You have got to be kidding!

Imagine you open a small business to sell flowers and your business takes off – you are selling flowers all over your state and in no time at all, you are even selling flowers all over the country.  Then imagine a person wants to buy chocolate from you even through you don’t sell chocolate – and you have decided you don’t want to sell chocolate.  So that person sues you…  Does that sound crazy?

Lets continue this thought and image you settle with this demanding would be patron… In your settlement, you agree to give this person $5000, and since the Law Firms in Niagara Falls NY offices agreed with that person, you have to pay them $50,000 and to make sure you don’t leave any chocolate eaters out in the future, you also have to open new stores beside your flower shops that sells chocolates.  This sounds like a really bad deal for you if you ask me, but you take it anyway… Then shortly after you settle, you are sued by all of the chocolate eaters for not having chocolate shops before and only selling flowers.

Ok – I know, it sounds crazy, uh?  Tell that to eHarmony for not catering to homosexuals!  Let me connect the dots for my slower readers (not you…), eHarmony was started by a Christian man to allow people to find long lasting meaningful relationships (flowers) but a New Jersey homosexual complained to the government that they don’t allow him to find his homosexual soulmate (chocolate).  The New Jersey government agreed and the rest is history.  Unbelievable…

4 replies on “You have got to be kidding!”

Or let’s suppose you started a business selling coffee. One day, a black man walks into your store. You decide you don’t want to sell to him because of the color of his skin.

I know you are deeply religious, Dale… but it doesn’t excuse discrimination. If you were to substitute “homosexual” for any other minority…. I’m sure you and others would take issue with it. But because it’s a gay man… the lawsuit is ridiculous?

Hey Steven!

I’m glad you took the time to share your perspective. Discrimination such as refusing to sell coffee to a black man is despicable – that’s not what occurred here – this gay man was able to set up an eHarmony account and use the service as it was designed – to help match men with women. He doesn’t want the service as it was designed – it would be closer to say the coffee shop is willing to sell coffee to the black man, but he demands tea, which they don’t sell.

Remove religion from the equation – lets say I want to look at porn and I hit a gay website – and now I feel they have discriminated against me because they don’t offer images of naked girls – can I charge them with discrimination? They didn’t refuse me service, they just don’t sell what I’m looking for.

But Is that how the service is designed. The service has never been billed as heterosexual only… as a gay porn site would be listed as a gay porn site. From the advertisements on TV and on the web someone would have every right in the world to believe that they could get the same service there that anyone else could… to be matched scientifically on 29 levels or whatever they advertise, regardless of whether they’re into men or women. The founder could have billed it as a “Christian dating site” which might have shielded him from this lawsuit, but it would have probably pigenholed him into a niche market too. But… he didn’t…. *shrug*

Personally, I would like to tell the guy to suck it up and get on with his life. Get a refund and start a boycott if you must… and go elsewhere to find what you’re looking for. But at the same time, I can understand the rationale behind the lawsuit. It does seem like discrimination, and I can see the judge’s side of it.

Like it or not, Gay rights will be the civil rights movement of our generation, so these types of things won’t end here. Our parents were in school during the era of desegregation and civil rights reform. They were teenagers or of marrying age when Loving v Virginia ruled in favor of interracial marriage. And this… this is our fight.

Disclaimer for anyone who doesn’t know me like Dale does. ;) I’m straight… I’m married. I can’t think of anyone in even my extended family who is gay, and I have to dig hard to find anyone I’ve hung out with in the past 5 years or so who is…. but it’s still an issue I strongly believe in. I have also enjoyed arguing with Dale ever since 12th grade English class when we sat next to each other. :D

I remember years ago that eharmony was actually billed as a Christian site… it was the Christian alternative to’s hook up status (ah, many “fond” memories of Pre-Christian dating for me!) :o)

And just to interject— not all gay porn sites are listed as gay porn sites… sometimes just porn and you just happen to click on the wrong link… so I’ve heard…

Also, I can respect someone standing up for what they think is right; but if gays get the “right” to marry- I support the cause for legal polygmy. (not any of the underage stuff- but legal adults able to marry more than one spouse)- and y’all who know me, know I am not a polygimist. In my view though, I think homosexuality is not right and not based on religousness but on science part A and Part B goes together not Part A and Part A (or a C!). And for anyone who says…”but there’s been cases of homosexuality in the wild!” Maybe… but just maybe that is because those animals had genetic flaws that could be harmful to the whole species if allowed to be passed on therefore their nature is not to procreate but to die without progeny. (kinda like when my mom’s dog humps the other dog even though they’re both neutered males- its one showing the other their dominance).

And I know a few homosexuals and bi-sexuals; they know how I feel about their lifestyles. We’ve had debates and discussions neither side is changing their views because each side thinks they’re right. But I guess, until cloning gets perfected, us breeders will have to continue the species.

Comments are closed.