want with their "business" taxations and laws.
From proprietorships to corporations, all of these are listed as "business" in tax forms and taken into account in tax returns. I think even self-employment without any outside structure is still considered a proprietorship (you just won't get protective government benefits unless you list it as a proprietorship).
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.
