What is Digg?141 Comments
- lydecker, on 11/19/2008, -11/+25I'm sorry, who's rights have been taken away? You mean someone's rights to discriminate? Because I'm not sure that was ever a right.
- zortnac, on 11/20/2008, -3/+15I don't know whether many of you are impervious to irony, or if many of you are simply idiots, for all of you to go on and on about how homosexuals are "slaves to our lusts," when, if anything, this is proof that all we want is our fair shot at happiness through long-term monogamy and marriage.
I watch TV and I see commercials for e-harmony all the time, appealing to my emotions over the desire for companionship and commitment. If all I wanted to do was be a "slave to my lust," then I'd be out enjoying one night stands, not being concerned with whether or not I'm allowed to use a major match-making site. - lydecker, on 11/20/2008, -8/+19"Pedophiles and necrophiliacs... Are they screaming for civil rights?"
Let's see, in order for pedophiles to have "more civil rights," that would mean that a child would either a) give consent, where they currently are unable to do so to protect THEIR rights from being manipulated, or b) not have to give consent, in which rape is clearly against THEIR rights. I think pedophiles should have civil rights, which doesn't include in any form taking away the rights of children.
For necrophiliacs to have "more civil rights," that would mean that a dead body would either a) not have any rights, which they currently do since we respect THEIR right and wishes of the deceased to do with their body as they wanted, or b) not give consent, which would conclude rape that is clearly against THEIR wishes.
So we don't allow pedophiles or necrophiliacs to be able to trump the rights of children or the dead, otherwise they have the same civil rights. Vying for civil rights shouldn't mean taking away the rights of others (as it would in those cases).
Now, for gays to have civil marriage rights, that would require two consenting adults and nobody's rights trumping anyone else's.
So, eHarmony was discriminating, gays are a minority that deserves equality as the majority, and you can't compare heterosexuality or homosexuality - sex acts of consent - to acts of rape. - Penziluzu, on 11/20/2008, -1/+10Most all of these posts are ridiculous. Do you all really believe the ignorance and bigotry that you are posting? I pray that you do not. Homosexuality is not taking anyone's rights and it cannot have an agenda. How does eHarmony making an additional site to match gays harm any heterosexual? IT DOESN'T! Why should homosexuals not have equal rights and equal opportunities? And, how can anyone argue that by giving homosexuals rights or catering to them as a business tactic harms heterosexuals? It simply can't. Try to be a little more understanding and less quick to judge. If you don't agree with it or understand it, fine, but don't force homosexuals into 2nd-class citizens or force them to hide who they are in society just because you are afraid of them because you are afraid of what you do not understand.
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -2/+10Well said, Zortnac.
I think what most of these hobby christians are so afraid of is seeing gay people who don't fit the 'promiscuous sex fiend' stereotype. Seeing two girls holding hands is infinitely more offensive to them than any sex act. Sex acts can be chalked up to lust. Love damages their worldview outright. All they can do is cover their ears and keep saying it's an act. - lydecker, on 11/20/2008, -6/+14victorypup, booksnmore didn't explain anything about my rights being taken away, so I'd like to ask you who's rights in this nation have been violated including mine by eHarmony including GLBT after being sued.
The correct comparison is not sexual orientation to race, but it is either sexual orientation to racial orientation, or comparing sex to race. There is no logical reason to compare one minority to another on any basis other than what being a minority feels like and discrimination against. It doesn't matter how much you don't want race discrimination compared to sex discrimination, this issue is forever settled.
Books did describe a reason why the matching software may not work for homosexual couples. And I agree that eHarmony doesn't need to serve gays anymore than gay.com needs to serve straights. But I haven't received any answer to the one question I did ask.
Who's rights, and what rights specifically, have been taken away? - Coven, on 11/20/2008, -7/+15" Gays are only a minority in the sense of percentage of the population"
So are blacks, latinos, asians, etc. - bartpieters, on 11/20/2008, -3/+10/rp on
Yes it is horrible that this site is "forced" to uphold the law that applies to everybody. I mean laws are there to keep others in check and should not be applied to me and those people I like! We all want the majority to dictate the values of all others.... as long we are part of the majority of course, else the government should keep their meddling paws from my business because I have GOD given right to freedom and only answer to the divine laws of the holy scripture (at least those parts I want to and read as I want to). But that only makes sense!
Sheesh if just everybody listened to me the world would be a much better place!! (for me at last)
/rp off - lydecker, on 11/20/2008, -10/+17So, if you built a website that only worked for matching white people together and the law said you needed to allow blacks to apply, you'd be equally upset claiming someone took away your rights to "liberty, earn a living, pursuit of happiness and security."
You can be pissed off or hate the fact that I don't think businesses should discriminate, it doesn't affect my liberty, earning a living, pursuit of happiness and security if I don't discriminate in my field of employment. - inactive, on 11/21/2008, -1/+7This is a very complicated issue.
But I do contend that they did discriminate against gay people: They rejected their product to them simply because of their sexual orientation.
They claim that they provide heterosexual match-making base on personality testing and compatibility.
If a gay person wants to use a site that will match them to hetero's, I don't see why they should be denied. Obviously, they wanted to use the 'product' so let them use it.
They would get matched to heteros, and most probably lose interest - as that is not their cup of tea.
But who are we to deny them access to this 'product'? It is freely available for anyone to access-it should be freely available for anyone to purchase.
Where I think they went wrong is saying that "oh, well this is a heterosexual site based on christian values, so you can't use our site because your gay"
That is retarded. You wouldn't deny a customer at mcdonalds to buy a happy meal because they are vegetarian; Hell if they want a happl
e meal, sell it to them.
I don't think that anyone should be 'forced' to create another product simply to cater to anyone. That's just stupid.
But, then what they are also implying by their statement is that personality matching doesn't work for gays.
That doesn't sound right...what is technically different about a gay persons personality, other than their orientation to same-sex? Gay people have interests just like we straight people do. Gay people have a sense of humor, like we do. Gay people have goals as we do. Gay people like some of the same colors we do, and like some of the same foods that we do.
Are we saying that gay people don't have personalities? That's ridiculous! All they would have to do is change the filter on their database results, and personality matches using the same algorithms would come up for same-sex seeking people just as they would with straight people-this is what they are asking for. The same tests...just give me gay results, not straight.
That being said - this is not asking anyone to 'create' a new product.
They are asking for it to be changed to fit their need.
This can be likened as going to McDonalds an asking them to hold the onions. You don't like onions. You want a burger with no onions.
This is probably why E-Harmony settled. That and hell, their gonna make money hand over fist selling the same product that may or not work for gay people ( which is debatable if it ever worked for heteros - I've heard many a disappointing story.)
Now FORCING them to create a personality algorithm for gay people- they can't force that. But if the company willingly makes a new one, thats another thing.
I don't really see how this would really 'Affect' other sites either.
Jewishsingles? What if your not jewish, but are looking for a jewish single? shouldn't you be given the option to enroll? Your name obviously would not come up for a single looking for a jewish mate.
Gay.com? Hell if your hetero and want a profile on gay.com i don't see a problem with that. Maybe your curious. If a hetero guy wants to buy homosexual oriented products, that's his own perogative.
But saying that you simply can't use my product because your gay- that's wrong. On a lot of levels.
That's my two cents - let's have some positive discussion in response - no bashing please. - Xocolatl13, on 11/20/2008, -3/+9For serious?
You know… this is kind of cruel.
50 years ago, if E-Harmony existed, blacks would not be allowed to date whites. It was inconceivable. But now? Now if they’re not allowed, it’s a scandal. When are you medieval minded people going to realize that 50 years from now, homosexuals are going to have a hard time believing that they had no rights?
They are people too, you know. But I guess maybe it’s society’s fault for making you so close-minded. It’s a shame. - inactive, on 11/20/2008, -1/+7"my beef with this whole thing is Business owners rights. What happened to them? A business owner is free to chose who they will or will NOT do business with for what ever reason they want."
Exactly! So if you don't want Jews in your place of business, you can put up a sign that reads:
We do not serve Jews. No Jews allowed.
or
Catholics are not welcome here.
Do you see a lot of that around town? - JenniferInMO, on 11/20/2008, -9/+15I am sick of your whining, faux victim crap. If you don't want to date someone of the same sex, don't. No one is forcing you. If you are a member of E-Harmony or any other dating site and you type in female looking for male or vice versa you will not retrieve people interested in same sex relationships. So what is the big deal? Why so much drama?
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -4/+10Sheesh people, calm down. I sincerely doubt if you use eHarmony that you will be matched with a same sex partner unless you are specifically looking for one.
And for all of you who think it would be a great idea to "get back at the gays" by logging on to Gay.com, I have news for you...you will find a lot of members on Gay.com who are married in heterosexual relationships...LOTS and LOTS and LOTS. Go ahead...try it! - schroeder, on 11/20/2008, -2/+7"homosexuality is slavery to passion"
It's not passion, it's love. - somnambulator, on 11/20/2008, -1/+5I've got to agree with you books, I'm a big supporter of equal rights, but there is a difference between rights and political correctness, and this is definitely the latter.
I don't have much respect for the site and it's origins and foundation, but I wouldn't force an anti-gay church to have a gay section, but I would expect them to respect the equal rights of gay people.
There is definitely a vein of nuttiness running through the politically correct crowd, and it manifests itself like this. It doesn't help any left leaning person with common sense. - JasonHears, on 11/21/2008, -1/+5As a gay guy, I have to say, this lawsuit and subsequent settlement is BS. Let eHarmony stay str8. I sure as ***** don't ever plan on using it.
To all the homophobes, I would like to say this. 1) Gays aren't evil. 2) Gays aren't full of lust. 3) We want marriage because we want a committed, monogamous relationship with 1 person for the rest of our lives. 4) If gays are unreligious or anti-religious, it's because people like you have cast us out of God's house for being gay. And you justify yourselves by pretending that it's okay to judge us like you're a sinner too. But it's not. And if you really knew Jesus' teachings, you wouldn't be acting the way you are. 5) Gays don't choose to be gay. Gays are born gay. When did you decide that you liked women? At what point did you actively decide "hmm, I don't want to find men sexually attractive, so I'm going to be straight"? 6) This is not a sign of the rapture. And if it is, halleluja! Does that mean you'll be leaving us soon? 7) How is letting someone take part equally in something you do, diminishing, reducing, stealing, or eliminating your rights or freedoms to continue doing it? 8) Soy doesn't make you gay.
Not that I think that'll make any difference to the ignorant closed minded folk posting here. But it felt good posting it.
And just wondering, did DIGG move it's headquarters to the deep south or something? - dawkin5, on 11/20/2008, -3/+7http://tinyurl.com/62z5tf
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4Matthew 7:2
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And for your information victorypup, I am a Christian, baptized in a Southern Baptist Church that I attend every sunday, all day, for day and night service while also giving my time for good cause. - inboxnews, on 11/20/2008, -16/+20They should shut down instead.
- TeachX3, on 11/20/2008, -3/+6
Agreed :) - booksnmore4you, on 11/20/2008, -9/+12If my business is set up to match BMW drivers with new BMWs, I should not be forced to match Volvo drivers with new Volvos. The person interested in Volvos should go to the website just a few typed words away. It's that simple.
- these3remain, on 11/20/2008, -7/+10How enlightening and how un-Christlike. God doesn't judge as man does, that's for sure. And it's a good thing He doesn't. I suggest that you be careful what you pray for.
- Niallgriff, on 11/20/2008, -6/+9@Beeta1946
LOL, you're a ***** moron. - FacingTheSharks, on 11/20/2008, -7/+10The so-called churches and Christians caving in to sin. I think what we're seeing is a separation of the goats and sheep / tares and wheat.
We'll know them by their fruits. We're seeing the fruits of those who bow down to the threat of a lawsuit. They are not following after Christ.
I expect to see many more like this, caving in. Don't be shocked. We knew this was coming. - booksnmore4you, on 11/20/2008, -6/+9The victim here is eHarmony. Someone owns the website. They should be allowed to appeal to the constituency they want, just like all the places for Jewish singles, elderly singles, local singles, handicapped singles, Christian singles, conservative singles, etc.
- JenniferInMO, on 11/20/2008, -7/+10"My lifestyle"? First of all I don't feel the need to expose every area of American life to my lifestyle, but apparently the Christian Taliban does. Gay people want to live their lives in peace, but they are not allowed to. Because of the attacks on their civil liberties and because they are treated as something less they are fighting for the rights which they should have automatically as American citizens.
I am no victim, but I am speaking out for my brothers and sisters who are clearly victims.
As far as hostile personalities I am not hostile. I love and respect all people unless they do something to interfere with my life or the life of another person.
BTW: I am not gay. I am a happily married (to a man), heterosexual woman. Do you care about me now? - lydecker, on 11/20/2008, -3/+6Oh, yeah, THAT right. I remember that one... which amendment was that a right under again?
/sarcasm
Thank for reassuring me that nobody's rights have been taken away.
Especially true that have not everyone's rights been violated, including mine, as victorypup claimed. - inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2ROaks, Yes, and yet that is what millions do in America. Not run to a comune perhaps but abrogate their responsability by voting for a devil thinking they are hastening the rapture, or just turning their back on what needs to be done with, Oh well the Rapture is coming, we'll just leave it all behind. Tell the Christians in most parts of the world that they will be raptured before they have to endure persecution, and some like China, Indonesia, the Middle East, India, Africa etc. will pray for you that your spiritual eyes will be opened. I believe He is coming again, I believe When he comes Christians will rise to meet him, but the escape easy rapture doctrine is primarily an American doctrine. Except where Americans have taken it to.
freedomspopular, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Did you read my post with your mind or with your big toe? - FacingTheSharks, on 11/20/2008, -7/+9I disagree. The homosexuals did not ruin the business. The business owners chose to bow down to the persecution. You can't blame the homosexuals for this. They were turned over to a depraved mind according to the Bible.
What you can blame is the business owners who feared man instead of God. - drachemorder, on 11/20/2008, -8/+10Agreed... does no one remember Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego any more?
- schroeder, on 11/20/2008, -5/+7Money is more real than God. There is proof money exists. God is an assumption.
- Yuusharo, on 11/21/2008, -2/+4I may be a social libertarian when it comes to equal rights for gay couples, and will continue to support same-sex marriage as a legal issue, but this ruling troubles me a little. I believe private businesses should be able to cater to whomever they wish.
I'm not sure what the laws are in the state this company is in, but In California we have a law that lets businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. In this case, eHarmony claims that their matching system is designed specifically for male/female compatibility, and that a different standard would be needed for male/male and/or female/female compatibility. Lets also keep in mind that eHarmony also rejects about 1 in 5 applicants during its screening process, including heterosexuals, from participating in their services.
I'm glad they managed to agree that setting up a separate site would be sufficient in regards to the lawsuit, but even still a business should be able to decide who it gives business to. - neilplatform1, on 11/21/2008, -2/+4They just don't get it, they're blinded by hate.
- JasonHears, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2Haha! That would be hilarious! "Thanks for filling out your application to eHarmony. We noticed you marked you were interested in women. However, after reviewing your likes and interests, we've determined that you'd actually be more happy with a gay man."
- chickenbig, on 11/20/2008, -6/+8I think your comment suffices to show where the real sickness lies...
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Let me ask you a question. What gives a gay man the right to sue this company for discrimination to begin with? What rights of his were violated?
- lydecker, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2I agree that this company was in business for a long time, and they have had a few suits against them by a lesbian woman, a legally separated man, and now this man, and they have all been ruled in favor of eHarmony. I think if they didn't settle, it would have continued.
But I still don't see what constitutional right has been violated. If anyone could have pointed out the specific constitutional right, and how it was violated, I would liked to have known where they came from. But as far as my knowledge of the constitution goes, I don't think there is a protected constitutional right to refuse service to groups of people.
Although I'm glad that eHarmony will be using their great matchmaking skills and metrics on uniting gay couples, too, and will have commitment to uniting all types of couples. - gigoloaunt, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2oh come on lifeguard mom, you know that the 'gays' freak you out because you're afraid that you are one.
- gigoloaunt, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2hi snirt, i may be a queer but you're an *****.
- Voxster, on 01/06/2009, -0/+1seadeus: In order to make the statement that "God is not real" - you would then have to possess all knowledge. what a ridiculous statement to make. Simply put - You would have to be an omniscient God yourself to make such an assumption in the first place.
I can't "scientifically" prove there is a God (cap "G" underscored)- but until you can prove there is not a Creator God - then wise up and admit that the main reason you say that God is not real is because you know that if He does exist you would then be accountable to Him.
Just be honest with yourself - maybe not here for all to see - but maybe when you lay your head down and there is nothing but silence.
Think about it.
Is this all just chance? I don't think so.
Respectfully- - lydecker, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2The legal system gives people an opportunity to make court cases. I don't know if there is a protected right for people to be allowed to sue. It's just an opportunity. People can take any case to court, meritless or not, and argue it. He, as anyone in court, tries to argue a point that his rights are violated moreso than someone else's.
And as I said, I think he would have lost, because I don't see any rights of his that were violated. - freedomspopular, on 11/20/2008, -2/+3That's really foolish. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way. Things have been much worse before. The pre-Reformation era was a dark time for Christianity, but a few men were willing to FIGHT for what was right, and through God's strength they succeeded. The American colonists faced a loss of freedom more than we've come close to experiencing today. But they FOUGHT for what was right, and through God's strength they succeeded. If either of these events had not happened, this country would not exist today. People have died for the cause of the Gospel and freedom. And here you are, talking about sitting on your hands doing nothing. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to just do nothing until Christ returns. Instead, it says to take up your cross daily. Hunkering down in your prayer closet is not taking up your cross. It's being a total sissy who wants to talk the talk instead of walking the walk. I seriously don't mean to be disrespectful, but it's attitudes like yours that are contributing to the downfall of freedom and morality. The atheists are succeeding with their agenda because they're constantly on the offensive while Christians are sitting on their hands doing nothing "waiting for the rapture." You can't even possibly know the rapture is coming soon. As I said, there have been MUCH darker times than what we're facing now, and amazingly enough, the rapture hasn't occurred. While you're sitting on your hands doing nothing, you're allowing the atheists and humanists of the world to stamp out Christianity, potentially leaving your posterity with an even darker world to put up with.
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -4/+5I have found WND to be fairly reliable. Like any business they have to pay the rent, you can't begrudge them of that.
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -5/+6I agree.
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1In several of your above posts, you have asked, whose rights have been violated? I say, the owner and management team that originally built eharmony. This company was in business for a long time and no government agency questioned their business practice until they were sued for no good reason by a gay man.
- spatulaking, on 11/20/2008, -14/+16This is just another example of our freedoms disappearing little by little. A privately owned business should be allowed to do what ever it wants to do so long as that business does not directly affect others. And by directly I mean they can't pour nuclear waste in the streets or go out and punch people in the faces. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking then that's their choice and my choice would be not to eat there. If a business wanted to be racist then that's their choice as well and I would not do business with them. People can decide to support or not support a business with their purchasing power. The strongest control factors have always been either the gun or money. Unfortunately Law Enforcement does not walk around with wads of cash. E-Harmony had decided not to do business with Homosexuals in regards to finding them life long partners and that should be their choice. They did not in any way affect homosexuals directly. There is only a perceived notion of being directly affected. E-Harmony did not go out and keep homosexuals from started a matching service that would cater to like individuals. This idea of feeling directly hurt if someone does not want affiliate with you is preposterous. It is just a prime example of low self esteem. Instead crying about it, If I myself had seen that a particular group of people were not being included in a businesses target group I would have started my own business that would fill in the gap and hopefully make barrels of money for me. There is an agenda involved with these wrongful complaints of injustice. Homosexuals do not believe in themselves or their life style choices strongly enough for them to stand alone on their merits. They feel that they must make everyone else believe in them as well.
- chickenbig, on 11/20/2008, -12/+13Turnabout is fair play...maybe some legal beagle should go after the gay web sites and force them to put up a Christian section? Not that anyone would use it, but it sure would be fun to make them jump through all the hoops and spend the money.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is