Christian eHarmony Founder: Gay Marriage Damaged Our Company

The conservative Christian co-founder of the dating site eHarmony says that marriage equality damaged his company and endangered his employees. The irony? Fellow conservatives are the ones who nearly got violent over the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the online dating scene.

eHarmony CEO Neil Clark Warren

In an interview with Yahoo! Finance this month, eHarmony CEO Neil Clark Warren says he’s a “passionate follower of Jesus” and was formerly associated with the anti-gay group Focus on the Family. As such, his company was notorious for refusing to match same-sex couples.

Then in 2008, and again in 2010, the rulings from two separate lawsuits required he not only open a dating website for gay and lesbian users, but also unify subscriptions and link between the two sites rather than keep them separate and unaffiliated.

According to a Mashable article about the 2010 lawsuit:

A gay man from New Jersey named Eric McKinley filed suit against eHarmony in 2008 for not offering matchmaking for gays and lesbians. eHarmony settled by agreeing to launch a service for gay and lesbian customers called Compatible Partners. eHarmony’s launch of Compatible Partners was called a “shotgun wedding” by the Los Angeles Times, though. There wasn’t even a link to Compatible Partners at eHarmony.

Furthermore, Compatible Partners had a completely different subscription system. Bisexuals had to pay two subscription fees to have access to both sexes.

Warren told Yahoo! that the change hurt his company — but not because it was a bad business move. Instead, he says, it’s because Christian critics of same-sex marriage were so furious, they could have become dangerous:

“I think this issue of same-sex marriage within the next five to 15 years will be no issue anymore. We’ve made too much of it. I’m tired of it. It has really damaged our company,” Warren said, “and when the attorney general of the state of New Jersey decided that we had to put up a same-sex site and we did it out of counsel that if we didn’t do it we were not going to have any business in New Jersey — we literally had to hire guards to protect our lives because the people were so hurt and angry with us, were Christian people, who feel that it’s a violation to scripture.

But no matter, says Warren. He thinks the whole thing should blow over soon, as long as we get to the bottom of this pesky “homosexuality” thing:

“I have said that eHarmony really ought to put up $10 million and ask other companies to put up money and do a really first class job of figuring out homosexuality. At the very best, it’s been a painful way for a lot of people to have to live. But at this point, at this age, I want America to start drawing together. I want it to be more harmonious.”

So basically, this guy acknowledges that fellow Christians are the ones who threatened his company and his well-being… but he’s blaming it on the gays. Oh, and we should all be “harmonious”… by totally abandoning the concerns of gays and lesbians.

Haven’t heard that story before.

About Camille Beredjick

Camille is a recent college graduate working in the LGBT nonprofit industry. She runs an LGBT news blog at gaywrites.org.

  • KeithCollyer

    they had to hire guards to protect themselves from those ever-loving christians. figures

    • observer

      That should tell you everything you need to know.

    • observer

      That should tell you everything you need to know.

    • Maria

      Thank you! It’s like seriously? Why can’t these people act the way they say they believe they’re supposed to act? With LOVE?!? To EVERYONE?!! Cause that’s what I always heard growing up, and it’s still what I hear from christians now: that it’s all about love. Well, if you have christians threatening each other, not so loving now is it?

      • Matto the Hun

        Yeah but Maria what you are hearing is “Love to everyone”, but what they are saying is “Love to everyone*”

        *and by ‘everyone’ we mean everyone who is a Christian, or in our particular Christian group, or everyone who bows their head, knows their place, and accepts that their religious freedom (or any freedoms) are second to OUR religious freedom.

        It’s easy to miss that asterisk, but as you can see it speaks volumes.

    • http://twitter.com/ThundalArchsys Thundal Archsys

      And they still manage to miss the fact that it’s their bullshit they’re afraid of… the same bullshit they’re putting out there… the same prejudice they face is the prejudice directed at the LGBT, and they *don’t even recognize that what they’re afraid of is what LGBT has to put up with because of them*.

      also, wow, homophones galore in that first line…

      • flyb

        Don’t be homophonic.

        • http://www.facebook.com/travis.myers.102977 Travis Myers

          You mean homophonophobic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/terry.minton Terry Minton

    NOTE: If equality damages your company, it’s because your company is seriously f*ked up.

    • TheG

      I’m sure the end of slavery really damaged a few cotton farms, too.

  • Haha USA

    USA is a developed country?

    • Jasper

      Don’t flip off the dynamite monkey

    • baal

      Any time you’d like to stop with your endless overly generic insults of 317 million people please feel free to do so.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Fucking hypocrite. It’s “a painful way to live” only because dickwads like you won’t stop trying to force us to live by your belief that we’re all pained and disordered.

    No sympathy. None. He can’t even acknowledge what the issue is. The fact that some people are gay in no way, shape or form magically strips Christians of their control over their own lives and bodies and causes anything.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kevin-Harris/100000793669786 Kevin Harris

      Really? Who’s forcing who? EHarmony was sued and scandalized to accept homosexual behavior, which is totally against Dr. Warren’s values and beliefs.

      • http://www.facebook.com/christian.a.wahl Christian Alexander Wahl

        eHarmony is providing a public service and must comply to equality rights. Simple as that. If he doesn’t want to provide services to people outside his own beliefs, he shouldn’t have made it public. You can’t call it a public service if you aren’t willing to cater to ALL of the public.

        • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

          Is it really public? You have to sign up and pay for their services. Doesn’t that make you a member of a private business? Isn’t that how the Boy Scouts get away with discrimination?

          • blasphemous_kansan

            “Is it really public?”
            According to e-harmony: yes.

            “You have to sign up and pay for their services. Doesn’t that make you a member of a private business?”
            Not any more than the act of you writing a check at wal-mart or signing up for a Costco card makes these ‘private businesses’.

            “Isn’t that how the Boy Scouts get away with discrimination?”
            No, it isn’t.

            You know, google is out there and is really great for finding answers like these, but only if you really are interested in finding them.

            • BenofSoCal

              Dearest, if these folks were interested in finding answers, they would have “found” long ago that the bibble and all it’s silly stories are nothing more than the musings of ignorant, tribal nomads.

              • Veritas

                Why is it when some try to stick up for their rights, they feel the need to attack the beliefs of others? So much for being open minded.

        • john ahn

          Discrimination is any form is wrong. However, eHarmony is not free service. it is to earn money, and it it targeting a specific group called Christians. something like burger people for burgers. after the law suit, they have to invest money and time to create something that they are not targeting nor good at. THIS IS JUST LOCO!!! how about people who are into animals like dogs and goats, if they sue eHarmoney, should they create a service to match people to date horse, cats, or dogs??? or maybe cockroaches.

      • Aaron Stites

        It would be like keeping people of a specific race from using your services. It’s just wrong.

        • PreacherCruz

          NO, what is wrong is how people think Government needs to regulate EVERYTHING. An individual person (even if running a business) has an ABSOLUTE right to freedom of association that DOES apply to who they do business with as well. WHY should a Christian organization or person be forced to do what some others think is right if it is a violation of their firmly held religious beliefs. Also, WHY do people wish to make people do so? IF I knew an Atheist wedding planner I wouldn’t try to force him or her to offer services to Christians if they felt uncomfortable doing so. All of this started back in Civil Rights times and it was wrong then too. Free markets and people regulate things FAR better than Government.

          As a person of so called “mixed racial heritage” with African, Cherokee and Puerto Rican, I always thought WHY on Earth would Indians or Blacks EVER want to do business with some racist who would only serve you if made to do so? Why would you put money in the pockets of this type of person. Ordinarily I would NEVER equate being gay with being black but I do wonder WHY any self respecting Gay person would try to force others to do what is right through force of government. SO much for “Cant legislate morality” I guess. http://www.kjv-truth-ministries.org

          This man showed that ultimately his bottom line was more important than his religious convictions. He should have allowed his company to be closed if it came to that and SUED the heck out of the state or US or whomever was responsible for making him choose between his business and his religious beliefs.

          Oddly enough this kind of phony outrage only works one way. Can’t have Christian groups, businesses or white student unions but you can have Muslim and Black only groups all you want. No Atheist group is being forced to admit Christians to leadership roles like Campus Crusade for Christ and other groups are etc. That might have something to do with the fact that Christians actually respect peoples rights to believe what they want though. Liberals think they need to persuade everyone else to think “correctly”.

        • john ahn

          you can choose not to use it. it is a business which targets a specific group. it is like a burger king, you go there for burgers, and not sushi. NEXT TIME GO TO BURGER KING AND SUE THEM FOR LACK OF SUSHI ON THE MENU.

  • http://www.facebook.com/deb.fohringer Deb Fohringer

    They had to hire body guards to protect them from hurt Christians who felt they were violationg scripture????? I guess it’s that Chinese menu scripture again . . . pick and choose between columns A and b as to what to believe in.

    • JustSayin’

      Isn’t that the ONLY way to do it?

  • http://twitter.com/GreenEyedLilo Jayelle

    Certainly he has no competition like JDate or Christian Mingle or Match.com or….

    And I agree with Baby_Raptor: 99 percent of the pain in that “painful way to live” comes from people like Warren who want to keep us second-class, at best, and think love is only for heterosexuals.

    Happy freakin’ Valentine’s Day. :-/

  • Reginald Selkirk

    A gay man from New Jersey named Eric McKinley filed
    suit against eHarmony in 2008 for not offering matchmaking for gays and
    lesbians. eHarmony settled by agreeing to launch a service for gay and
    lesbian customers called Compatible Partners.

    If I read that correctly, the suit was settled without a verdict. I find it hard to believe that a court would mandate a dating company offering man-dates.

    • http://www.facebook.com/brian.westley Brian Westley

      I don’t. The NJ law against discrimination specifies that public accommodations not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. eHarmony tried to only offer services to straights.

      • Reginald Selkirk

        Do they have Boy Scouts in New Jersey?

        • OverlappingMagisteria

          Boy Scouts are a private organization, while eHarmony is not, meaning they can discriminate.

          But I agree with you that it would seem odd that a court could mandate a company to offer a different type of service. I think it hangs on the question of whether or not same-sex match making can be considered a different service than hetero match making. But I’m not a lawyer, so take some salt with my thoughts.

          • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

            This is what confuses me about this case, it seems like eHarmony could argue that they will provide the same service to every man, they will match him to a woman. If that’s not the service he wants, then he needs to go elsewhere. The lunch counter only serves lunch, if you want dinner you have to go somewhere else. How are those different?

            • blasphemous_Kansan

              From e-harmony’s web site:
              “Get deeply matched with singles based on 29 dimensions”

              The product that they are selling is the opportunity to enter a serious, monogamous relationship, so the company cannot deny this product to any person for a reason that falls under any anti-discrimination law in effect where they choose to operate. So, if they operate somewhere where sexual orientation is protected under this law, then the company must offer their product to GLBT as well, and will need to bear the brunt of any costs or changes required to do so.

              This is an interesting case, since there is usually no explicit dollar cost associated with complying with discrimination law that I know of. It’s usually just a matter of sucking it up, and letting the different-looking people through the door.

              Agree with this particular ruling or not, but I think that the laissez faire attitude of “What’s the deal? We got this product here, there’s that product there, so they can go there!” is kind of the spirit of why we have anti-discrimination laws in the first place.
              “So what if we only serve whites here? There’s plenty of places for blacks to get lunch on the other side of town. What’s the deal?”

              • markinPDX

                Exactly. If we provide a fountain for the non-whites, what’s the problem?

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  What I was trying to say is that the fountain is open to everyone, but it only provides water, if you want coffee you’re going to have to go somewhere else.

                • monyNH

                  You’ve made your point on the “separate but equal” issue–a point upon which no one is debating. Cary has a legitimate question, an answer for which still hasn’t been made clear because you insist on reading it as discriminatory when it clearly is not. So let me try.

                  You can have a dating site just for farmers, one just for senior citizens, one just for Jews, and one for Christians. However, none of these can discriminate on the basis of color, gender, sexual orientation, or (ironically) religion. For example, 14% of the people who use BlackSingles.com are white (according to industry data). These sites advertise to a particular group of people, but they ultimately must be open to all people…the idea being, who would use a gay dating site if you’re looking for an opposite-gendered partner, your potential pool would be so small. But if I were a Christian homosexual, I might want access to a dating site where I can meet other Christian homosexuals. I hope that better explains it.

                • john ahn

                  There is not problem to provide a fountain for non whites. Oh, there is just one. a corporation has a right not to invest to create a service or a product that they don’t see fit with their business. All non-whites are allow to go into the store and be service with the what is on the menu. If a Vegetarian restaurant is told to cook meat in their restaurant, do you not think it is going to effect their business??? Oh, wait, you will say it is discrimination.

              • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                1. What if they changed the wording to say, “Get deeply matched with heterosexual singles based on 29 dimensions.” Would that be OK? And if it’s not then how does OurTime.com get away with restricting their member to people over 50, doesn’t that discriminate against young people?

                2. There are a large number of people out there, mostly deeply religious people, who argue that gay people can change and become straight if they really want to and they pray hard enough. I think eHarmony could argue that they are serving these people because maybe if that gay guy finds just the right girl on their site he will “turn straight”. So they are not refusing to serve gay people, they are just providing a service that you think gay people don’t want. That is not at all the same thing as refusing to serve black people at your lunch counter.

                And, yes, I know you and most of the other readers of this blog don’t agree that viewpoint, but there is no scientific way to tell if someone is gay or straight, you just have to ask them. So how can you say for certain that no gay person has ever turned straight? Certainly some bisexual people have done it, and are you 100% certain you are not bisexual? Maybe you just haven’t met the right same-sex person yet.

                • blasphemous_kansan

                  1. I don’t know if that hypothetical website would be ok or not, I was just discussing how this website interacts with anti-discrimination law, since you asked about it. I’m unfamiliar with ourtiime.com, but I’m not sure why you’re asking me how they get away with it, since, again, my response was limited to this one instance regarding e-harmony, and their interaction with local laws that protect GLBT from discrimination. If you want to find out if and/or how ourtime.com is discriminatory against the young, you should find out. It sounds like an interesting topic, but a separate one.

                  2. The people who believe that are incorrect, and the law agrees. This is an instance of a company that alleges to be open to the public that refuses to serve a segment of the population based on a factor that is beyond their control, so it sounds pretty similar to my example.

                  The rest of what you say is completely irrelevant. What does this have to do with e-Harmony’s choice to discriminate against GLBT? Who is claiming no gay person has ever turned straight? Why would it matter? Do you even know what ‘bisexual’ means? You started off asking some good questions about the law’s reach into business, but it seems more and more like you have some very basic mis-conceptions and anxieties about non-heterosexuality that are well out of the scope of this discussion.

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  Ok, let me try again, (for the record, I’m enjoying this discussion and I like to have my views challenged) eHarmony promises you will “get deeply matched with singles based on 29 dimensions”. I think you are making some pretty big assumptions that that means they will find you your soul mate and gaurentee you a loving monogonous relationship. All they are selling is that they will match you with someone else in their database based on 29 questions, the rest is up to you. I’m guessing that sexual orientation is not one of the 29 questions, but i dont know for sure. So if you sign up, and you’re gay, and they match you with someone, how exactly a they not serving gay people?

                • blasphemous_kansan

                  Ahh, but notice my wording above. I never said that they were promising a match, I said that they were selling you the OPPORTUNITY for a match, like buying a lottery ticket is literally paying for an opportunity to win the lottery. You are right, it makes a lot of assumptions on the part of the buyer. But, just like the lottery, you pay to play, and you’ll never win if you don’t play (or so e-Harmony would have us believe!) and let the buyer beware. So I agree with you up until this point, but I’m not sure why this particular point matters, other then to establish that one can pay for a product and not receive what they perceive to be a worthwhile investment.

                  I don’t know either whether sexual orientation is explicitly asked about, so let’s not assume either way. The issue here is not the providing of A product to GLBT, the issue is that they are not being provided THE SAME service as a straight person would be. As we have established, people are buying the opportunity for a relationship. If they never had that chance to achieve this begin with, then it’s pretty obvious that they were defrauded. This is much different than someone rolling the dice and taking the chance on something like a dating site or the lottery, this is like buying a lottery ticket and finding out later that it’s a fake, that you never had a chance of winning, and that you were given your fake ticket but the guy behind you in line got a real one because of something that you can’t help.

                  Also, there is an interesting implication in your scenerio of the gay man being matched up with the woman: what about the woman in this weird situation? Was she defrauded by being matched up with someone that she had no chance of being with? Think of the actual social situations that would result from the solution that you suggest. Is there any possible positive outcome to such a meetup?

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  I have to say I just don’t agree with you on this. If it’s discrimination to run a heterosexual dating site then why is it not discrimination to run a gay dating site? 2 seconds on google and I found GayDating.com, they have two chooses, men seeking men and women seeking women. Can I sue them for not helping me, a woman, find a man? How is this different from eHarmony only offering men seeking women and women seeking men? And what about women seeking either? Under your reasoning a true bisexual could sue both eHarmony and GayDating for not catering to them.

                  It’s all a matter of historical context. Everyone screams racism if you run a whites only dating service, but they’re fine with blacks only, everyone screams homophobia if you run a heterosexual dating service, but they’re fine with gays only, everyone screams sexism if you have men’s night at the bar, but they’re fine with ladies night. We will never have true equality in this country until we finally stop asking what race/sex/orientation/whatever someone is and just start treating all people like people.

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  “the issue is that they are not being provided THE SAME service as a straight person would be”
                  Sure they are, they are being provided the opportunity to be matched with someone else from eHarmony. You are making the assumption that a gay person would never want to be matched with someone of the opposite sex. Who gave you the right to speak for all gay people?

                  As for the woman who finds herself matched to a gay man. Yes, I can if fact imagine a positive outcome, it’s pretty unlikely, but maybe she’s got a thing for gay men? Maybe that’s how she got matched to him? Maybe he’s actually a bit bi and into it too? Who are you to judge what goes on between these two? My husband thinks Rachel Maddow is really hot, now you’ve got me worried that he’s been on GayDating trolling for lesbians!

                • blasphemous_kansan

                  “You are making the assumption that a gay person would never want to be matched with someone of the opposite sex.”

                  Again, I think you are projecting your own fallacies and anxieties about non-heterosexuality, and these ridiculous situations you posit about the amazing gay man who wants to hook up with women and the woman who is ‘into’ gay men that you describe have nothing to do with what I was talking about, and strike me as completely asinine. Your response is complete nonsense, and you are the only one here making the assumptions, such as that someone who identifies as ‘gay’ would want to be matched with someone of the opposite sex. Again, you show that you have little to no idea of what it truly means to be non-heterosexual. Your comments about Rachel Maddow are truly bizarre, and either you or your husband are severely misinformed about what lesbianism is (hint: they won’t be interested in your husband. Unless he’s a woman.).

                  Here’s the point. The only point that there ever was: the law disagrees with you. Anti discrimination laws exist to battle rhetoric such as yours, and you’ve made no argument why the law should be different other than: “Well, the gay guy might like women, and the woman he’s matched up with might have a thing for gay guys”.

                  I think your main hangup here is that you truly have no idea what it means to be GLBT, down to even the basic dictionary definitions of G. L. B. and T. And your bizarre ideas in this area is informing your opinion about the law. The law is all I ever wanted to talk about, but you’ve continuously shifted the goalposts back to the bizarre spectrum of sexuality that exists in your mind. Please inform yourself in this area, and maybe the law will make a little more sense to you. Maybe others here will want to address your fallacies regarding sexuality, but I don’t.
                  Peace.

            • markinPDX

              Um, seriously? So when eHarmony matches up two heterosexuals they can call it a “dating service” but for two men or two women, it’s something different? Sorry, but calling it “lunch” to the people you approve of and “dinner” to those you don’t is illegal.

              • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                No, what I’m trying to say is that they are serving “lunch” to everyone because that is the only service they provide. And that “lunch” is matching a man to a woman. So a gay man is free to sign up, but he will be matched to a woman, just like all the other men. True, this is not what most gay men would want, but some of them, particularly deeply Christian ones who are denying their homosexuality, might actually want this. I’m just having a hard time seeing how he is being treated differently, and if it is discriminatory then why is it OK to have atheist dating sites or 50+ dating sites? Don’t those discriminate against theist and young people?

                • markinPDX

                  Sorry, but your redefinition of “lunch” doesn’t make it any less “lunch”. And your implication that you can’t be deeply Christian and gay is laughable. Finally, who said it was OK for atheist or 50+ dating sites to discriminate? And who says that they do? I just looked at the first senior dating and atheist sites I could google and their only requirement was that I be over 18.

                  You’re trying to justify discrimination and you’re failing, badly. Separate but equal has already been proven to be inherently discriminatory.

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  I never said you couldn’t be Christian and gay, I said some gay people really struggle with their sexuality and at times deny that they are gay and try to have heterosexual relationships. I would not be suprised if some of them are on dating sites looking for opposite sex relationships.

                • markinPDX

                  Your implication is very clear, regardless of whether you want to admit it. But it’s also beside the point. You’re trying to justify eHarmony’s discrimination by saying that gay people can get what they want elsewhere. They shouldn’t have to go elsewhere and luckily, the law is on their side. Again, separate but equal doesn’t cut it.

                • john ahn

                  And you should have a SUSHI in Pizza hut too. If they don’t have it, you will get a judge to force them to find a sushi chef and label it discrimination.

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  No I’m saying they get the same thing straight people get, you are the one saying that that’s not what they want. Who are you to speak for all gay people? You certainly aren’t speaking for me!

                • markinPDX

                  That’s because I don’t speak for homophobes.

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  I’m offended that you would call me that, you are resorting to name calling instead of answering the question. :-(

                • markinPDX

                  Who gave you the right or expectation that you wouldn’t be offended?

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  No one, it just makes me sad.

                • markinPDX

                  Awww… I’m sorry. Being sad doesn’t make you right. It just makes you both sad and wrong.

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  And saying that makes you an asshole, but I’m still willing to debate with you.

                • markinPDX

                  Oooh. There’s some butthurt goin’ on in Caryville. Awww…

                • markinPDX

                  Show me where eHarmony’s site says “Find your opposite sex match”. What it says is “Find your match”. And I couldn’t care less if you’re offended. The truth hurts.

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  Right on the first page, it gives you the choice of man seeking woman or woman seeking man. Just like GayDate.com, except on GayDate the choice in only man seeking man and the other is woman seeking woman. What I’m still struggling with is why the first one is discrimination and the second one isn’t. Please enlighten me.

                • markinPDX

                  You’re proving my point. And you’re confusing a search site with a matching service. Two very different beasts. eHarmony, like Match and other “push” services will actively promote certain relationships TO you based on your preferences, rather than just expecting you to passively search. Big difference.

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  I fail to see that there is a big difference. They are both only serving a specific group, and and not serving everyone.

                • markinPDX

                  Jesus… OK. I guess I need to type more slowly. eHarmony will send you matches based on your preferences. You tell them you like x, y, and z and every day, they’ll SEND you a new group of losers to look through, without you having to do anything except pay your monthly fees. Most other sites, including most gay dating sites, are just search mechanisms. You have to actively log in and perform a search, and you could conceivably be a man looking for a woman, although it might not really get you what you want. But again, you’re not getting the point. You may be right. There may be other sites that DO discriminate. But pointing fingers at them doesn’t change the fact that eHarmony was discriminating. That’s like telling your mother “But Johnny did it too, Mommy.” What would be her response? Would she say “Oh, well then Cary, it’s OK if you eat your boogers too?”

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  Errrr… And as a gay man I look at that group of loser girls and say, “nope, none of them are right for me”. How have I been discriminated against when the straight guy next door also signed up and got a similar batch of losers sent to him? We are being treated the same because we signed up for the same service. OK, really, I’ve had enough, I’m going to bed.

                • markinPDX

                  You’ve been discriminated against because the site promised to find you a miscreant match, not a miscreant opposite gender match.

                • john ahn

                  I think you win. your baker and auto argument is strong.

                • markinPDX

                  And again, if you feel those sites are discriminating, then by all means, you should sue them. You’re somehow trying to justify eHarmony’s discrimination by pointing fingers and saying “See, someone else does it.” That’s a stupid argument.

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  My point is I don’t think any of those sites are discriminating. I think they are all being quite clear about what service they provide. Different businesses provide different services. Would you walk into a bakery and demand to buy a car? If I want to buy a car, I go to a car dealer, if I want to hook up with a girl, I’ll go to GayDate, if I want to hook up with a guy, I’ll go to eHarmony, if I want to be insulted by random strangers, I go to the Internet. it’s been tons of fun arguing with you, but I’ve had enough, good night.

                • markinPDX

                  Just because YOU want to define two men finding a match as somehow different than a man and a woman finding one doesn’t make it so. Sorry, you’ve lost… I’m sure not for the first time. Sweet dreams sugar. And if you’re looking for someone who won’t challenge you on your nonsense, try a mirror.

                • markinPDX

                  And by the way, on GayDate.com, you CAN also select “Woman seeking a Man” and “Man seeking a Woman”. So, unsurprisingly, you’re wrong again.

                • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

                  For the record, when I go there I only see two options, but I’m on an iPad, so maybe I’m not seeing the full site. In my expiriance mobile site are often crap and leave out all kind of things, so this doesn’t surprise me.

                • markinPDX

                  Regardless of whether you see two or ten options on whatever platform you’re using, you’re still not getting the point… pointing your finger at other possible discriminators and asking why they get away with it doesn’t change the fact that eHarmony was, in fact, and as the courts determined, discriminating. It doesn’t matter if someone else does or does not offer similar options.

                • john a

                  OMG, i should really tell my friend to sue all this sites for discriminating my friend’s sexual orientation towards animal.

                • john ahn

                  where is the “Man seeks Goats icon” and ” Woman seeks dog???” both websites are just not up to standards. Right???

                • Joel

                  Well, he speaks for me. This same argument is used to justify denying same-sex marriage: “Well, we’re not preventing you from marrying. You can always go and marry a woman.” It’s ridiculous and you know it.

                • john Ahn

                  My friend is into dogs, and cats, and bird, and sometimes cockroaches. Do you recommend that eHarmony setup and service so he can date “Lassie”???? if not, should he file a law suit.., otherwise, it is just discrimination!!!

            • http://www.facebook.com/travis.myers.102977 Travis Myers

              Yeah, I agree. I have no more problem with a straight-only dating site than with an LGBT-only dating site. If you don’t want the service they’re offering, go somewhere else. If someone is really good at matchmaking with heterosexual couples, we shouldn’t force them to apply their skills to an area that they aren’t as comfortable with. Someone else can market their skills as a homosexual matchmaker, if they want to.

              • blasphemous_kansan

                The problem is that E-harmony didn’t advertise as ‘straights only’ they advertised as for ‘everybody’. If they’re open to the public, then every member of the public gets the product, and can’t be denied for a reason that falls under anti-discrimination law. Simple.

                “If someone is really good at matchmaking with couples, we shouldn’t force them to apply their skills to an area that they aren’t as comfortable with. Someone else can market their skills as a matchmaker, if they want to.”

                See how that works?

          • http://www.facebook.com/travis.myers.102977 Travis Myers

            How is eHarmony not a private organization?

        • http://twitter.com/ThundalArchsys Thundal Archsys

          Boy Scouts don’t serve the public, they only serve members. Fun loopholes…

          • Reginald Selkirk

            And eHarmony couldn’t call their customers ‘members’?

            • http://www.facebook.com/brian.westley Brian Westley

              Not while offering a service to the general public, no. Lunch counters couldn’t call their customers “members” either.

    • The Other Weirdo

      Wait! mandate… man-dates? Internetz. U winz it.

  • sunburned

    “But at this point, at this age, I want America to start drawing together. I want it to be more homologous.”…FTFY Neil.

    • eonL5

      umm…. maybe “homogeneous”?

  • Randomfactor

    Christian lunchcounter owner: Them damned coloreds! Business is down since the court said we had to serve them, too!

  • Ida Know

    >”we literally had to hire guards to protect our lives because the
    people were so hurt and angry with us, were Christian people, who feel
    that it’s a violation to scripture.”

    Which is in no way the fault of the poor innocent Christian people who get so very angry at teh gays getting their gay cooties on our dating site that they threaten violence! And the beliefs that incite that anger aren’t to blame either! No, it’s all teh gay’s fault for existing and forcing us to treat them like they’re almost equal to us or something!

  • Cat’s Staff

    Bisexuals had to pay two subscription fees

    People PAY for dating sites? OkCupid.com is free, better, friendlier to all types of relationships and it’s easy to find people who are atheists.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eukota Darrell Ross

    Reminds me of the extreme Islam claims that men can’t control their urges so women must be covered. Or that they can’t contain themselves if they see their religion insulted in any way.

    Sounds like somebody else’s problem. lol

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    “$10 million and ask other companies to put up money and do a really first class job of figuring out homosexuality.”

    I’ll take him up on the offer. All I need is $10 million, a leather biker outfit, and a weekend at Folsom, West Hollywood Halloween, and at palm springs California. I promise to do my due diligence to get to the bottom of what homosexuality is.

    :)

    • flyb

      Bottom… heh.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

      now, now, let’s be fair and show our respect for women. you get $5M, and i get $5M to investigate the strange phenomenon known as “lesbians.” ;-)

    • TheFabulousAntinomian

      Slip me $100,000 and handle FantasyFest in Key West over Halloween as your research assistant.

      • Raising_Rlyeh

        That event looks awesome.

  • Rain

    Fellow conservatives are the ones who nearly got violent over the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the online dating scene.

    So much for Christian compassion. You would think their fellow conservative Christians would understand that eHarmony decided it was necessary to completely abandon its deeply held conservative Christian beliefs so that they wouldn’t lose business in New Jersey. Some things are more important than principles for plastic-haired smooth-talkin phony-smile multimillionaire conservative Christians.

    • Veritas

      Why do you assume all Christians are the same as a few extreme conservatives? I suppose you think everyone in the KKK speaks for whites or the Panthers speak for blacks, too? or that the flamboyant gays speak for all gays? Please.

  • Fargofan

    I misread “passionate follower of Jesus” as “compassionate follower of Jesus.” Vast difference, isn’t there?

  • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

    Honestly I don’t see how Eric McKinley had a case against eHarmony. Aren’t there plenty of other dating sites that cater to specific groups of people? I’ve seen ads for scientifically minded dating and 50+ dating, and there are probably some gays only sites. How are these different from straight only sites? Did eHarmony actually forbid him from signing up, or would they just match him with only women? If so, it’s clearly not the right site for him, but it’s not like matchmaking is a necessary service, it’s not like a hospital refusing to treat him because he’s gay, he will just have to find a more suitable matchmaker or find a partner on his own. It seems to me that he filed a frivolous lawsuit that does more to hurt gender equality that help. The Christians overreacting and threatening each other is, of course, a whole different mater.

  • ConradB

    I’m curious about the legal difference between something like eHarmony and the very specific matchmaking sites like christianmingle, jdate, gaymatchmaker, and blackpeoplemeet. Clearly those site only cater to certain groups of people, as that’s their whole point. Is it because eHarmony says it’s open to everyone but isn’t that it is
    vulnerable to these lawsuits? Would they be legally ok if they changed their name to heteroHarmony? What about a site called whitepeoplemeet?

    I’m only curious about the legal differences. Personally, I can’t stand eHarmony because of this issue.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

      l don’t think any of those site specifically ban non-christians, non-jews non-gays or non-blacks. i think it’s a matter of self selection. and you know, the actual date.

      “so, what teaching of judaism do you practice?”

      “i’m a muslim!”

      “goodbye.” /gets up, leaves date

      • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

        So, does eHarmony specifically ban gay people? Or do they just only match men with women and women with men? I think there is a huge difference between the two, the first is clearly discrimination, the second is just stating that their service is matching men with women and if that’s not the service you are looking for, you need to go to another business. And in that case they are really just like the other sites ConradB mentioned.

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    “I have said that eHarmony really ought to put up $10 million and ask other companies to put up money and do a really first class job of figuring out homosexuality.”

    What, like figuring out cancer? How about taking that money and doing a really first class job of figuring out BIGOTRY, HOMOPHOBIA, and XENOPHOBIA? If you want to eradicate the most destructive “diseases” of mankind, start with those and offer yourself as one of the subjects.

  • Mark W.

    So, the founder of a glorified hookup site thinks those immoral “gheys” damaged his totally moral hookup site because his BFF’s “teh Xtians” want him to ban those totally immoral “gheys” from using his totally moral hookup site, and if he doesn’t his totally moral BFF’s “teh Xtians” might rough him up. Sounds legit to me.

  • Sue Blue

    Oh, boo-friggety hoo. My heart pumps purple piss for this guy and his dipshit dating scam and all his homophobic Jesus-jumping pals. Nothing could be better than watching this douche and his organization go down in a flaming death-spiral courtesy of their own loving Christian buddies.

  • Anon

    ‘I have said that eHarmony really ought to put up $10 million and ask other companies to put up money and do a really first class job of figuring out homosexuality. At the very best, it’s been a painful way for a lot of people to have to live.’
    Let me put it into very small words for you Mr. Warren.
    Some. People. Want. To. Have. Sex. With. People. Of. The. Same. Gender. As. Them.
    Now where’s my $10 million?
    I’m also curious as to how he knows that being homosexual is ‘painful’? Because I’ve identified as a lesbian since I was in my teens and, apart from things like breakups (which don’t count because straight people have them too), I’ve yet to see the pain.
    Being hit by a car – Painful
    Being in a relationship with another woman – Not Painful.

  • http://www.facebook.com/karen.uncoolmom Cary Whitman

    Good morning everyone, I want to apologies to everyone, especially Camille Beredjick, for being a part of name calling and pointless bickering that occurred in the comments here last night. I read and comment on these blogs because I find it interesting and they are often about subject I wish to learn more about, but there is no excuse for name calling and labeling. I apologies if I offended anyone and I promise to try to keep my comments to respectful asking and answering of questions in the future. I also want to apologies to anyone who thought my comments were homophobic or in any way disrespectful to the LGBT community, they were certainly not intended to be, I was merely trying to better understand what makes some things discrimination and other similar things not, I think we can all agree that that line is not always clear or easy to define, that’s why we have debates. I hope we can all continue to have respectful debates in the future.
    Thanks,
    Cary

    • blasphemous_kansan

      If you learn what the words “gay”, “lesbian”, “bisexual”, and “transgender” actually mean before debating the merits of protection from sexual discrimination, then I think your goal will be achieved with much greater ease. From your comments above it really seems like your lack of knowledge about these terms, and what they mean for the people who live them everyday, might have contributed to some of your confusion about what qualifies as discrimination, and what doesn’t. Some tips for further reading:

      - A man who identified as ‘gay’ would never be interested in hooking up with a female. This is why he identifies as ‘gay’. If he wanted female companionship, then he probably would not call himself ‘gay’.

      - If your husband is a male, then it is physically impossible for him to go ‘trolling for lesbians’. If he is a man, a lesbian will not want to be with him. This is why she identifies as ‘a lesbian’.
      for further assistance:
      http://www.dictionary.com

    • quantumscale

      I think the question you were trying to answer was: what does eHarmony promise to deliver? The question relevant to the law here is: what is the product that eHarmony is selling? What it’s selling, when you get down to basics, isn’t opposite sex matches, or club membership, or even website access. The thing that eHarmony is really selling is its matching algorithm. The algorithm could very easily search for same sex matches instead, just by switching a line or two of code. So the company is excluding gays purely for exclusion’s sake. Which is what makes it illegal.

  • Carpinions

    This guy looks and reads like he lives in a pretty little world that he doesn’t want soiled with things he doesn’t like. I’m sorry I gave his company a few bucks several years ago when I tried the online dating thing, but at least I can say my support didn’t last long.

  • Veritas

    Personally, I thought eHarmony was a crock long before all the gay marriage kerfauffle, but I suppose gays have as much right to be ripped off as straights LOL

  • Julia Ferguson

    Am Julia Ferguson from Canada Life can be very displeasing especially when we loose the ones we love and cherish so much. in this kind of situation where one loses his/her soul mate there are several dangers engage in it. one may no longer be able to do the things he was doing before then success will be very scarce and happiness will be rare. that person was created to be with you for without him things may fall apart. That was my experience late last year. but thank god today i am happy with him again. all thanks to DR Paloma, i was nearly loosing hope until i saw an article on how DR Paloma could cast a love spell to make lovers come back. There is no harm in trying, i said to my self. i contacted him via email: palomaspelltemple@yahoo.com. words will not be enough to appreciate what he has done for me. i have promised to share the good news as long as i live;

  • RandalsonMarquette

    Oh so now we have judges deciding how companies need to be structured so that Mr. Butt Plug won’t get his feelings hurt. We might as well give these liberal swine and fags voting rights while we are at it. How about you ungodly lovers of the human waste pipe go start your own damn website. This is America and you have equal opportunity to start any business venture you want.

  • Pat Hammer

    dreadfully wonderful one sided view of the issue by the same community that claims to be soooooo open to ideas, RIGHT! only their own! If there is any confusion I am talking about liberals not real bible believing Christians or conservatives!

  • straightagainsthate

    “A painful way to live??”
    It’s not painful for the gays and lesbians who have fallen in love with their partner. It’s “painful” for this homophobic asshole. But how does it affect him? Right. It doesn’t.

  • john ahn

    so the company does not offer LGBT connection service, why the law suit? It is like suing a MacDonald’s restaurant for not offering Vegetarian food. I do not see the discrimination in this. It isn’t that this company refuse to offer service to anyone, it just does not sell that kind of product. Mmmm , maybe I should file a suit against pizza hut for not selling sushi.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X