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.
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.
I don't know. In the linked article from the OP, there is no mention of any such objection.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
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.
David Smalley makes some good arguments in that blog posting that are valid considerations. (Jeff... go read it, Smalley is an atheist you might agree with).
I've listened to Smalley's Dogma Debate for some time. I do like it when he brings on Christians and debates them, always being respectful, but I do not like his Social Justice warrior mode that he adopts more and more often in the past year. In fact, I have stopped listening to him as much for that reason. He is way to liberal for me on that front.
That being said, he does bring an intelligent perspective to various topics.
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.
Why should they have had to address the issue at all ? They didn't offer a service. They shouldn't have to explain to you, me , or the government why they don't offer a product, anymore than a store should have to explain why they don't carry an African American specific hair product or skin product .
" I don't want to sell that " should be sufficient .
You mean other than the fact that they now have been forced to carry a product they didn't previously carry , through government intervention?
That's not a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
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 .
Why would a homosexual man or woman be interested in a heterosexual man or woman? Sensible people prefer to date potential partners who are interested in their particular gender. And anyone who signs up for online dating should expect unwanted interest. If a person finds an online message from a person they find unappealing to be upsetting, online dating is not for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
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 .
The owners of ChristianMingle decided of their own free will that they wanted to start for-profit dating websites.
Really ? It's not a fact that CM now offers a dating service to gays because the government ordered them to , that they previously didn't offer ?
Quote:
Why would a homosexual man or woman be interested in a heterosexual man or woman? Sensible people prefer to date potential partners who are interested in their particular gender. And anyone who signs up for online dating should expect unwanted interest. If a person finds an online message from a person they find unappealing to be upsetting, online dating is not for them.
BS . When one joins a site looking for either a heterosexual or homosexual dates ,one has the right to expect that the people viewing your profile and responding will be of the proper sexual orientation.
Quote:
The owners of ChristianMingle decided of their own free will that they wanted to start for-profit dating websites.
Again, so what ? They chose to start a service . What about that choice means they have to offer things they don't want to offer because " the government says so "?
There are African American specific hair and skin products . Guess what group Africare hair products are aimed at ? So if I start a store and don't carry Africare brand products , and an AA comes in and demands that I do, am I discriminating against them if I refuse ?
Why should they have had to address the issue at all ? They didn't offer a service. They shouldn't have to explain to you, me , or the government why they don't offer a product, anymore than a store should have to explain why they don't carry an African American specific hair product or skin product .
" I don't want to sell that " should be sufficient .
They don't want to sell...what? Subscriptions to their site? That is the only service they offer.
Really ? It's not a fact that CM now offers a dating service to gays because the government ordered them to , that they previously didn't offer ?
Correct. I'm so glad it's finally sinking in. CM does not offer "dating services". What are those, anyway? It sounds an awful lot like prostitution. What they offer is a website whereby paying customers have the opportunity to interact with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
BS . When one joins a site looking for either a heterosexual or homosexual dates ,one has the right to expect that the people viewing your profile and responding will be of the proper sexual orientation.
Says the guy who has never used an online dating site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
Again, so what ? They chose to start a service . What about that choice means they have to offer things they don't want to offer because " the government says so "?
There are African American specific hair and skin products . Guess what group Africare hair products are aimed at ? So if I start a store and don't carry Africare brand products , and an AA comes in and demands that I do, am I discriminating against them if I refuse ?
No, that's not discrimination. Now try telling the person they can't come in your store.
eHarmony only "caters" to gays because of an earlier lawsuit, according to an earlier post in this thread.
Yeah, that was my post in fact. After 8 years they still aren't happy about it (although the main reason given, ironically, is that they have had to endure threats from upset fundamentalist Christians, to the point of hiring security for their employees). That was precipitated by a state law also (NJ in their case), and like CM apparently, they decided it was just delaying the inevitable to roll it out only in the state they were sued in, so rolled it out nationally.
It would be interesting to compare the legal basis in NJ vs CA, the differences in the terms of the settlement, to know whether any other religious-oriented sites have either been compelled or voluntarily changed to serve the gay community in any way, and whether anyone in the straight community has tested whether gays-only sites can be compelled to serve straights.
Correct. I'm so glad it's finally sinking in. CM does not offer "dating services". What are those, anyway? It sounds an awful lot like prostitution. What they offer is a website whereby paying customers have the opportunity to interact with each other.
What's finally sinking in? You really don't realize that CM has done exactly what you claim they haven't done ?
Quote:
Says the guy who has never used an online dating site.
Not having needed a computer site to help me find a woman is a negative ? BTW, I merely went by your claim of how CM works now .
Quote:
No, that's not discrimination. Now try telling the person they can't come in your store.
Nobody told the gays they couldn't use CM . You just dont get this . What the gays found was that the site didn't offer the service they wanted .
Again , learn the difference . Your claims are petty . If you wish to disagree with me, try reading what mordant and the guy she references wrote . BTW , did you even bother to go and read his blog ? He hits the nail on the head , INCLUDING what I said at the beginning , that much of the joy here is that "those Christians" got screwed again . So yes, even atheists see the joy some get from payback .
The claims against CM were bogus , even a militant atheist sees they were bogus , and you are naive to buy into the nonsense .
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.
