Comments on: Once Again, The Law Is An Ass http://belowthebeltway.com/2008/11/20/once-again-the-law-is-an-ass/ I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in. Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:09:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Transplanted Lawyer http://belowthebeltway.com/2008/11/20/once-again-the-law-is-an-ass/comment-page-1/#comment-254201 Transplanted Lawyer Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:40:19 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=11852#comment-254201 The question is, where do you draw the line? The law (at least, the Federal law, I don't know about New York law) applies only to "public accommodations." If eHarmony holds itself out as being available to anyone, then that means it's open to the general public, then I think a suit alleging that it discriminates against gay people is well-taken. And the law needs to look at the reality of what's going on -- a restaurant cannot re-brand itself a "private club" and sell memberships at the door to any white person who wants to come in for a dollar and call that "freedom of association." As I understand it, eHarmony's defense was that its matchmaking algorithm "just doesn't work well" for gays and lesbians; it assumes certain things about women looking for men and men looking for women that don't apply to homosexual people looking for love. That sounds kind of like B.S. to me; based on anecdotal evidence that what makes gay relationships work, or not, is pretty much the same set of things that make straight relationships work, or not. I can only assume that this was elaborated on in more detail in the lawsuit, which has been going on for nearly two years. The question is, where do you draw the line? The law (at least, the Federal law, I don’t know about New York law) applies only to “public accommodations.” If eHarmony holds itself out as being available to anyone, then that means it’s open to the general public, then I think a suit alleging that it discriminates against gay people is well-taken. And the law needs to look at the reality of what’s going on — a restaurant cannot re-brand itself a “private club” and sell memberships at the door to any white person who wants to come in for a dollar and call that “freedom of association.”

As I understand it, eHarmony’s defense was that its matchmaking algorithm “just doesn’t work well” for gays and lesbians; it assumes certain things about women looking for men and men looking for women that don’t apply to homosexual people looking for love. That sounds kind of like B.S. to me; based on anecdotal evidence that what makes gay relationships work, or not, is pretty much the same set of things that make straight relationships work, or not. I can only assume that this was elaborated on in more detail in the lawsuit, which has been going on for nearly two years.

]]> By: “Suit forces eHarmony to offer gay dating service” http://belowthebeltway.com/2008/11/20/once-again-the-law-is-an-ass/comment-page-1/#comment-254195 “Suit forces eHarmony to offer gay dating service” Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:28:08 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=11852#comment-254195 [...] General said on Wednesday.” (Reuters, Nov. 19, FoxNews.com)(via Friedersdorf, see also Mataconis). Earlier coverage: Jun. 1 and Jun. 8, 2007; Mar. 26, 2006 (married man wants [...] [...] General said on Wednesday.” (Reuters, Nov. 19, FoxNews.com)(via Friedersdorf, see also Mataconis). Earlier coverage: Jun. 1 and Jun. 8, 2007; Mar. 26, 2006 (married man wants [...]

]]>