Posted by
DL Cummings on Wednesday, June 06, 2007 1:48:26 PM
Recently a lawsuit on behalf of Linda Carlson was filed against Eharmony.com for alleged discriminatory practices. According to California law, businesses are not allowed to discriminate against persons on the basis of sexual orientation. A quick review of the arguments for both parties is as follows:
Against Eharmony.com
Same-sex couples who wish to use the service cannot as the options require a person choose either "Man seeking a woman" or a "Woman seeking a man." According to the SFGate.com [1]:
"The proposed class-action suit seeks damages for any gay, lesbian or bisexual Californian who was denied access to the Web site or refrained from using it because of its policy, and an injunction requiring equal access."
Favoring Eharmony.com
Eharmony's claim is that there is no discrimination against gays due to the nature of the site and its origin. Again, quoting the SFGate.com:
"Our rational business basis is that our research database comes from a clinical psychiatrist observing successful marriages vs. non-successful,'' observations based entirely on opposite-sex marriages, Davis said. He said a claim of discrimination against same-sex partners is comparable to a suit against a Japanese restaurant "for discriminating against people who like French food.''
The counter is that Eharmony simply was designed to serve a specific purpose and does not have the adequate research to offer such a service to gay persons.
The truth is simple, Eharmony is not engaging in discrimination for various reasons. Agreeing with Lanny Davis (lawyer for Eharmony), I would also argue that gays are not being overtly discriminated against as it is suggested by the article and John Cloud of Time Magazine.[2]
Both articles suggest (the Time article actually states it) that gays are not permitted to use the site. Malarkey; they are permitted to use the site. A quick tour of the site shows no sign of heterosexual requirements (as in stated). While the site does indeed require a person to pick a person from the opposite sex, there is no limitation imposed upon any person from using the site based on sexual orientation (in other words it doesn't state “No gays” or “Heterosexuals Only”). This may seem like borderline semantics, but rather important I believe to the details of the case. The lawsuit alleges that Eharmony is discriminating against them by simply not offering a service specifically catered to persons based on sexual orientation. If such a case were to win, I believe, this would open the door for many potential lawsuits in the future based on lack of service being stated as active discrimination. Gays and other minorities would be open to file lawsuits when a service offered to the public did not serve a specific need based merely on their minority status. Persons might be inclined to complain that particular clothing stores discriminate by not offering clothing representative of their particular minority status.
It should also be worth noting that such a lawsuit represents the ignorance of persons about their rights and the rights of others. In suing Eharmony, Ms. Carlson assumes the position that she has an inherent right to use the service offered by Eharmony. While I understand California's law against discrimination, it amounts to rubbish in the realm of truth (where I typically reside). The fact is, Eharmony should not be under any obligation by law to offer their services to homosexuals (this works in the reverse as well).
A certain person in my company is gay. During a conversation he noted to me that a particular gay bar he frequents (in another state) has a sign that states, "No Straights Allowed." The reason behind this was due to heterosexual patrons stirring up trouble when being solicited to by gay patrons. The solution? Don't permit heterosexual persons in. This is precisely the point with private business, to be able to offer a service to whom you want, when you want. I have no problems with the restrictions from this bar, and neither should you.
I will agree with Mr. Cloud on one point, the best approach by the gay community isn't lawsuits--though ridicule wasn't quite what I had in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of simply offering a competitive product.