Dating site ChristianMingle settles discrimination lawsuit. Now LGBT will be allowed to list. (Jews, believe)
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.
The issue is the site didn't offer a product that the gays wanted , and the law made them do so to satisfy the unwarranted and needless demands of a few gays who couldn't be bothered to use the dating sites that did offer what they wanted.
I can't seem to find any meaningful discussion of these issues via Google.
I found a reference to a Christian activist that called 13 "gay-oriented bakers" and was refused service by all of them. But he didn't call to ask them to bake an ordinary cake for a heterosexual wedding. He called to ask them to bake a cake with an anti-gay slogan on it. Deliberately provocative and got the predictable responses that a troll should expect. In other words it was an overdetermined / slanted experiment designed to guarantee a desired result, not an honest attempt to find out of a gay baker would do something actually equivalent to what an anti-gay baker was actually required to do by law.
I can't find any legal discussion about why or if it would be legal to offer a gays-only service but not a heterosexual-only service (dating or otherwise). No one seems to be even asking the question. I am honestly curious about how this works legally or if it's been tested. My guess is that if someone actually tested the theory ... that is, if a heterosexual were to sue a gays-only dating site for not offering services to heterosexuals equally ... the argument against it would be that heterosexuals are not a protected class and don't have a history of discrimination and so requiring heterosexual-only dating sites to open up to gays is a form of affirmative action if you will, that is required to redress a long history of exclusion and repression, which is not required of gay-only sites.
I find this argument to be valid, personally. When a group has been seriously and systemically wronged, extra effort is required to show good faith and repair damaged trust and to provide a form of reparations if you will. It is an act of contrition. At some point this "affirmative action" should be sunsetted I suppose, but as we've seen with voting rights and civil rights for African-Americans, there's a tendency to claim reverse discrimination and declare discrimination dead prematurely.
I can't seem to find any meaningful discussion of these issues via Google.
I found a reference to a Christian activist that called 13 "gay-oriented bakers" and was refused service by all of them. But he didn't call to ask them to bake an ordinary cake for a heterosexual wedding. He called to ask them to bake a cake with an anti-gay slogan on it. Deliberately provocative and got the predictable responses that a troll should expect. In other words it was an overdetermined / slanted experiment designed to guarantee a desired result, not an honest attempt to find out of a gay baker would do something actually equivalent to what an anti-gay baker was actually required to do by law.
I can't find any legal discussion about why or if it would be legal to offer a gays-only service but not a heterosexual-only service (dating or otherwise). No one seems to be even asking the question. I am honestly curious about how this works legally or if it's been tested. My guess is that if someone actually tested the theory ... that is, if a heterosexual were to sue a gays-only dating site for not offering services to heterosexuals equally ... the argument against it would be that heterosexuals are not a protected class and don't have a history of discrimination and so requiring heterosexual-only dating sites to open up to gays is a form of affirmative action if you will, that is required to redress a long history of exclusion and repression, which is not required of gay-only sites.
I find this argument to be valid, personally. When a group has been seriously and systemically wronged, extra effort is required to show good faith and repair damaged trust and to provide a form of reparations if you will. It is an act of contrition. At some point this "affirmative action" should be sunsetted I suppose, but as we've seen with voting rights and civil rights for African-Americans, there's a tendency to claim reverse discrimination and declare discrimination dead prematurely.
Again, I'm not arguing the legality of the case , but the moral legitimacy of it . Two men passed over a hundred dating sites that caters to gays to find the one labeled "Christian" and then proceeded to force them to offer a product they previously did not offer , that being men wanting men . There was not harm done , as the men had numerous other sites to use , and they weren't being denied a product simply based on them being gay . Their complaint is not that the site refused to sell them a product they already sell , as in wedding cakes that are indistinguishable between gay cakes and hetero cakes, but " since you're gay we aren't selling you a cake" . Their complaint is that the site simply didn't cater to them as homosexuals . Can you understand this point ? There is a difference , at least if common sense is invoked . I'll go back to the baker and the Muslim everyone here avoids . Since the baker chooses to make ready made goods for Christians and Jews to buy , can a Muslim claim discrimination because the baker doesn't offer ready made Muslim pastries , and force her to start making them for him?
In the end, we are making NOT having a service the homosexual community wants into an act of discrimination . This is idiotic .
Again, I'm not arguing the legality of the case , but the moral legitimacy of it.
I understand that, but I addressed both. I stated the legal argument for what you find ludicrous, and my agreement with that legal argument ... not because it is legal (because legal <> ethical or moral or pragmatic) but because I think it is just. Services by gays, for gays, is not the same as services by heterosexuals, for heterosexuals, except in a theoretical sense. In the real world though they are not the same.
It's a little like how I treat my children differently despite loving them equally. I treat them differently without apology because they have treated me differently, and because they have acted differently in the world, and I have a different sort of history with each of them. One is more trustworthy in some way, perhaps, or one is less capable and so less responsible for their actions. And so I have intervened more for one than the other, have said no more often to one than the other, and that is perfectly fine and says nothing about me loving them unequally.
Same here. The history of bigotry and marginalization lies with heterosexuals, so heterosexuals are legitimately seen as extending existing bad attitudes and practices via exclusion, whereas, we can recognize that gays limit their services to gays for different motivations. Or put another way: gays are uncomfortable with offering services to heterosexuals for ENTIRELY different reasons overall than why heterosexuals are uncomfortable offering services to homosexuals. Queers rightly distrust straights, straights tend to just think queers are icky and disgusting for the same exact reasons that whites thought blacks were icky and disgusting under Jim Crow.
Because the law is a blunt instrument that doesn't have visibility into specific people's innermost motivations and intentions, we have decided to require heterosexuals to be inclusive, and not apparently to require the same inclusiveness of homosexuals. I can see a very pragmatic and fair argument for this difference. I can see the law as being fairly congruent with justice in this case.
I understand that, but I addressed both. I stated the legal argument for what you find ludicrous, and my agreement with that legal argument ... not because it is legal (because legal <> ethical or moral or pragmatic) but because I think it is just. Services by gays, for gays, is not the same as services by heterosexuals, for heterosexuals, except in a theoretical sense. In the real world though they are not the same.
It's a little like how I treat my children differently despite loving them equally. I treat them differently without apology because they have treated me differently, and because they have acted differently in the world, and I have a different sort of history with each of them. One is more trustworthy in some way, perhaps, or one is less capable and so less responsible for their actions. And so I have intervened more for one than the other, have said no more often to one than the other, and that is perfectly fine and says nothing about me loving them unequally.
Same here. The history of bigotry and marginalization lies with heterosexuals, so heterosexuals are legitimately seen as extending existing bad attitudes and practices via exclusion, whereas, we can recognize that gays limit their services to gays for different motivations. Or put another way: gays are uncomfortable with offering services to heterosexuals for ENTIRELY different reasons overall than why heterosexuals are uncomfortable offering services to homosexuals. Queers rightly distrust straights, straights tend to just think queers are icky and disgusting for the same exact reasons that whites thought blacks were icky and disgusting under Jim Crow.
Because the law is a blunt instrument that doesn't have visibility into specific people's innermost motivations and intentions, we have decided to require heterosexuals to be inclusive, and not apparently to require the same inclusiveness of homosexuals. I can see a very pragmatic and fair argument for this difference. I can see the law as being fairly congruent with justice in this case.
Again, that's fine, as long as we admit that these guys were not harmed and we are willing to own up to the fact we are exacting a measure of retribution for past behaviors , and not being so naive to suggest these guys suffered any real discrimination .
This also doesn't address the fact that we have now made NOT catering to the needs of homosexuals a legal offense , even if our intent and reason for not doing so is harmless and a simple business decision .
Again, that's fine, as long as we admit that these guys were not harmed and we are willing to own up to the fact we are exacting a measure of retribution for past behaviors , and not being so naive to suggest these guys suffered any real discrimination .
This also doesn't address the fact that we have now made NOT catering to the needs of homosexuals a legal offense , even if our intent and reason for not doing so is harmless and a simple business decision .
I think seeing it as retribution is to imply that it is unjust. I see it is compensation. When the law in effect requires restitution to a victim, I think it subverts justice to an extent to see restitution for a past wrong as retribution. It is not really putative to just undo a past wrong. For it to be "retribution" it would have to go beyond one's fair share of undoing a past wrong.
Another factor here, speaking as a software developer, is that it would not be very expensive to implement support for gays on a properly-designed existing dating platform, particularly given the extra revenue it would generate, so requiring it is far from an undue economic burden. The only thing burdened might be the private and personal beliefs of the owners, which frankly are not terribly relevant to how a for-profit business conducts itself with the general public in accordance with the law.
As to whether or not the plaintiffs in this case suffered "any real discrimination" ... I would say that the motivation and historical context makes it at least structural discrimination, but I admit it's a fine line. It's certainly not the same degree of discrimination as being harassed and threatened just for existing. And while it's theoretically no more discrimination than a heterosexual receives from a gays-only site, it is being regarded as more consequential, and rightly so I think.
I must reiterate the IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) disclaimer in all that I've said. I am not suggesting that I know the law for sure or that there aren't aspects of it that I'm unaware of. I've simply described a legal argument I would be unsurprised to be used to explain the difference between a gays-only site being allowed and a heterosexual-only site not being allowed -- and my moral justification for why I'd personally support that argument. I would really appreciate a qualified attorney who happens on this conversation, discussing it from a more knowledgable place.
I think seeing it as retribution is to imply that it is unjust. I see it is compensation. When the law in effect requires restitution to a victim, I think it subverts justice to an extent to see restitution for a past wrong as retribution. It is not really putative to just undo a past wrong. For it to be "retribution" it would have to go beyond one's fair share of undoing a past wrong.
Another factor here, speaking as a software developer, is that it would not be very expensive to implement support for gays on a properly-designed existing dating platform, particularly given the extra revenue it would generate, so requiring it is far from an undue economic burden. The only thing burdened might be the private and personal beliefs of the owners, which frankly are not terribly relevant to how a for-profit business conducts itself with the general public in accordance with the law.
As to whether or not the plaintiffs in this case suffered "any real discrimination" ... I would say that the motivation and historical context makes it at least structural discrimination, but I admit it's a fine line. It's certainly not the same degree of discrimination as being harassed and threatened just for existing. And while it's theoretically no more discrimination than a heterosexual receives from a gays-only site, it is being regarded as more consequential, and rightly so I think.
I must reiterate the IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) disclaimer in all that I've said. I am not suggesting that I know the law for sure or that there aren't aspects of it that I'm unaware of. I've simply described a legal argument I would be unsurprised to be used to explain the difference between a gays-only site being allowed and a heterosexual-only site not being allowed -- and my moral justification for why I'd personally support that argument. I would really appreciate a qualified attorney who happens on this conversation, discussing it from a more knowledgable place.
Whether or not it would be expensive or cost effective to install additional software to offer the men seeking men and women seeking women options is beside the point . The point is, since this is not a case of classic discrimination ( yes we sell wedding cakes, but not to gays ) , but rather a case of gays complaining that a site does not cater to their needs, is this something we should be doing , i.e., legally forcing a business to change their product line to appease a minority to whom they don't currently offer a service ?
The baker and the Muslim question will forever be avoided, I guess . When people so studiously avoid something like this, it immediately sends up a red flag to me about their beliefs and intentions . They obviously do not want to delve into the issues the questions bring up . Seriously , how far can we take this now that it has been decided NOT catering to gays is a form of discrimination ? What about strip clubs that feature only women ? If some gay guys want to go there for a night out but find they only have women strippers , is this not now discrimination , since the club is NOT providing male strippers for the gay men to enjoy watching ? If it's not, what's the difference ? How hard is it to hire some guys to alternate coming up on stage with the women so that the gays can get their kicks ?
Do you not see what you have opened up by considering NOT providing a product a minority wants to be a form of discrimination ?
Last edited by wallflash; 07-03-2016 at 02:17 PM..
You cannot illegally NOT offer a line of service . That's a business's prerogative .
To put this in real world perspective , answer me this .
A normal everyday baker decides to start making Jewish baked goods to supplement the business because they see an unfulfilled need . The baker is not religious but just trying to increase business . It goes over well , and so the baker adds Catholic baked goods to their product line . This too works well so they add some Eastern Orthodox pastries as well . One day a Muslim comes in and wants some Muslim style pastries . The baker says that she doesn't make them . The Muslim gets angry , states that she makes pastries for Christians and Jews , and so she should have to make them for Muslims also . The woman states that she sees no real market for them,doesn't know how to make them , and doesn't want to have to learn them or bake them .
Can the Muslim force the baker to start baking him Muslim pastries because the woman has found a niche she chooses to fill among some other religious groups ?
If the woman worked for a (Church Bakery) or a (501c non-profit Corporation) Bakery.
She would not be forced to make (Islamic Muslim) pastries. However on the other hand if the woman worked for a (For-Profit Business) a bakery she would have to make Muslim pastries if they took her to court.
If the woman worked for a (Church Bakery) or a (501c non-profit Corporation) Bakery.
She would not be forced to make (Islamic Muslim) pastries. However on the other hand if the woman worked for a (For-Profit Business) a bakery she would have to make Muslim pastries if they took her to court.
First , thanks for the reply .
But a business no longer gets to decide what products they will sell ? If a minority feels discriminated against because a product they want isn't available , they can sue and force the business to provide that product for them ?
I got to go with wallfish on this. I'm all for social justice, but this is overreaching. I see no evidence, in the article, that the clients were denied service, just that the services offered didn't meet their needs.
The company offers the service of Christian heterosexual match-making. You're a guy looking for Christian woman, they find you a Christian woman. You're looking for a man, they find you a Christian woman - that's what they do.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
That's fine, as long as you can admit this isn't about a couple of gays being abused when they passed over the 100 dating sites that catered to them to find the one that didn't . You seem content with that . I find your attitude as appalling as the attitude of religious fundies that want everyone to accept their beliefs .
You both are merely different versions of thought police .
So does that mean you are OK with transgressions of rights?
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.
