eHarmony Caves
Human Rights
| November 20, 2008
| Tim
eHarmony has been in GLBT activist sights because they offered only a traditional man/woman dating service. Other online dating services (Match.com, I believe) have capitalized upon this and ran ads touting the wider variety of combinations they, um, facilitate. I would argue that both parties are well within their rights.
If I'm gay, how am I hurt that one dating website, out of so very many (please turn to the back pages of your local "progressive" mag) is only focusing on creating certain kinds of matches which don't apply to me? If anything, it's helpful for getting the people I'd probably not be interested in out of the other dating pools, no?
I'm straight -- but am I offended that there are gay-only dating services, web sites, phone lines, newspapers, magazines, etc? Am I interested in forcing some gay photography site to show pictures of Heidi Klum? Of course not. And I'm not Jewish, but am I offended that there are Jewish-specific dating sites, like JDate, which won't hook me up with a nice Christian, Hindu, or Zoroastrian girl? Of course not -- if someone wants to date Jews, I'm not going to be a likely prospect for them, and vise-versa.
But this isn't about choice, and this sure isn't about persuasion.
Michelle Malkin comments on recent developments:
So, this is “progress?” eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye...
Actually, the economic argument is far less sensible than that. People often go to restaurants together, as a social event -- so it at least makes some economic sense to cater to diversity. (Kids meals, meals outside the theme, etc.) But nobody uses a dating site as group. (Well, not seriously.) So this is more like suing a chicken farm, who ships their meat to individual consumers, to force them to also raise turkeys. (Or, considering the ratio in demand, quail.)
But this isn't about economics either, is it? This is about feelings. And about validating those feelings by using threats of confiscation, punishment, and even imprisonment if necessary.
The debate, for activists, is not primarily about one's right to do what one personally wants. To the contrary, it is primarily about forcing others to call a same-sex union "marriage", about forcing others to agree that one's lifestyle is "just as good" as theirs, about forcing others to offer you services or opportunities you demand.
I keep hearing how the right is "forcing" this or that, but it's manifestly untrue. In this case, we want individuals to be able to make their own choices. If Bob and Eric want to commit to each other for life, promise to stop having sex with other "boys", and tell their friends they're "married", I say let them. If Susan doesn't want to agree they're really "married", photograph their wedding, or change her website to cater to their sexual preferences, well, then let her as well. I may be wrong, but you certainly can't say I'm trying to control everyone. And most people I know on the right -- including many conservative Christians -- seem to share this outlook.
Of course, there are places where one can't accommodate both views. Schools will or will not depict gay people as "married". Laws will or will not permit same-sex couples to adopt, and courts will or will not recognize both partners.
But what's telling here is that GLBT activists don't limit the battle to simply these shared, zero-sum areas. No, the battle is to coerce wedding photographers to photograph their wedding, to force dating services not to be "heterosexist", to force private, religious schools to promote moral and religious viewpoints preferred by GLBT activists.
Ontario private schools are coming increasingly under the lens of homosexual activist groups for "homophobic" teaching stemming from the schools' primarily religious foundations, a report in Ottawa's homosexual news media indicated earlier this week.
In an article warning about the increasing trend toward private and religious schools in the province, Ottawa's Capital Xtra objected to religious schools that teach children "only their own values." .... The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario said they were concerned the provincial ministry of education wasn't "exerting more control" over the curriculum used by private religious schools.
For those who think "right wing conservative Christians" are, comparatively, the anti-freedom extremists, or even a mirror image of the above, I have a few very simple questions:
1. Can you name any Christian legal group who has sued a gay website or any other private business to force them to promote "heterosexist" values?
2. I can point to several people around the world who have been prosecuted or imprisoned, with full blessing from LGBT activists, for saying homosexuality was wrong. Can you point to anyone who, under pressure from a "Christian" group or culturally Christian nation, was imprisoned for speech promoting homosexuality?
3. Have Christians, in our lifetime, used lawsuits to force private schools to promote their specific values? Or even used similar lawsuits to force public schools to promote their values?
There's simply no comparison. And people of all sexual preferences, religions, and political viewpoint should be concerned about what we're seeing, and how the media is falling largely silent on carrying these particular points.
And can you imagine the media outcry if any of the above examples were true? For example, if Christian groups in Canada were pressuring the government to get secular schools to promote their view that Canadians' traditional marital arrangements were morally best? Or if a Christian group in the USA were trying to force a lesbian photographer to take photographs she didn't wish to take?
There's simply no comparison.
In an article warning about the increasing trend toward private and religious schools in the province, Ottawa's Capital Xtra objected to religious schools that teach children "only their own values."
Don't most schools contain a section about fascism in their curriculum? I don't see how the case has merit.
I mean, if they weren't teaching about fascism, and it's terrible consequences, we might end up in the same place, where intolerant people suppress the fundamental rights of others.
Oh, wait...
First of all, what's happening here is disgusting. The one reasonable defense, in my eyes, of things like Prop 8 is the likely increase in legal garbage like this eHarmony ruling and the people and laws that support it. Our freedoms hinge on whether or not the Nazis can march in Skokie, so to speak, and eHarmony is certainly run by much better folks than the ACLU represented up there.
And I've heard a few people (my girlfriend included, apparently) who don't seem to have a problem with what happened to eHarmony. Which is disturbing.
Regarding your questions about political parity;
I have a few very simple questions:
Do anti-sodomy laws count? What about those who favor removing gays from the military or other forms of public service. Or are you only looking for actions against private companies?
The law in question also bans the sale of sex toys in Alabama unless they serve “bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial or law enforcement purposes”.link
I keep hearing how the right is "forcing" this or that, but it's manifestly untrue
What about laws which demand that shops selling vibrators call them 'marital aides' or 'novelty items' and that they not explain what they're used for or else face obscenity charges
To forbid explaining how a product would be used to a private customer seems at least as onerous as demanding that eHarmony provide different kinds of matchups.
link
This is in reference to private sales of these devices to heterosexual couples.
According to reports in the local media, police said a few residents, who they declined to identify, lodged complaints. A few prominent citizens with strong Christian beliefs were angered by Webb and her activities and asked police to investigate, local media reported. link
Chrissy and Don Gonzales have been bringing their children to Hooters for years. They’ve made many visits to north Arlington but prefer the Hooters in south Arlington because it’s closer to home. They’ve been regulars since it opened three years ago amid a clamor of protest. Some residents complained about the restaurant’s marketing of sexy girls and beer, even though the proposed site faced a major highway and was situated in a busy commercial district. When the city allowed the restaurant to build, residents found another way to fight. About 1,300 of them signed a petition opposing the restaurant’s application for a license to sell beer on the basis that it didn’t fit within the community standards of decency. The ensuing string of legal battles hasn’t gone the restaurant’s way, so Hooters has been giving away beer to adult customers while it continues the legal fight.
link
Is this selective application of the law lawful?
In the Institutes, Rushdoony supported the reinstatement of the Mosaic law's penal sanctions. Under such a system, the list of civil crimes which carried a death sentence would include homosexuality, adultery, incest, lying about one's virginity, bestiality, witchcraft, idolatry or apostasy, public blasphemy, false prophesying, kidnapping, rape, and bearing false witness in a capital case.[10]wikipedia link
Granted, Rushdoony seems to be a marginal Christian figure, though with some following.
A coalition of Christian schools has filed a federal lawsuit accusing University of California admissions officials of discrimination for refusing to accept certain high school courses taught from a religious viewpoint.
link
link
First of all, what's happening here is disgusting. The one reasonable defense, in my eyes, of things like Prop 8...
Well, I guess we respectfully disagree: I don't think the state of the USA before California judges got involved was "disgusting", which your characterization seems to necessarily imply.
But we agree here...
Our freedoms hinge on whether or not the Nazis can march in Skokie, so to speak...
I agree entirely, Ryan, and that's why I think even pro-gay-marriage atheists ought to be up in arms about such things. I bought into Voltaire's "I may not agree with you, but will fight to the death for your right to say so." Buy sadly, I think many of the people who have said that only meant it while in the minority.
Do anti-sodomy laws count?
No, for two reasons. First, I'm asking about what's happening today. You can't compare Christians in a previous culture and era (most such laws were passed generations ago) with current ones to make an apples-to-apples comparison. Most Christians today think most sodomy laws are silly, given that many or most of them probably violate them with their wives.
Second, anti-sodomy laws were restriction on behavior, not speech. Those who believe in "sodomy" are still allowed to organize politically to promote their views. Indeed, one might argue they're been rather successful, as nobody really backs anti-sodomy laws today.
I'd rather be told I can't drive 85 mph than be told I couldn't advocate driving 85.
But even if we grant that anti-sodomy laws count, then go ahead and count up the number of instances on each side and compare. How many Christians are pushing for new anti-sodomy laws or vigorous, consistent enforcement of existing ones? Versus how many LGBT groups are successfully working to regulate what their opponents can say or do?
Again, it seems to me there's no comparison, even granting that.
What about laws which demand that shops selling vibrators call them 'marital aides' or 'novelty items' and that they not explain what they're used for or else face obscenity charges...
Gee, or how about people who want it to still be illegal to show XXX material on prime time TV? Or preventing public nudity? Why shouldn't we see giant erect penises on TV to advertise sex drugs? There are matters of decorum, Ryan, and if you're saying that only people on my side would be interested in continuing such restrictions (which I don't believe) then you're inadvertently making a different but even more damning case.
But as it is, I don't believe, say, Andrew Sullivan is opposed keeping public advertisements less than sexually explicit.
To forbid explaining how a product would be used to a private customer seems at least as onerous as demanding that eHarmony provide different kinds of matchups.
Really? You honestly believe that?
Alright then. Being compelled to create a new section of your website is EXACTLY identical in impact, to, say, the sellers of Viagra not being able to show, in detail, on TV the effects of the drug. Using a euphamism / constructing a new service -- the same!
Look, either way, I'm asking you to tally up those believing such on each side. Each day I encounter people who support gay marriage who don't believe, to use your flattering :-) analogy, that Nazis should be allowed to march in Skokie. On the other hand, I think most Christians would think the charges in the CNN story were a bit over the top. (Thanks for the example, by the way.)
Go ahead and weigh that against the number of speech codes present in our universities, and incidents of which I'm speaking now. Or even just take those sets individually.
Yes, there are some cases from the right. I've never said otherwise. I'm just asking for a comparison.
And I don't think both sides differ on how sex products should be advertised in public. If you think so, let me know, but then you're also saying that supporters of same-sex marriage aren't like everyone else, in terms of wanting to have a generally kid-safe public.
Granted, Rushdoony seems to be a marginal Christian figure...
Right: And yet the left is obsessed with him, despite his rather unproven influence. The fact they all gravitate to him is a sign of how FEW such people there are on our side. In contrast, our President-elect seems to have hung out with Ayers, Dorhn, Wright, etc -- yet we're not sure they were an influence, eh?
And such people are hardly rare in our universities, as you well know.
Again, I'm not saying there are NO people "on my side" who don't have anti-freedom views. I myself want to restrict some "freedoms" such as public nudity, polygamy, etc. (And I should hope that most of my opponents would regard these as sensible, not deeply anti-freedom and onerous.)
I'm simply asking my readers to make an honest assessment of the proportion, acceptability, and influence today, using the sample questions above to expose our cultural biases.
Well, I guess we respectfully disagree: I don't think the state of the USA before California judges got involved was "disgusting", which your characterization seems to necessarily imply.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not supporting the plaintiff in any sense.
Gee, or how about people who want it to still be illegal to show XXX material on prime time TV? Or preventing public nudity?
I'm not sure you've understood the cases I linked to (or else my source materials omitted something.) We're talking about actions done in private here, not publicly advertised.
Otherwise, why the need for the equivalent of a sting operation and what would be entrapment? (if we assume the action was a crime.) If the problem was with a woman advertising on a billboard, just take a photo of the billboard and be done with it.
I'm still writing vaguely. I believe people have a right to free association, and to infringe on that is disgusting.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Feeling the "Love" and "Tolerance" in Castro District |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Our New *Moral* Robot Overlords? »
|
In an article warning about the increasing trend toward private and religious schools in the province, Ottawa's Capital Xtra objected to religious schools that teach children "only their own values."
Don't most schools contain a section about fascism in their curriculum? I don't see how the case has merit.
I mean, if they weren't teaching about fascism, and it's terrible consequences, we might end up in the same place, where intolerant people suppress the fundamental rights of others.
Oh, wait...
Posted by: Michael Zappe on November 20, 2008 12:43 PM