I have been hearing alot about this controversy from alot gay media about eHarmony.
The issue is that the business discriminates in favor of heterosexuals -- to the exclusion of providing comparable services to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. In California's law it looks like eHarmony has already lost this case before the battle is even engaged.
The reason is eHarmony has apparently already lost is in part due to their headquarters being based out of Pasadena, California. Since January of 2006, California modified the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act with AB1400:
"The Civil Rights Act of 2005 [AB 1400] adds sexual orientation, gender, and marital status to the Unruh Act, explicitly strengthening nondiscrimination protections to clarify that businesses that provide services, goods or accommodations to the public cannot discriminate against LGBT people. The law requires "Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments" covered by the Unruh Act, which include shopping centers, mobile home parks, bars and restaurants, schools, medical and dental offices, hotels, theaters, hospitals, salons, public agencies, retail stores, and certain organizations like condominium homeowners' associations".
AB 1400 actually goes further than that. This is because the definition of sex used for AB1400 includes gender identity/transgender people. The text of the Unruh Civil Rights Act also specifically states about the businesses affected:
All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. (Emphasis added)
In all business establishments of every kind whatsoever will no doubt include California based e-businesses, whether owned by Christians (like eHarmony's Dr. Neil Clark Warren) or not.
Justice MH's Final thoughts: I can see where this case is going, and it's not in favor eHarmony's discriminating policies. I believe Dr. Neil Clark Warren and eHarmony have already lost this court case -- they just don't know it yet.
Thanks Pam @http://pamshouseblend.com.
5 comments:
Well, hold em up gym shoe. This could be a good argument, but unfounded. You have to assess many parts and from an intellectual property point of view, the bets are on eHarmony side that they will win.
I wrote a thought provoking article on this issue on why gay people want to subscribe to a site that is catering to people who really wants clean fun and an environment to meet quality people. eHarmony was not designed to facilitate the filth and the dirty nature of homosexuals and their immoral lifestyle.
@Captian: Captian this case as i said by the civil right act of california where eharmony's base is, will lose!
Your post was far from thought provoking, maybe your perosnal story was, but about issue between gays and e-hamrony wasn't!
Gays are quality people as well!
You want see filth, and dirty go clean yourself!
Once again your moral code is welcome, but generally speaking is INVALID! Keep your moral coe to yourself.
You have some good points, but it is more complex. For example, even though it company is based in California, that doesn't mean the intellectual property is bound to those laws and eHarmony can easily port to another city or state (Look at Cocodorm). Further, provided their services to gays will discredit their theme and standards and that is their right to safeguard. I do not believe eHarmony wants to be another slut commercial site, such as adam4adam.
@Captian:There are gays who want relationship too. And they have slut hetersexual websites too. STOP being bias when it comes to gay issues!
Captian we just have to see how this turn out. If eharmony win then fine. If the lesbian woman then justice serve! Who will win? That remains to be seen!
What "justice" is there is there to serve? eHarmony, in my perspective, is well within their rights.
Post a Comment