November 20, 2008, - 10:47 am

eHarmony Case Proves Gay Rights Laws Are About Force, Not Rights

By Debbie Schlussel
The reason why many of us oppose so-called “gay rights” laws is not just our opposition to gay marriage, but the fact that these laws don’t so much protect gays from discrimination as they do impose their lifestyle and values on private parties, in violation of our rights.
Yesterday’s settlement between online dating service eHarmony, Inc. and the state of New Jersey is Exhibit A of that. EHarmony was founded and is still headed by Dr. Neil Clark Warren, an evangelical Christian who doesn’t believe in gay marriage or helping foster gay relationships. His company is a private sector company, not a public agency. Yet, because of a New Jersey discrimination law protecting gays, eHarmony must now engage in same-sex matchmaking.


A settlement Wednesday between eHarmony Inc. and the New Jersey attorney general requires the online heterosexual dating service to also cater to homosexuals, raising questions about whether other services that target a niche clientele could be forced to expand their business models.
The settlement stemmed from a complaint, filed with the New Jersey attorney general’s office by a gay match seeker in 2005, that eHarmony had violated his rights under the state’s discrimination law by not offering a same-sex dating service. In 2007, the attorney general found probable cause that eHarmony had violated the state’s Law Against Discrimination.
As part of the agreement, the Pasadena, Calif.-based company will develop and market Compatible Partners, a Web dating service for same-sex couples, and will allow the site’s first 10,000 users to register free. EHarmony will also pay $50,000 to the attorney general’s office and $5,000 to the man who first brought the case.
In a statement Wednesday, eHarmony denied violating discrimination law and said its business had been based on years of researching opposite-sex marriages to understand what makes such couples compatible. . . .
David Bernstein, who teaches constitutional law at George Mason University School of Law, said the discrimination claim “seems like quite a stretch,” but he worried it could encourage similar claims. “If you start a dating service for African Americans, do you need one for whites and Latinos? If you have one for Jews, do you need one for Christians and Muslims?”
EHarmony faces a similar discrimination claim in a California court. It’s unclear if this settlement will affect that case.

This is ridiculous. If gays want to be matched, why don’t they star their own online matchmaking service, instead of imposing their beliefs on unwilling parties?
Well, the bottom line is that the phrase “gay rights” isn’t about just equal rights, it’s about militance and imposition and force upon others.
Just ask eHarmony, which will be playing a lot of Elton John-, George Michael-, and Clay Aiken-style harmony these days.

17 Responses

I can just see it now. Next it will be the transexuals who are looking for love, then of course in the not so distant future it will be the rights of the pedophile, they are only looking for love too. When you open the door to one, the rest will follow suit.
Personally I would like to see the good ol moral fashioned American start filing lawsuits for the violation of our civil rights and liberties.

wolf2012 on November 20, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Gays can fornicate at will so they donít need a law for that.
They want rights to get a piece of the insurance pie which grants special rates to couples. If they are legal, they can force the insurance companies to provide this reducing the overall available money and thereby hurting the straights.
The special rates that currently exist are to endorse a relationship that has been the foundation of population growth and the heterosexual marriage with children has led to the family structure which provides the best background for raising productive and happy human beings.
They also want the law to force their behavior down our throats and not allow us to distance ourselves from their healthy and, to many, immoral life style choice.
Homosexuality is not a race. Its not a biological imperative. Itís a choice like doing drugs is a choice.
If love between people is the driver, then polygamy and even bestiality should be endorsed where minors are not involved. Insurance coverage should be provided for your loving collie.

Facts of Life on November 20, 2008 at 12:09 pm

So, does this mean I can sue all the local vegan restaurants because they do not serve the meat dishes I want to eat?

rbb on November 20, 2008 at 12:11 pm

This is the Fairness Doctrine in action.
It’s like Pepsi complaining because 6-packs of Coke contain no Pepsi…
It’s like going to a Rolling Stones concert and complaining that they didn’t play any jazz…
Coming soon:
“You have too many white guys in your rock band. Replace a few of them with a black woman….and an Asian senior citizen……and add some Dixieland jazz and lesbian bluegrass to your repertoire…otherwise I’m calling a lawyer…”

guitarguy on November 20, 2008 at 12:15 pm

It IS about force. Those of us believe marriage is between a man and a woman have been characterized as hateful bigots. If we don’t get rid of the values we raised on, like those found in the Bible, we won’t be accepted in our society. In California, to believe marriage is limited to people of the opposite gender is enough to lead people to conclude you’re taking rights from others even though gay marriage has NEVER existed in all of human history and the idea of raising a child without a father and mother is akin to sacrificing your child to Molech. Its a lonely place to be to believe in God and traditional values and yet as Maimonides said, the Torah that G-d gave the Jews at Mt Sinai – His Teachings will NEVER change. If the world is reverting to paganism, the rest of us must hold fast to what is right and true, now more than ever!

NormanF on November 20, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Posted by: Facts of Life:
“Homosexuality is not a race. Its not a biological imperative. It’s a choice like doing drugs is a choice.”
Not looking for an argument here…..but I’d like an explanation for that statement (“….it’s a choice…”).
When I hit puberty, I didn’t sit down and think: “Hmmmmmm……girls…..or guys?…..Let’s see…..Which one do I want to pursue?….*sigh*….this is gonna take some time …”
For me, as a young boy, it was a no-brainer.
A woman in a bikini?
A guy in swim trunks?
Besides, I’ve been checking out the ladies since I was 5 years-old.
At 5-years old, women’s legs were in my line of vision constantly.
….and I was one happy little boy…

guitarguy on November 20, 2008 at 12:27 pm

“This is ridiculous. If gays want to be matched, why don’t they star their own online matchmaking service, instead of imposing their beliefs on unwilling parties?
Well, the bottom line is that the phrase “gay rights” isn’t about just equal rights, it’s about militance and imposition and force upon others.”
Yes, but the moment you have a doctrine of “public accomodations,” don’t you eventually get this kind of result? Some will say that being gay is not like being black, except that state law, in this case, disagrees. All of the Molech biz is irrelevant.
Is this “force”? Yes. But law always is “force.” It would be far more intellectually coherent to reject any application of anti-discrimination provisions on private companies. That would stop this nonsense once and for all.

skZion on November 20, 2008 at 12:34 pm

I have mixed feelings about this — In spite of Dr. Warren’s evangelical background, eHarmony has been frequently criticized by reputable consumer agencies for inflated clains, and misleading (at best) advertising, especially concerning the number of marriages as a result of this site.
Having said that, of course marriage should be between a man and a woman, and eHarmony has the right to define marriage in the traditional and normal way.
The word “rights” has suffered from the same type of inflation that many other words have, such as ‘investment’ in our politically correct age. Communist concepts such as economic equality, ending of all class, racial, and now, sexual distinctions, have become ‘rights’ in the last few decades.

c f on November 20, 2008 at 1:27 pm

” … impose their lifestyle and values on private parties, in violation of our rights.”
Well stated Debbie … that’s what it has always been about. And there are plenty of sites where gays can go to meet same sex partners … this was simply about gaining more press, as well as, an attempt to take away other’s rights that do not share in their beliefs.
Here’s a on-line site idea that Dr. Neil Clark Warren should set up for gays who have any questions regarding locating the perfect same sex partner:
Jimmy Lewis
SCS, Michigan

Jimmy Lewis on November 20, 2008 at 1:34 pm

What I mean by it’s a choice is that all of us have attractions to others but we control them.
The gay community would have us believe that they are biologically hard wired for this and can’t control themselves. Therefore, their situation should be treated like race or ethnicity issues where the person can’t help being what he/she is. This is bogus.
Gay behavior is an unhealthy and, to many, a morally offensive lifestyle which I shouldn’t be forced to support. It’s a free will choice which should not be treated like some sort of human right.

Facts of Life on November 20, 2008 at 2:04 pm

I’m very surprised that eHarmony settled and did not continue to fight this complaint in the courts – or just not allow any resident from New Jersey to join eHarmony.

ramjordan on November 20, 2008 at 4:11 pm

I cant believe eharmony caved but this is another entity that has been intimidated by the GAY MAFIA. Government will eventually cave in and 20 years from know everyone will have a direct family member or cousin that is homosexual.
This has always been about indoctrination of young children into homosexuality. The whole purpose is to make the government acknowledge homosexuality as a marriage and from therefore a viable “lifestyle”. Once it becomes the law of the land, it will be taught in the schools. From there it will be in direct contrast with families and religion. An impressionable young child will be faced with the law of the land through the school system telling he or she their parents and religion are wrong. The bond between child and parent and religion will be broken and that is where the indoctrination occurs.
I dont know why they are upset with Prop8 passage calling it “discriminatory” because everyone is allowed to marry. Prop8 is about the recognition of marriage. Also the recognition of your marriage is not a protected right. Also everyone’s marriage is allowed to be recognized as long as one is married to someone of the opposite sex. However everyone is not allowed to have their marriage recognized if it of the same sex. So regardless of sexual preference everyone is allowed to have their marriage recognized if and only if it is with someone of the opposite sex and no one is allowed to have their marriage recognized with someone of the same sex. Everyone is treated equally. Homosexuals choose not to exercise that right and confuse that with having rights taken away. A heterosexual cannot have their marriage recognized with someone of the same sex even if he or she wanted to, it doesn’t stop that person from being a heterosexual. A homosexual has the ability to have their marriage recognized if they marry someone of the opposite, it doesn’t stop that person from being a homosexual.
They want to have same sex marriage recognized regardless of who it is. Now that is a different subject and doesn’t mean that “traditional marriage” laws are unconstitutional. Both are constitutional. It is similar to drinking laws at 18 or 21, doesnt mean one has to be unconstitutional both are constitutional. However the public vote in 30 states have all agreed that “traditional marriage” is marriage. In 20 years I doubt if half the states will have “traditional marriage” laws on the books. In fact COBRAMA and the Pelosi Congress could change the law federally and issue gay marriage license at federal offices.

californiascreaming on November 20, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Gay Rage is cannibalizing their own. They “outed” a Republican, Congressman David Drier.|jq2q43wvsl855o|xkck4ikiw7hyhq&issueId=xkc1sme5m8ltbo&xid=xkc3ui6dn3pv77

californiascreaming on November 20, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Forgot to put in the article where the rumor got started and has been floating around for years in SoCal politics, started by Homosexuals and now being used by others in Democratic party to cover tracks.

californiascreaming on November 20, 2008 at 10:57 pm

In a statement Wednesday, eHarmony denied violating discrimination law and said its business had been based on years of researching opposite-sex marriages to understand what makes such couples compatible. . . .
I think this statement answers the charge; there was no discrimination. They have a business model. You don’t demand that an automotive insurance company insure your house. The service is either offered or not. This is the same concept. Does EHarmony now have to spend bunches of moolah researching the dynamics of same sex couples to find out what makes gay unions work, even if that may not be a profitable business? So gays get to join the priveleged class now? I’m calling B.S.! That burden on the company on top of the fines paid to the state, the plaintiff, and the 10,000 free customers. Outrageous. They should have fought this. More PC Bull.
Look, instead of doing a bunch of research on gay unions, they should write some software that uses a random number generator to pair gay couples. After the first 10,000 moochers burn out, no other gays will want to use a site that produces no results. They can hook up without EHarmony.
Notice, I’m not hating on gays. I’m hating on PC bull. Well, this does stink like gay stealth jihad, but away with me. I enjoyed the words of one commentator who said of gay marriage, ” Sure! Why shouldn’t they be as miserable as everyone else?”

Richard on November 21, 2008 at 12:09 am

OK. So, I’m sure it’s more complicated than this, but it’s too bad, they can’t just block the service in NJ.
I’m am concerned about the gov’t imposing it’s jurisdiction into the Web, as I am sure gay activists are concerned about as well.
Maybe they could find a gay rights precedent when the courts have rules that the gov’t has no jurisdiction on the Web, and use that to defend their private service.

Ben-Yehudah on November 21, 2008 at 7:52 am

Websterís dictionary defines marriage as the union between a husband and a wife.
The bible defines it the same way.
Why is it homosexuals want to change that definition?
No one is trying to infringe on any groups rights here, except homosexuals on heterosexuals, and religious groupís freedom to worship as they see fit.
Homosexuals are free to get laws passed so that their unions have the same rights as heterosexuals. They just are not going to be allowed to call it marriage.
You see as soon as any state recognizes it as marriage, then homosexuals are free to show up in any church and demand to be married. And of course then the church will be in a legal situation, for refusing to marry them, based on religious, or biblical reasons. They will probably lose their tax exempt status and their right to their religious moral belief system.
And if you think thatís not what theyíre after, youíve got another think coming.
Notice who they are attacking, the churches, under the guise that they are denying them rights, or that theyíre religious zealots or nut jobs.
So you see, itís not heterosexuals denying rights to homosexuals itís the other way around.
They can call their unions anything they want, and enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, but they are not going to be allowed to call their unions marriage.
But of course I’m the bigot.

08hayabusa on February 1, 2009 at 10:50 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field