Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Eharmony forced to provide gay matches.

I don't like eHarmony's business model but it's their right to have that model. It's a niche buisness... just like Gay.com, BMB, and even J-Date. It just happens that their niche is huge and doesn't cater to me... and I would rather use a service that wants me as a client than one that is forced to serve me. If I was vegetarian I wouldn't feel that steakhouses should have vegetarian options. If the steakhouse has them... good for them... but why would a vegetarian want to go to a steakhouse. Why would a gay want to use a dating site that probably thinks they shouldn't be allowed to get married; that the extent of their relationship is based on lust not love.

You don't take a Ducati motorcycle to be fixed by a Honda Accord mechanic.... that's all I'm saying.


( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
Nov. 20th, 2008 06:48 pm (UTC)
I agree with you.
Nov. 20th, 2008 06:53 pm (UTC)
I couldn’t agree more!
Nov. 20th, 2008 07:23 pm (UTC)
As much as I dislike eHarmony with their uber-creepy commercials and the Stepford people they populate them with, not to mention that it was founded by James Dobson who is a big ole homophobe, I agree with you.
Nov. 20th, 2008 07:44 pm (UTC)
I totally agree with you. They're a private business - they can restrict it how they wish... hell, I wouldn't want Manhunt to be overrun by straight people, ya know?
Nov. 20th, 2008 08:06 pm (UTC)
Agreed. It's ludicrous this is an issue for anyone... but eh.
Nov. 20th, 2008 09:18 pm (UTC)
Yep. I'm there. Although if I'm reading it right, eHarmony didn't lose, they just settled, which could mean anything from, "We don't think that, based on precedent, we can win this" to "You know, we were toying with that business model anyway."

eHarmony's refusal to serve gay people always pissed me off on a visceral level. However, I seem to recall that their public statement on the matter was something like, "We don't know enough about gay relationships to make a comparable database", which, while it was probably hiding an anti-gay philosophy, might also be true. One of the eye-opening things about living in SF is seeing gay relationships in a gay-normative* universe, and realizing that, yeah, they really are different in key ways.

Starting with a name like "Compatible Partners" sounds like phoning it in. Politically-aware gays - assuming they give a crap... hi, redarius! - are likely to steer clear the site in order to avoid lining the pockets of people who were discriminating against them five months ago.** And aren't there already dating sites with a setup like eHarmony's that service gays?***

Anyway, I find litigating this a little creepy. I care about civil rights, I care about meaningful discrimination, but a company refusing to sell a service I want... it's like getting worked-up about pigeons.

If eHarmony can be semi-successfully sued for lacking gay love, then can I bring up a civil-rights suit against Wizards of the Coast for continuing to randomly pack miniatures? Or - hey! - can I sue Hasbro for not making a Monica Rambeau Captain Marvel figure?
* - That's not the term I'm looking for, but it's as close as I'm going to get.

** - Now excuse me while I go check my Yahoo! Mail.

*** - I mean service gays, not, y'know, service gays.

Edited at 2008-11-20 09:18 pm (UTC)
Nov. 21st, 2008 12:42 am (UTC)
"It's very frustrating and it's very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can't," he said. "And the only reason I can't is because I'm a gay man. That's very hurtful."

Faggot. I guess now I'll have to look at pictures of pussies on gay.com.
Nov. 21st, 2008 01:06 am (UTC)
I hate those cheesy commercials of theirs.
That guy looks like an old Mormon pature too who does those commercials.

Nov. 21st, 2008 01:43 am (UTC)
I don't like it because it destroys Chemistry.com's reason for being, although I'll bet there's a christian side to eHarmony's customers.
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )