As if the protests and the violence going on over gay marriage weren’t enough already…
I heard a whisper last year about some guy in New Jersey who’d supposedly sued Eharmony because the dating site did not cater to homosexuals. I knew from the time I heard of the site that it didn’t; Clark Warren, the founder of the online company, specifically designed it to match couples looking not just for a fling or a tryst, but for marriage and a family. The man is a renowned psychologist and designed the profile service to aid in compatibility. As he is a Christian, though, and ten times published by Focus on the Family, he did not believe in allowing his company to cater to the gay community.
I read grumblings about this fact in a gay publication long ago (the name of which escapes me now). An editorial writer griped about how companies were supposedly getting away with discrimination, and it just isn’t fair. Well…I’ve just gotten confirmation via several different sites that the lawsuit rumor was true. In 2005, a gay man named Eric McKinley filed a lawsuit against Eharmony on the basis that they had discriminated against him by refusing to post his ad for a gay partner.
Here’s what’s worse: Eharmony has settled, agreeing to pay $50,000 to the state of New Jersey for investigative/court costs, another $5,000 to McKinley, and they will, beginning next year, begin adding pictures of same-sex couples to their “diversity” page and offer a special service for potential gay customers.
“But Mel,” you say, “you’re gay! Doesn’t this make you happy?”
No, it does not. If Eharmony wanted to keep their service exclusive to heterosexual couples, whether I agree or not, it’s their right to do so according to the Constitution. Hell, if Aryan Nation or the Black Panthers wanted to sponsor sites that promised to match couples only with their own race, I’d support that, too! It’s their right to do so whether we like it or not. We have a ton of websites of own that are exclusive to the gay community and finding a same-sex date, fling or long-term commitment. Did we really have to go after one just because it’s popular?
What irritates me the most is that in the past couple of weeks, my biggest GLBT detractors have knocked down my arguments about gays suing churches to force them to perform ceremonies for gay couples. Their argument has been that it would be unconstitutional to allow those types of lawsuits to win, thus it would never happen and the fears of that sort of thing happening in the event of the legalization of gay marriage are unfounded.
Think again, folks. This proves that those fears are quite well-grounded. It’s yet another prime example of true intolerance in action, and it’s nauseating. McKinley’s was not the only lawsuit, either. Several others are beginning to surface now that Eharmony has settled on the very first one.
I’m almost as disgusted with Eharmony for giving in as I am with the bozos on the bench who allowed these attacks on Constitutional rights to move forward in the courts and with the selfish twits who brought the lawsuits in the first place. There are far bigger issues at stake here. If we’re willing to attack basic freedoms, we don’t deserve them, either.
You cannot do whatever you want in the name of equality and find validation.