Dating service sued for excluding married people

[reason]

Originally posted by cincygreg:
Wonder if they would match a chicken up with a duck [img]graemlins/hmmm.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img]

Reason, I'm sure that somewhere there is a dating site such as this for same sex relationships. Probably more than one.

If other services offer this, then maybe he should try them. I guess I see his point. I mean, he is actually still married though the divorce is pending. If the paperwork is done and they are just wating for it to be final. then I suppose he's got a legit beef with them.

If it's clearly stated in their policies however, he may have less of a chance.

My guess?
They cut a deal and make it go away.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The point is, greg, the guy who owns the E Harmony is a social conservative, and isn't about to match up people who are already married. I wonder if his status as an ultraconservative is a motivation for the lawsuit.

The other sites would try to match up a chicken with a duck if they knew they could make money on it.

Given your status as a crazy, swingin' single man, I'm sure you are more than familiar with the aspects of these other sites and all their offerings.

[cincygreg]

Dulc, Maraige isnt a race, it isnt a relgion, it isnt an ethnic background, a creed, a color or anyhting more than what it is.

And this is what it is according to the legal dictionary

marriage n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace, or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in several). The standard age for marriage without parental consent is 18 except for Georgia and Wyoming where it is 16, Rhode Island where women can marry at 16, and Mississippi in which it is 17 for boys and 15 for girls. More than half the states allow marriages at lesser ages with parental consent, going as low as 14 for both sexes in Alabama, Texas and Utah. Marriages in which the age requirements are not met can be annulled. Fourteen states recognize so-called "common law marriages" which establish a legal marriage for people who have lived together by agreement as husband and wife for a lengthy period of time without legal formalities.

Look, they clearly state that if you are married, you cant use the site. Well, if his divorce isnt final yet, then he's legally still married!

[Dulcinea]

I am pretty sure this is an April Fool's Day joke, but Google has on their main page a notice that dating is a search problem, and they are introducing Google Romance, complete with contextual predate advertising.
[img]rolleyes.gif[/img]

Oh course, you may choose the "I'm feeling lucky" option.

When you do a Soulmate Search, your deeply personal and potentially life-altering search results are produced solely by computer algorithm, without human intervention of any kind.

Note: depending on your personality, you may or may not find this reassuring.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[Lew]

Dulc-

your reference to the insurance rates touches on another point. And that is, contrary to what so many in the general populace think, not all discrimination is wrong (morally or legally). I often use the example of how we don't allow blind air traffic controllers. No question that's discrimination, but discrimination is not the driving motivation behind it (in other words, it may be a consequence, but it's not the intent). Same thing about pilots having to retire at 60. Or firefighters having to pass a test involving carrying a 200 lb dummy out of a burning building (although women's groups still fight that and it saddens me). Same with the insurance industry- through statistical analysis, they have shown that certain groups warrant higher premium than others. It is discriminatory, but is that the motivation behind it?

In this case, the purpose of e-harmony (as I appreciate it, anyway) is to match singles up with one another. By definition, a "single" is a person who's not married. And while it's not illegal for married persons to scope out singles, there seems to be no discriminatory purpose against married persons by having a website geared towards hooking-up singles with the hopes that they will one day become married.

Again, I view internet sites as more akin to the private club than a public restaurant. Hence, I have no problem with Christian Singles websites, or gay singles, or whatever. Hell, go ahead and start a website where unhappily married persons can scope out people they can cheat on their spouses with (start one? There probably already is one).

My point is, this little bastard isn't being discriminated against, it's an insult for him to go forward with this suit when there are so many real-life cases of actual discrimination that are not remedied.

[Dulcinea]

Lew, do me a favor and tell greg what it means that groups are protected by law?

Also, I totally agree with you, and it will depend on whether eHarmony is perceived as public accommodation or private. However, from what I understand about eHarmony, they will lose on the exclusivity issue. They don't have voting-on-member type of entry, they just discriminate against (in California, at least) protected groups.

So, our bet is on? What is it for? I opt for lunch. If I (the California skank lawyer) win; you buy me (and you and your companion of choice) lunch someplace, no more than 25 miles from West Chester, that I have at least some right of refusal over. If you (and the State of California, I guess) win, I buy you lunch somewhere, no more than 100 miles from West Chester, that you have at least some right of refusal over.

And I totally agree with you that not all discrimination is wrong. "Pre-judging" people occurs when you have experience with groups of people and bad/good experiences associated with different visually identifiable parameters. To me, there is a gestalt of association with color, age, dress, general "attitude", etc., that dictates whether I will be more cautious with this person than with others. I prefer to think of it as age-acquired wisdom rather than "discrimination".

[reason]

Wonder if they would match a chicken up with a duck

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For your sake, we can only hope.

[Lew]

Dulc- fine, I'll take the bet, though I still say it's unfair because we're dealing with California law. But so be it.

And for the record, yes, marital status is a protected class under the Civil Rights act. That's why you can't ask a person if they're married during a job interview. Like I said, I'll concede the guy is being discriminated against; I just don't think he should have a remedy in this case.

If Barnes & Noble, through their website, refused to take orders from married persons.....well, then you'd have a valid case. Why? Because Barnes & Noble is a bookseller, and they can't possibly come up with a valid purpose for not selling to married persons other than, well, good old-fashioned discrimination. Same thing if they didn't sell to women, or veterans, or the handicapped. What would be the purpose of such a rule? None at all, they'd lose and rightfully so.

[cincygreg]

I guess I can sue anyone who offers a "couples only" deal since I'm single and that discriminates against me. [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

SHEESH!

[reason]

Originally posted by cincygreg:
I guess I can sue anyone who offers a "couples only" deal since I'm single and that discriminates against me. [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

SHEESH!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, why don't you start with the tax code, greg?

[Lew]

And actually, Greg, Reason has touched on an issue that doesn't hit the radar screen too often but has definitely been around for some time- the marriage deduction.

On its surface, there's no question that it's discriminatory- married people are not taxes in the same manner as singles. So again, we look to the purpose of the law. And in a nutshell, the argument goes something like this- society benefits by more marriages, society suffers by fewer marriages. Ergo, we try to offer an incentive for couples to marry through the tax code. And the Courts have always bought into that argument.

Now, my own feeling is that society does benefit by more marriage, and is hurt by less marriage. But, I do question exactly how much effect the tax code has on the marriage rate. But honestly, it never bothered me when I was paying single tax.