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.
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?
So your stance is that these two guys should be able to sue because the actual gay dating sites might not have enough members to suit the gay guys, so let's force the more popular heterosexual sites to host gay dating to increase the selection for the gay men ? Really ? The quantity of members is now something we are going to legislate ?
So your stance is that these two guys should be able to sue because the actual gay dating sites might not have enough members to suit the gay guys, so let's force the more popular heterosexual sites to host gay dating to increase the selection for the gay men ? Really ? The quantity of members is now something we are going to legislate ?
I've already stated my stance several times, but don't really mind stating it again. I think this lawsuit was settled as it should have been. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal.
Regarding the quantity of members, that is a direct reply to your claim that these two gay men sued in order to get revenge. Since you dodged the question, I will ask it again. Is it not possible that the reason single gay Christians want to use ChristianMingle is because they want to meet other single gay Christians?
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.
From a standpoint of any site serving gays and heterosexuals I have no problem at all . From the standpoint of considering the mere act of not providing a service some gay people wanted to be discrimination , and for some gunslingers going and searching for each and every site that doesn't provide what they want and attacking them because of a twisted use of honest discrimination laws , I have issues with that behavior . As I have said, I don't consider their offense to be any different than 10,000 strip clubs catering only to male heterosexuals , or a magazine seller that chooses to sell Playboy but not gay porn . Or black only dating sites . How many whiny white people have complained about being discriminated against by black only dating sites ?
And now it gets even sillier with the concept that because there may not be a large enough membership at strictly gay dating sites to suit some gays , this is a consideration in suing to be allowed into a large and successful dating site that previously only served heterosexuals .
I've already stated my stance several times, but don't really mind stating it again. I think this lawsuit was settled as it should have been. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal.
Regarding the quantity of members, that is a direct reply to your claim that these two gay men sued in order to get revenge. Since you dodged the question, I will ask it again. Is it not possible that the reason single gay Christians want to use ChristianMingle is because they want to meet other single gay Christians?
I didn't dodge it, I clearly answered it . And my answer is the same again.
So what ?
Maybe they did. Maybe they are simply militants who go looking for fights . There are a number of gay Christian sites . What proof do you have that these sites don't get enough traffic to suit these gay men? Why should this matter ?
So this blog post came up today over on Patheos about the Christian Mingle case. If the reporting here is accurate (and I have no reason to think it isn't), this was a California-specific thing based on their Unruh Civil Rights Act, which was originally designed to prevent things such as restaurants refusing to accommodate patrons based on sexual orientation -- amongst other things, such as religion.
This appears to be a decision that violates the spirit but arguably not the letter of Unruh. The referenced post makes the valid point that you don't have to agree with the rationale behind why CM doesn't offer inclusive services for gays, but if they can be compelled to do so, then in theory at least an atheist could be compelled to offer services to groups the atheist disagrees with.
The poster, an atheist, gives an example from his side business of doing voice-over work. He was once offered voice-over work by Benny Hinn Ministries and turned it down because he felt he would be misleading people and because he didn't want to support what he felt were dishonest claims. By his reading of Unruh and the precedent of the CM decision, he could in theory have been sued by Benny Hinn Ministries for refusing to provide services based on religion.
The balance here needs to be between freedom of association and freedom from discrimination. To me the crux is, what is the salient difference between (say) a gay being refused service by a restaurant vs a gay not being offered some gay-specific service aspect by a web site? And I think the answer is, it's a question of being refused an offered service versus the service not being offered in the first place. There is no practical way for a restaurant to selectively refuse to cook food for certain classes of people, particularly without unduly burdening them in various ways, not least, public humiliation. But given that gay dating sites are easily available, as well as sites like eHarmony that cater to both gays and straights, it seems to me that the "compelling state interest" for state intervention in this matter is too weak. No one is being materially harmed or burdened ... and arguably it is CM which is being more burdened by being forced to explicitly cater to gays, than any gays are.
In other words I think I may be coming around to Wallflash's point of view on this, at least provisionally.
Counterarguments, anyone? You have to at least admit, this is a really grey area.
From a standpoint of any site serving gays and heterosexuals I have no problem at all . From the standpoint of considering the mere act of not providing a service some gay people wanted to be discrimination , and for some gunslingers going and searching for each and every site that doesn't provide what they want and attacking them because of a twisted use of honest discrimination laws , I have issues with that behavior . As I have said, I don't consider their offense to be any different than 10,000 strip clubs catering only to male heterosexuals , or a magazine seller that chooses to sell Playboy but not gay porn . Or black only dating sites . How many whiny white people have complained about being discriminated against by black only dating sites ?
And now it gets even sillier with the concept that because there may not be a large enough membership at strictly gay dating sites to suit some gays , this is a consideration in suing to be allowed into a large and successful dating site that previously only served heterosexuals .
If the gay customers wanted a different service, you would have a point. But they don't, so you don't.
ChristianMingle has already changed the I am a <drop down menu> choices from "man seeking a woman" and "woman seeking a man" to simply "man" and "woman". That satisfied the terms of the lawsuit.
In what way is the service now different for any of ChristianMingle's customers?
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.
Nonsense . On the CM site the customer was asked what product he wanted . There was no men wanting men selection because
wait for it .......
they didnt sell men wanting men devices ! Nobody told them they couldn't join . Period . Nobody turned them away . When the gays found out the site didn't have the product they wanted , they sued over it . You might as well sue Honda because the Toyota Camry doesn't appear in their drop down selection box . With good reason .
They DONT sell it !
What is so hard for you to grasp about this ? You want to join CM ? Fine , join . You are a man wanting to meet other men? Sorry , we don't sell this .
But the victims are gay , and the offenders are nominally Christian , so obviously the mean evil Christian people must be discriminating against gays by not wanting to sell a product they want . Just like Honda discriminates against Toyota buyers and strip clings discriminate against gays wanting to see naked male strippers .
If the gay customers wanted a different service, you would have a point. But they don't, so you don't.
ChristianMingle has already changed the I am a <drop down menu> choices from "man seeking a woman" and "woman seeking a man" to simply "man" and "woman". That satisfied the terms of the lawsuit.
In what way is the service now different for any of ChristianMingle's customers?
Was the point of the lawsuit that the wording was discriminatory? If this is the only change the ruling brought about then CM has NOT been forced to offer a new or different service from what they had been offering.
If they objected to wording however it may be that they also objected to a "Man" (for example) being restricted from viewing the profiles of other men, or expressing interest in other men. It seems like at least some simple changes to the business rules of the site would also have had to be mandated. If only the terminology of a couple of combo boxes was changed, then this is truly a Pyrrhic victory for the plaintiffs.
If the gay customers wanted a different service, you would have a point. But they don't, so you don't.
ChristianMingle has already changed the I am a <drop down menu> choices from "man seeking a woman" and "woman seeking a man" to simply "man" and "woman". That satisfied the terms of the lawsuit.
In what way is the service now different for any of ChristianMingle's customers?
You mean other than the fact that they now have been forced to carry a product they didn't previously carry , through government intervention? And that heterosexual men and women may now be getting solicitations from homosexuals when they signed up to meet heterosexuals ? Naw, that's not a big deal , is it .
Welcome to Big Brother . The government will now instruct you on what products your business will carry , your opinion on how to run your own business not wanted .
So this blog post came up today over on Patheos about the Christian Mingle case. If the reporting here is accurate (and I have no reason to think it isn't), this was a California-specific thing based on their Unruh Civil Rights Act, which was originally designed to prevent things such as restaurants refusing to accommodate patrons based on sexual orientation -- amongst other things, such as religion.
This appears to be a decision that violates the spirit but arguably not the letter of Unruh. The referenced post makes the valid point that you don't have to agree with the rationale behind why CM doesn't offer inclusive services for gays, but if they can be compelled to do so, then in theory at least an atheist could be compelled to offer services to groups the atheist disagrees with.
The poster, an atheist, gives an example from his side business of doing voice-over work. He was once offered voice-over work by Benny Hinn Ministries and turned it down because he felt he would be misleading people and because he didn't want to support what he felt were dishonest claims. By his reading of Unruh and the precedent of the CM decision, he could in theory have been sued by Benny Hinn Ministries for refusing to provide services based on religion.
The balance here needs to be between freedom of association and freedom from discrimination. To me the crux is, what is the salient difference between (say) a gay being refused service by a restaurant vs a gay not being offered some gay-specific service aspect by a web site? And I think the answer is, it's a question of being refused an offered service versus the service not being offered in the first place. There is no practical way for a restaurant to selectively refuse to cook food for certain classes of people, particularly without unduly burdening them in various ways, not least, public humiliation. But given that gay dating sites are easily available, as well as sites like eHarmony that cater to both gays and straights, it seems to me that the "compelling state interest" for state intervention in this matter is too weak. No one is being materially harmed or burdened ... and arguably it is CM which is being more burdened by being forced to explicitly cater to gays, than any gays are.
In other words I think I may be coming around to Wallflash's point of view on this, at least provisionally.
Counterarguments, anyone? You have to at least admit, this is a really grey area.
In what way is CM being forced to "cater" to gays? They changed the wording of a drop down menu. That doesn't rise to the level of "burden" IMO. Since it's already done, how much of a burden could it have been?
eHarmony only "caters" to gays because of an earlier lawsuit, according to an earlier post in this thread.
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.
