first

QUIT POSTING THIS SHIT.

GO AWAY ELIE.

I...CANT...TAKE IT...ANYMORE

The name of this blog needs to change. Why is it that every other post has something to do with gay people. Elie, I could care less that you aren't that good of a writer. Frankly, I'm not either so I don't catch most of your mistakes (except for the ones that are in the title which is pretty inexcusable) but the content of your posts are horrible. I'm sure there are more exciting things happening in the legal community right now than some dating site being forced to allow homosexuals to use it as well. You are horrible.

Oh god... get ready for the 23 year-old Autoadmit sh!t show

PENIS

aww! now elie can find a man!

good luck buddy!

Elie,

In case you missed it in Con Law, small-breasted women are not a protected class. That doesn't mean I support the decision, but that is why your analogy is off.

Query: Do LGBT dating sites offer the same services, etc... to heterosexual users seeking other heterosexuals?

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP
EEEEEEEEEEEEEE
NNNNNNNNNNNN
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SSSSSSSSSSSSSS

This is like forcing a company that only makes baseball gloves for righties to make ones for lefties as well. This equal rights, equal protection, anti-discrimination thing is getting out of control. Our Constitution is being interpreted in ways that make it suck. My ancestors who moved here in the 1910's screwed up.

Is it just me, or are there more "gay" posts recently?

Elie:ATL::G.W.Bush:Republican Party

I’m taking a tip from the American voting population and visiting any other blog from this point forward.

ELIE YOU DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING REPORT THIS CORRECTLY!!!

EHarmony is launching a NEW site, "CompatiblePartners.net," that will do the gay buttsex matches.

Get a FUCKING CLUE.

If you are going to report on this shit, at LEAST have the decency to GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT

Elie,

In case you missed it in Con Law, small-breasted women are not a protected class. That doesn't mean I support the decision, but that is why your analogy is off.

Query: Do LGBT dating sites offer the same services, etc... to heterosexual users seeking other heterosexuals? Are they required to under the NJ reasoning above? If not, why not?

There is a rumor floating around the blogosphere that homosexuals are in fact gay.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

This is the whole point:

"The company does, however, reserve the right to post a disclaimer noting that eHarmony's compatibility-based matching system was developed solely on the basis of research focused on married heterosexual couples."

I don't care how much one supports gay marriage (in my case, my gay father-in-law has a spouse), ths is going down a disturbing road. Is it that big of a stretch to suggest that male/female relationships have different attributes than male-male and female-female relationships? My relationship with my wife is certainly a helluva lot different than my in-laws', if nothing else for biological reasons.

eHarmony's business is to set up men with women, and women with men. Why should they be forced to set up men with men, and women with women, particularly if they don't think they have the aptitude to do so properly.

And why can't an entrepreneurial company attract the gay relationship market that eHarmony doesn't seek?

This has less to do with services and equality, and more to with political clout.

Private companies should be able to provide goods and services as they see best fitting their business models. The government should not apply direct or indirect pressure on this issue.

WRONG. it's a private organization and they explain that their formula -- whatever it might be -- was designed to work when matching a man with a woman. The have NO idea whether it would work with two people of the same sex. But their guarantee that you get "6 months free" if it doesn't work out is based on their belief that their algorithms for man-woman relationships are good.

Does this mean that gay matching sites should be forced to cater to straights? I don't think so. So what if I start a "Ebony-Harmony" system that is aimed at blacks? I CAN START WHATEVER BUSINESS I WANT.

If I design jock straps, I'm going to base the technology on male anatomy. By the lame New Jersey logic, all jock strap companies have to make their products accessible and useful for women. UH, NO. It's a product designed for a specific category of people.

The state of N.J. would surely lose this one.

Elie, since you're such an expert on discrimination, where in the "sex discrimination" report from yesterday does it say that second year male associates are paid more than second year female associates (as you claimed)? Where does it say anything other than generalizations that male associates are on average slightly more senior and make slightly more money?

Ummm, so no more JDate, right?

In addition to being prevented from marrying, gay homosexuals should be prevented from using the web and from being around children in cyberspace or in public for that matter.

And why exactly would NJ "surely win" this lawsuit? There was a colon after that statement, implying that what followed would support Elie's claim.

In a shocking blow to the ATL community's enduring faith in Elie's abilities, what followed did not any way support his bizarre claim that NJ would surely win a civil rights action against eHarmony. What followed was not even logically related to the preceding statement, instead describing some of the terms of the settlement.

Look, I know a shrill position on identity politics substitutes for talent in academia, but there's always been at least SOME standards in private industry and commerce. We know, we know. Elie has all the "correct" political opinions and is vocal about them. Cookie for him. Can we now have someone who is good at their job? Please?

And now for your Blackuweather Forecast:

"Its gunna rain man ass!"

18 -- Can't women buy jock straps if they want to?
--Elie

24 - Yes, they can. Just like homosexual singles can use eHarmony in order to meet someone of the other sex. The problem is, it's not what they're looking for. I think you're missing 18's point.

Elie's logic is a flawed. Poster 8 and 18 above are both correct. A sexuality discrimination case against eHarmony is not - as you have termed it - a "sure win."

eHarmony would probably argue that it's proprietary matching system was designed via research on hetrosexual married couples, and that it cannot expand its matching system to include homosexual couples without (1) sacrificing the efficacy of its matching system by simply using the same system with homosexual couples or (2) utilizing additional resources to develop a new matching system designed for homosexual couples.

Whether you agree with that logic or not, it's a valid argument. The state of New Jersey should not be able to compel a private company to mis-utilize its products or to provide additional products.

That's like suing a gay personals website for not having a straight section.

That's like suing a hair dresser who does "white hair" because she can't do "black hair".

Bullshit.

To 22 and all the other Weekly Standard-contributor nutjobs trawling this post (and this site): get over your own narcissism. Not everything that happens in the world can relate to beer, naked women or your bank account balances. Sometimes, however rarely, the pressing issues of the day invade the sanctity of the money-grubbing, Gossip Girl content of ATL. And right now, one of those issues happens to be the fight over marriage equality.

Stop lashing out at Elie because he's addressing noteworthy legal disputes. Start taking account for your failure to amount to something resembling human beings.

NJ = TTT
Elie = TTT

I was going to write something about how much this post (and Elie) sucks, but 3, 4, 12, 13 and everyone else already discussed everything I might have written. What a shame that atl has ceased to be a source of worthwhile information.

Elie -- Can't gay men date women if they want to?

-- Smarter than Elie

Now Elie can find a man (or shemale) who can support him, so that he will quit as editor and we can stop all this gay-themed nonsense. Remember - the blog is entitled 'Above the Law" not "Under your Shorts' or "Up Your A##."

24 (Fatty Fatso): yeah, and homos can date the opposite sex . . .but what's the purpose?

Yes Elie, women can buy jock straps. Also, homosexuals could have used eharmony, just not to find members of the same sex. The issue is whether the company must alter the product for their use, hence 18's comment that the company would have to make them "useful" for women.

Wow. Elie at 24. Completely missed the point.

Yes Elie, women can buy jock straps. Also, homosexuals could have used eharmony, just not to find members of the same sex. The issue is whether the company must alter the product for their use, hence 18's comment that the company would have to make them "useful" for women.

27 = Elie, forgetting to log in

8/14: Yes, in fact, most gay dating sites DO allow you to say you're interested in the opposite sex. Check gay.com.

Ellie @ 24 you Fat Idiot -

Yes, women can buy jockstraps (@ 18), but it would be a useless product for them. For (old) eHarmony, a butt pirate could join the site (product) but it would be useless for him because it would match him with a woman (who is likely also a loser, but that is another issue).

Now go get warmed up for Thanksgiving and beat it to pictures of the Jonas Brothers

I am a male cannibal. Am I gay if i eat a man? What if I avoid his ass and just eat a thigh, is that gay?

Mannibal

8, 10, etc -- While sexual orientation is not the basis of a protected class nationally, it is in several states, including NJ. Just as the national anti-discrimination laws prohibit race-biased advertising in housing (suits have successfully argued that housing advertisements in DC that only have pictures of white people created an atmosphere of discrimination towards black and latino applicants that rose to a level that violated the anti-discrimination in housing laws), one could argue that be only showing heterosexual couples in eHarmony advertisements eHarmony is engaging in subliminal discrimination.

I loves me them A cup wimmins!

- Chair IBTC

25 -- Well, then doesn't it all depend on how you define "what they're looking for?" I think they're looking for "dates." eHarmony claims to provide "dates." Why should one group of people have access to dates while another does not?

Here's another point. Have any of you taken a look at the "29 Dimensions of Compatibility" that eHarmony does take into account when matching people? They even have a whole section devoted to "Values and Beliefs" which include: Spirituality, Family Goals, Traditionalism, Ambition, and Altruism.

Now ... I don't know what the hell they mean by all of those words, but it strikes me as very easy to have a 30th Dimension of Compatibility along the lines of "Orientation."

I mean, you'd think sexual orientation would have a lot to do with whether or not two people are compatible.

... Unless of course they were trying to systematically prevent gays and lesbians from accessing their services.
--Elie

"Now go get warmed up for Thanksgiving and beat it to pictures of the Jonas Brothers"

clowned!

Finally, eHarmony opening its site to GULC students and graduates!

-GW 1L

17 - "Private companies should be able to provide goods and services as they see best fitting their business models. The government should not apply direct or indirect pressure on this issue."

By your logic, lunch counters in the south should still be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race if that is what "they see best fitting their business models." It's difficult to make the case with any credibility that the government should not be in the business of ensuring the rights of oppressed minorities against entrenched majority interests, which necessarily includes discriminatory businesses.

26, it is *your* logic that's flawed. Under the NJ anti-discrimination statute, eHarmony is required to provide the same services to gays as to heterosexuals. Period.

As to your policy argument regarding the theoretical requirement that gay dating websites would be required to cater to straights, I offer this response: So?

If straights want to join a gay dating website, they can. I know of no prohibition. The question is, do they want to? There certainly wouldn't be many matches available for them. The same applies to eHarmony. All the company has agreed to do is to make the same services available to people regardless of sexual orientation. It doesn't have to ensure that more gay people join so that the gay customers will find matches. Most likely, as few gay people will want to join eHarmony as straights who want to join, say, Manhunt.

Wow, in the last few minutes, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35/37 and 38 were all able to grasp a concept that evaded Elie.

Didn't he go Ivy League or someting? Too bad Affirmative Action can't boost understanding.

As a law student who had a terrible con law prof, can someone explain the difference between state action and a private company?

If i recall, gay rights uses intermediate scrutiny, but even if it is afforded strict scrutiny, at what point do private businesses have to treat everyone equally?

Is it that it would violate a NJ civil rights statute or that it is inherently unconstitutional for a private business to discriminate?

I like 44's implications.

what's the applicable legal standard? and is it a NJ standard or a federal one? without that information, how can I tell if NJ's case would have been a slam dunk or not?

"... Unless of course they were trying to systematically prevent gays and lesbians from accessing their services. "

Of course they were, and so what? Now private businesses can't regulate their own services offered? Maybe they were trying to protect their intended client base from newly out or on the fence homos. Nothing worse for a client then being tossed aside for buyer's remorse.

Elie - you need to get out of the business of arguing with people in the comments. They are anonymous cretins, you are not (well, at least you are not anonymous). They have no consquences for their cowardly anonymous ad hominem attacks.

Grow a pair, be confident in what you post and stop wallowing in the mud with the pigs.

42 -- Now you're asking them to change the technology.

I am afraid of gay cannibals. They have the potential to bring this world to an end. I don't want my delicious body to be eaten by a gay cannibal.

Gary Sinise

Wow, Elie you are amazing. How on earth did you get into a great law school and work at a great firm? You analytical abilities are truly astonishing. Why don't you do everybody a favor and stop commenting.

26, it is *your* logic that's flawed. Under the NJ anti-discrimination statute, eHarmony is required to provide the same services to gays as to heterosexuals. Period.

As to your policy argument regarding the theoretical requirement that gay dating websites would be required to cater to straights, I offer this response: So?

If straights want to join a gay dating website, they can. I know of no prohibition. The question is, do they want to? There certainly wouldn't be many matches available for them. The same applies to eHarmony. All the company has agreed to do is to make the same services available to people regardless of sexual orientation. It doesn't have to ensure that more gay people join so that the gay customers will find matches. Most likely, as few gay people will want to join eHarmony as straights who want to join, say, Manhunt.

Mystal is so gay. So is this blog. The only reason I visit this site anymore is to read the hilarious comments bashing Mystal and his retarded posts.

Wow, Elie you are amazing. How on earth did you get into a great law school and work at a great firm? You analytical abilities are truly astonishing. Why don't you do everybody a favor and stop commenting.

"Well, then doesn't it all depend on how you define 'what they're looking for?' I think they're looking for 'dates.' eHarmony claims to provide 'dates.'"

Elie, what are you talking about? eHarmony "claims" to provide "dates" *of the opposite sex*

That's, like, the whole point.

is jdate illegally discriminating against gentiles? should they have a "diversity" section?

Someone find out if Elie has an eHarmony account - he seems awfully concerned about the quality of the site.

My guess, Elie Mystal on eHarmony:

6'3", 190lbs, enthusiastic outdoors man, health food nut, VERY intelligent (top law school) - seeking similarly health conscious woman for sexy time. Affection for butter a plus.

47's second para said it all.

#45 (likely Elie again), you are completely missing the point. Companies should surely be prevented from allowing admission by blacks into their establishments, but that doesn't mean they should be forced to add greens and fried chicken to their menu if that is not what type of restaurant they see fit to run.

GLBT individuals can access eHarmony same as anyone else, but the site simply won't have what they are looking for. I am white and don't live asian food, so should my local chinese food delivery company offer a hamburger just for poor little me?

The Mormons were right! The Gays are taking over everything! Joe Smith is prophet!

Gay cannibals will ruin this country. Mark my words.

Elie-

Does it bother you that you have taken Lat's creation and turned it into a bully pulpit for your own personal views? This site was never intended to be a place for you to express your own politics. Start your own blog if that is what you want.

I think most attacks on you are unfair, but seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

" I think they're looking for "dates." eHarmony claims to provide "dates."

Which anyone can do (gay or straight), its just that their expertise is male/female relationships.

How stupid would someone sound if they sued a gynecological center for not taking males as patients? Should gynecologists be forced to update their expertise to also service male patients? I'm not sure this is much different.

"If straights want to join a gay dating website, they can. I know of no prohibition."

56, it is your logic that's "flawed." The issue here is not access to the website, as numerous posters above have noted. The issue is accomodation.

So, the comparable analogy to eHarmony offering gay services are gay websites offering straight services. Not to mention man-only gay websites offering services for both gay and straight women.

This entire post is gay!

Elie-

Does it bother you that you have taken Lat's creation and turned it into a bully pulpit for your own personal views? This site was never intended to be a place for you to express your own politics. Start your own blog if that is what you want.

I think most attacks on you are unfair, but seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

#45 (likely Elie again), you are completely missing the point. Companies should surely be prevented from disallowing admission by blacks into their establishments, but that doesn't mean they should be forced to add greens and fried chicken to their menu if that is not what type of restaurant they see fit to run.

GLBT individuals can access eHarmony same as anyone else, but the site simply won't have what they are looking for. I am white and don't like asian food, so should my local chinese food delivery company offer a hamburger just for poor little me?

45: this situation is more analogous to a paid singles event (say, speed dating) organized in a private setting than it is to a restaurant open to whoever passes by. would you argue that all speed dating events should now include people of all orientations and ages?

63 - 45 here, and that is not the point. eHarmony (like discriminatory lunch counters) are preventing an entire class of people from using their site. eHarmony's policy, while facially neutral (in that it doesn't bar homosexuals from using the site as long as they want to search for opposite sex partners) has a disparate impact on homosexuals, for whom the site is worthless.

And your analogy to what type of food a restaurant serves is nonsensical. In New Jersey, homosexuals have a statutory right not to be discriminated against, you have no such right to be served whatever food you would like at a restaurant.

What if you are only 1/2 gay. Can you use their service.

Did Sarah Palin (the wonder from Wasilla) use eharmony to match up with McCain?

This is unbelievable.

73-

"[eHarmony] has a disparate impact on homosexuals, for whom the site is worthless."

ANSWER THE FUCKING FOLLOW UP.

Does every site now have a duty to make their services "useful" to homosexuals?

Homosexuals can use the site just fine... to find woman. It's not eHarmony's problem that such a service is unuseful to a portion of the population. I find pants with only two legs to be unuseful, but that doesn't mean I can sue Levi's on some sort of discrimination theory. Or that the state can.

"Does every site now have a duty to make their services "useful" to homosexuals?"

And does every women's hospital have a duty to accomodate, schedule and service male patients.

I think someone needs a bowl of STFU.

Seriously, i'm not sure the LGBT community wants to win points like these, at some point there's going to be a backlash, even from people that have supported them in the past. This isn't equal rights, its special rights.

-not 77

#73 (#45), you are still missing the point, and defending your position by arguing what the law is in NJ. I couldn't care less what backwards law they have on the books (or how it is applied), I am arguing what SHOULD be. And the food analogy, which is overly simplistic (so those like Elie have a chance at grasping the concept), is far from nonsensical.

Think about it -- does a steak-only restaurant discriminate against vegetarians? Should the restaurant be forced to provide non-meat alternatives. The vegans have every right to eat there, and the restaurants "offerings" would surely have a disparate impact on the vegans, but that would not be discrimination. Do you agree?

If so, how is that situation any different than eHarmony. GLBT individuals can access the site, use the site to look for people, but they will not find the people they are looking for because they don't want steak, they want vegetables.

wow, cock based on 29 dimesions of compatibility!

Question:

Are large law firms as adamantly biased for the pro-gay agenda as this website?

wow, cock based on 29 dimesions of compatibility!

This settlement outcome is great. I'm eagerly looking forward to a new line of man-bras from that sexist company, Wonderbra.

State of New Jersey = ridiculous
This site = getting to be a big bore

77 - define "useful." I don't know the ins-and-outs of the NJ anti-discrimination law, but clearly many smart lawyers in New Jersey thought that eHarmony's policy of excluding same-sex match-making violated the statute, and Ted Olson of Gibson Dunn counseled them to settle the matter rather than litigate it, which tells me that it was either good business to do so or they thought they would lose, either way, it undermines your argument.

As to your follow-up, yes, I would argue that, under a strict non-discrimination statute, sites that offer services such as dating would be forced to accomodate homosexuals. Whether websites are "useful" to homosexuals is beside the point. Websites have varying utility to people depending on a variety of factors, most of which are not protected by law.

77 - define "useful." I don't know the ins-and-outs of the NJ anti-discrimination law, but clearly many smart lawyers in New Jersey thought that eHarmony's policy of excluding same-sex match-making violated the statute, and Ted Olson of Gibson Dunn counseled them to settle the matter rather than litigate it, which tells me that it was either good business to do so or they thought they would lose, either way, it undermines your argument.

As to your follow-up, yes, I would argue that, under a strict non-discrimination statute, sites that offer services such as dating would be forced to accomodate homosexuals. Whether websites are "useful" to homosexuals is beside the point. Websites have varying utility to people depending on a variety of factors, most of which are not protected by law.

is anyone taking into account the fact that eharmony chooses your matches for you and will not let you contact someone that they have not matched you with? They essentially reject you if the site does not find a "compatible" person.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s7/slayer320/Untitled-5.jpg

The comments were done with #25. Elie loses.

Conan = gay eharmony user

Conan = gay eharmony user

Conan = gay eharmony user

80 - vegetarians are not a protected class under any statutory scheme, homosexuals are in New Jersey.

Who cares what you think things hypothetically "should" be? My arguments are premised on things as they exist in the real world (if you can call New Jersey the real world), not hypothetical land.

"one could argue that be only showing heterosexual couples in eHarmony advertisements eHarmony is engaging in subliminal discrimination."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I would take a Mormon cannibal over a Gay cannibal any day of the week The Mormon cannibal would just give you pamphlets and brochures before he ate you, the gay cannibal would likely have sex with you before and after he ate you. Tis a nasty business.

94, the example was a hypothetical analogy. IF vegeterians were a protected class, would a steak-only restaurant be considered discriminatory and liable for damages? Vegeterians are free to use the restaurant; it just won't provide a good or service they're looking for.

Likewise, gay people are free to use eHarmony, but it just won't offer a good or service that is useful to them.
Try to use some critical reasoning skills.

#88:

And? Don't post a factual assertion and imply that it affects the analysis without providing at least some meaningful explanation as to why it would affect the analysis. And to help you out, it wouldn't affect the analysis. The site rejects heteros and homos alike, and orientation is not one of the "dimensions."

How does this effect the layoffs at SkaddenDC?

Elie, you're embarrassing yourself. I thought perhaps you would have learned your lesson from your last posting disaster . . . shame on me for giving you a second chance.

Here's the thing you'll have to wake up and realize. Maybe it's not everyone else. Maybe your pro-gay agenda isn't what people here want to read about. Keep in mind that more people voted Yes on 8 and if it had been a national issue it would have been a blow out. So you're offending most of the readers on this board with this agenda you're trying to get across on your soap box. Is HuffPo or moveon.org paying you to push their talking points?

-Big Law Associate, California

"Well, then doesn't it all depend on how you define "what they're looking for?" I think they're looking for "dates." eHarmony claims to provide "dates." Why should one group of people have access to dates while another does not?"

Ok, so if you have decided that you would like to sell apples on the side of the road, and someone comes up to you and says: "I'm sorry, but I only like to eat oranges (gay)," to which you reply "I'm sorry sir, but we only sell apples (hetero)"

Well damn it, aren't we all just looking for fruit? Why can only the people who like apples have fruit? BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THEY SELL. And you know what, the other guy can have all the oranges he wants, he just has to get them from someone who sells them. Maybe if it were eHarmony.gov you would have a better argument...

76 nailed it, prostate exam style.

When are they going to open a site for pedophiles?

Elie are you really this fucking dumb?

Of course a woman can buy a jock strap. The proper question if one was to use analogy, however, is whether a woman force a company to design, manufacture distribute and sell a pussy strap.

Can I force the "Curves" gym to create men's gyms? Can I make a gay club open a hetero counterpart? No, because they get to sell whatever fucking product they want.

If a gay person wants to use eharmony's existing product, fine, they should have to let him. But to force eharmony to make a different product (your word games with the definition of the product is stupid - the product is real, not conceptual. It is the actual software that now needs to be changed - i.e. new product development) for gays if they do not want to is stupid.

84=Awesome

.
From: #18
To: Elie

If it's "so easy" to add an orientation category, then why don't YOU go and create a site, and COMPETE with E-Harmony?

That's the POINT of a free market. The idiot Libs who want to regulate the hell out of EVERYTHING don't understand that the GOVERNMENT doesn't need to tell private businesses what to do -- If there's a market, then a business will come into being and THRIVE.

But with more NewJersey-style regulation, individuals will be less and less likely to want to get into business at all. And that means less innovation, less new ideas, less choices for all of us.

And THAT is how Libs destroy this country and the free market.

-- # 18

97 - like I said, I'm not living in hypothetical land. Your hypothetical of a steak-only restaurant and a statutory scheme protecting vegetarians is too implausible to warrant discussion. The case of eHarmony existing and operation under a regulatory scheme that prohibits discrimination against homosexuals is very real.

84 - Men can buy bras. No one would make the argument that a gender discrimination laws force companies to make new products for both sexes. But there's a difference between requiring Trojan to produce oral contraceptives for women and requiring a company not to discriminate in the way it provides the products/services that it already produces. Now, I think that eHarmony has a decent argument that it's matching service is inherently heterosexual because that's the research on which it's based, etc, etc. But they chose to settle, so whatever, maybe they thought they would lose that argument.

In my neighborhood, municipal law dictates that all homosexuals register with the police before moving in. I think our town is all the better for it.

96 -- Why the hell are Mormons handing out brochures? That does not make sense.

87-

"clearly many smart lawyers in New Jersey thought that eHarmony's policy of excluding same-sex match-making violated the statute, and Ted Olson of Gibson Dunn counseled them to settle the matter rather than litigate it, which tells me that it was either good business to do so or they thought they would lose, either way, it undermines your argument."

that's a beautiful appeal to authority. it doesn't just undermine my argument - it EVISCERATES it. if "many smart lawyers" and Ted Olsen of Gibson Dunn say it's so, then that's good enough for me. well done.

"As to your follow-up, yes, I would argue that, under a strict non-discrimination statute, sites that offer services such as dating would be forced to accomodate homosexuals. Whether websites are "useful" to homosexuals is beside the point. Websites have varying utility to people depending on a variety of factors, most of which are not protected by law."

accomodate by your definition = useful.
you already stated that giving homosexuals access to heterosexual ads was insufficient.

the GAY INTERNET AGE has arrived!! thanks New Jersey! lets start by making the Catholic church's website useful to queers.

you

"The case of eHarmony existing and operation under a regulatory scheme that prohibits discrimination against homosexuals is very real. "

Not too long ago this would have been just as implausible as a statutory scheme involving vegetarians. I can see some states (California, Vermont) eventually forcing restaurants to have at least one non-meat entree.

Oh, too bad, had this gone to trial we would have had another "progressive" (i.e.: jurisprudentially lax) NJ opinion in our casebooks.

#97, wow, way to avoid admitting your blatant logical failures by refusing to address the posed ANALOGY. There have been cases upholding women-only health clubs (legitimately so), is that real-world enough for you? In your opinion, should those clubs be forced to accommodate men?

The levels of government intrusion are getting ridiculous. So you seriously believe that if I wanted to start a dating site today, I should be FORCED by the government to provide for gay matching, even though I have no experience or business model in what gay people want in a partner? Seriously, is that what this is coming to?

111 - no, my point about the site being worthless to homosexuals was to support the point that eHarmony's facially neutral policy had a disparate impact.

And yes, giving homosexuals access to heterosexual ads is insufficient, it's simply a facially-neutral way of discriminating against gays, which is not allowed under the NJ statute.

And you said there would be no fall out from gay marriage... lol.

112 - Boo fucking hoo. Let's all decry progress in the realm of treating everyone equally. Things were so fucking great back in the 1950s when gays were in closet (where they belonged), women where in the kitchen (where they belonged) and blacks knew their place.

94/107, let me make it simple since you cannot fathom "implausible" abstract analogies. In our real world, sex discrimination is illegal.

Men cannot use women-only gym clubs. Even worse than eHarmony, men cannot even register and look inside. These gym clubs offer a service, exercising. Why should men not be allowed to exercise in these gym clubs?

Repeat for women-only colleges, black-only college scholarships, etc.

LEWW Update -- Newlywed gay racists Jordan Brudner and Daniel Gaspar are filing a law suit against eharmony tortious interference of contract.

"Men cannot use women-only gym clubs. "

What's the problem? Don't you know this is the 21st century? Things are going to be so fucking great now that straight, white males know their place - every other group gets to have special rights but them.

In case you were wondering I was being sarcastic - Homer Simpson

One might argue that eHarmony's discriminatory policies are no different from "Ladies' Nights" that many bars and clubs offer wherein women are charged less (or sometimes nothing) for admission or services than men are: a unique service or benefit to a select group in order to increase clientele. Such businesses argue that it's not discrimination, but an acceptable business strategy to increase its customer base. Some states buy it; some states don't.

In 2004, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights didn't and ruled that a Cherry Hill, New Jersey bar's Ladies' Night violated the state's non-discrimination law.

The New Jersey chapter of the ACLU and the New York chapter of the NOW ridiculed the decision. The Governor of New Jersey, Jim McGreevey, called the decision "bureaucratic nonsense" and "an overreaction that reflects a complete lack of common sense and good judgment."

Isn't the founder of E-harmony affiliated with a conservative church? Match.com ran all these ads making fun of the fact that E-harmony didn't provide same sex dating services. There are a number of gay dating websites including match.com out there. Someone looking for a same sex date should try those. Why spend your money on a site that clearly doesn't want your business? Spend your money on a site that does!

Isn't the founder of E-harmony affiliated with a conservative church? Match.com ran all these ads making fun of the fact that E-harmony didn't provide same sex dating services. There are a number of gay dating websites including match.com out there. Someone looking for a same sex date should try those. Why spend your money on a site that clearly doesn't want your business? Spend your money on a site that does!

Does a steak house discriminate against Hindus? Does a South Carolina pulled-pork BBQ shop discriminate against Muslims and Jews?

These religious groups ARE members of a protected class. Must all eating establishments offer kosher and halal and hindu-approved menu choices? Or is it enough that they offer what they offer to anyone who wants to eat it?

I would take a Mormon cannibal over a Gay cannibal any day of the week The Mormon cannibal would just give you pamphlets and brochures before he ate you, the gay cannibal would likely have sex with you before and after he ate you. Tis a nasty business.

Maybe we should introduce the gay racists to the black homophobes who voted against gay marriage in California.

I actually think that, far from being pro-gay, Elie's post resonates with anti-gay sentiment, as evidenced by a sentence like this: "But you've got to respect the distinction between tolerating and promoting." Aside from the grammatical blunders in this sentence, the notion that gay people are merely to be "tolerated" is highly offensive to gay people and those interested in human and civil rights.

They should rename this site: above the blue law. Hey, if I wanted to read non-stop about homos, I could just open the New York Times style section.

Anybody know if the legal prostitutes in Nevada will be required to extend their services to same-sex clients?

Just wondering...

Do religious book stores in New Jersey also have to sell gay porn?

You people are all so rediculous. Yes the content of the website has change and I think it's for the better. The reason you all read this website so passionately when Lat was the primary author was for 1) the biglaw HR information (bonuses, NY to 190!, etc.) and 2) for the gossip. While the value of the HR info. is debateable, I for one am glad to have less gossip on this website. I was personally disgusted by all the stories about summer associate gaffs or "TTT week" (remember that one? -- classy!). It got to the point where I was checking the blog once a day just to make sure that I hadn't been written about. What was the point to these stories? How did they fuel the dialogue about our industry in a positive way? All they really did was give you a 5-minute break from the job you hate and the debtor's prison life that you lead to laugh at someone else's failures and feel better about yourself. So now, ironically, you complain that there are too many posts about gay issues when what you are demanding a return to is Lat's queeny, bitchy commentaries.

eHarmony's the home of the cornfed "family values" lame; I can't think why anyone, gay or straight, would sue for the right to troll for ass on there.

You all may be sick of Elie's gay posts.

I'm sick of a website that doesn't tell you when a comment is posted, and leads to comments showing up 3 or 4 times rapid fire.

Mormons are not cannibals, sir.

Mitt Romney

Why are we restricting this to companies? I think all individuals should be forced to date members of the same sex, and members of the opposite sex.

Existing legislative interpretation may not require it, but if we can put the right people on the right courts, this dream can come true!

You all may be sick of Elie's gay posts.

I'm sick of a website that doesn't tell you when a comment is posted, and leads to comments showing up 3 or 4 times rapid fire.

Why are we restricting this to companies? I think all individuals should be forced to date members of the same sex, and members of the opposite sex.

Existing legislative interpretation may not require it, but if we can put the right people on the right courts, this dream can come true!

You all may be sick of Elie's gay posts.

I'm sick of a website that doesn't tell you when a comment is posted, and leads to comments showing up 3 or 4 times rapid fire.

If Gay is the new Black, can gays get bedbugs?

You schmucks are unbelievable. I sometimes fear for the fate of the legal community given some of the things written here.

The people of NJ (via there elected officials) have decided that no company doing business within the State can discriminate based on sexual orientation. EHarmony does that. It's no different than EHarmony saying they are a dating service for whites and they don't match other races (or other races with whites). (Oh, and yeah, it would be a strong legal argument to make that their "formula" is not suited to match people of color or interracial couples, b/c of the unique circumstances of those relationships).

Isn't this what all the gay marriage opponents want? They want it done "democratically."

PS Eharmony's decision not to provide services to LGB people is based on the personal beliefs of its founder, who has been showcased on multiple evangelical television programs and published by Focus on the Family's publishing arm.

PPS If you don't like Elie's posts, read another fucking website.

This site really isn't that bad....if you skip the articles and skim past the comments that are even remotely serious, it's actually pretty funny.

I thought eharmony was where all the closet cases went to meet desperate women?

"The people of NJ (via there elected officials) have decided that no company doing business within the State can discriminate based on sexual orientation. EHarmony does that. "

No it doesn't. It provides a service, that anyone can use, gay or straight. Its service is simply not attractive to gay people.

Again, are gynecologists and women's centers forced to accept male patients in New Jersey?

If Gay is the new Black, can gays get bedbugs?
_________________________
Racist against bedbugs

More social engineering and PC bullshit. The company founder created a site/business based upon his beliefs and religious convictions, all of which are historically respected and valued in this country. Now let's take his business and "refine" it to fit the PC line of bullshit.

Dear Elie,

On 11/18 you wrote:

"I've yet to talk to a supporter of gay marriage who wants to the state to force a priest or a reverend or a rabbi to perform a gay marriage in a house of worship."

But is there any *substantive* difference between forcing webistes to accomodate gay preferences, and forcing churches to accomodate gay preferences?

On 11/19 you wrote that "it strikes me as very easy to have a 30th Dimension of Compatibility along the lines of 'Orientation.'"

But isn't it even *easier* for churches to accomodate gay marriages? I mean, other than pronouncing two same-sex names, literally nothing changes.

Regards,

Consistency Fan

140, there's a big difference between a democracy deciding what the state government should license as marriages, and a democracy deciding what a private business (which does not do business with the state government) should offer as a service. The key words are "state" and "private."

I love how all these people analogize orientation-based dating discrimination to race-based dating discrimination, yet do not complain about the black dating sites.

I'm surprised no one has felt the need to offer some proper, honest bigotry: the world would be a better place if all businesses could decide for themselves whom to serve and in what fashion. Let the market decide whether all restaurants should allow whites, whether all dating website should allow straights, and whether women's hospitals should allow men. The market is the most democratic and the most honest institution we have.

Businesses should be allowed to discriminate against blacks, gays, women, idiots, and the poor. I know I do.

New Jersey needs to rething its pro-gay laws.

Guys at my high school met Elie on eHarmony all the time. It was no big deal.

If you think about it, it wasn't 'the market' that promoted segregation -- it was the state.

They're called "Jim Crow LAWS" for a reason. Business wanted to sell to everyone, but a tyrannical majority put a stop to that. Businesses, like eHarmony, just want to make money. And if they don't, they'll be put out of businesses that do.

Who would eHarmony set up with Lat? Elie! See, it was a terribly bad match.

Seriously, 143. Weak. Those places are not denying services based on gender. They offer services that are only applicable to women. Men do not and cannot need them.

One the other hand, eHarmony is discriminating based on sexual orientation. It offers services that both gays and straights can and do use, but withholds them from gays.

Your argument is just another version of: gays can marry--marry people of the opposite gender.

I am now forced to jump on the Elie is a dumbass wagon...

Is there any room left?

Why is this blog paying lip service to gays.

154, it depends on what your definition of their service is. Seriously, weak logic.

If you define the women's center's service to be "reproductive organ medical services for women" then yes men do not need them. Same if I define eHarmony's service to be "dating opposite sex people." Notice how you categorized the class definition in there?

If you want to define eHarmony's service to be just "dating" and argue that they're discriminating based on sexual orientation, I can quite as easily argue that the women's center's service is "reproductive organ medical services," which men can and do use, so they're discriminating based on sex. Sure, the center would have to develop new processes and get new equipment to accomodate male organs, but that doesn't bother anyone.

Bottom line, the gynecologists and women's centers offer medical services to heal women's sexual organs but not men's. Sure, men can use them, as long as they have a vagina.

It's catches "teh gay." Where've you been?

Dude, E-Harmony did not settle because they were afraid of losing the lawsuit. They probably would have won. They settled because a.) lawsuits are an expensive pain-in-the-ass and b.) because they realized that this is a good business opportunity. So what if the model was based on opposite-sex couples? If gay people want to pay for the service, more money for E-Harmony. And if it is successful enough, maybe E-Harmony will finally do some research on what makes a successful gay couple.

This has nothing to do with what the constitution does and does not protect. This is about money.

38 here -

Ellie: You are about as straight as a circle. Your fat ugly ass would have a vested interest in what goes on at eHarmony, especially the equal opportunity for gay losers to use their service. Hit the gym, loose 200, then hit the gay bar and I am sure there will be someone drunk enough there to be impressed with your Ivy league credentials.

140 - First learn the difference between "there" and "their" and then worry about the future of law practice.

154, I am afraid you are the weak one. It all depends on how you define the service.

If you are going to take a broad view of the service rendered, then women's centers provide health services, and eHarmony provides dating services. If this is the case, how is one declining service to men any different than the other declining service to homosexuals?

If you are going to take a narrow view of the service, then women's centers provide health services to women, and eHarmony provides dating services to heterosexuals. When you exercise consistency, the analogy works.

-Not 143

It really is amazing to me that people are completely fine with discrimination in any form. So you don't like gays or respect their choices, fine...you don't have to. But to sanction discrimination against them is just reprehensible. Many Christians believe that non-Christians (or even those not born again) are going to hell, but we don't see legitimized discrimination against Jews, Hindus or Muslims, do we?

It's a scary time we're in when the most reasonable point on gay rights is made by Ashton Kutcher.

But 152, if there are enough people who wanted the Jim Crow laws (which there were--otherwise the laws would have been repealed), wouldn't there be enough people who wanted to patronize white-only estabilishments? And wouldn't that create a niche market for such establishments, as distinct from a separate market for black-only establishments and another market for integrated establishments? And wouldn't that be a good thing?

162, in this case your so-called "discrimination" is equivalent to a restaurant not serving kosher or halal food.
We do see that, legitimized.

162, the problem is that you claim to be fine with me disliking gays/blacks/muslims, etc., but you force me to act like I like them anyway. If I dislike them, I shouldn't have to interact with them in my own business, just like I shouldn't have to be friends with them. If my friends and I open a social club, we should be allowed to decide with whom we socialize there. SCOTUS (mostly) agreed to let us exclude gays from our club in the Boy Scouts case, but it clearly wouldn't let us exclude blacks. Which is too bad, cause I like gays a hell of a lot more than I like blacks.

"Seriously, 143. Weak. Those places are not denying services based on gender. They offer services that are only applicable to women. Men do not and cannot need them."

They are offering medical services and have an MD. They are certainly qualified to offer certain services to males. They can give shots, proscribe medicines, perform physicals, etc.

They choose not to perform those services since they concentrate on women's issues. Why? Who knows? Maybe they are too busy to perform services not directly related to gynecology? Maybe they believe they aren't as qualified to practice certain medicine as other practioners since they focus on female issues? Maybe they hate men?

Its only the same fucking situation as eHarmony.

I don't think this thread has nearly enough analogies.

I think the local black restaurant should have to serve more than chicken and waffles. While I love chicken and waffles, some white folks just aren't looking for chicken and waffles and thus are being discriminated against because the restaurant does not cater to their appetites.

All this BS about gays and their rights when college football is mired with the discriminatory BCS? Where's the justice.

Clearly, all gynecologists are sexist. They should be banned from New Jersey.

Bring me Solo and the Wookiee.

But 152, if there are enough people who wanted the Jim Crow laws ... wouldn't there be enough people who wanted to patronize white-only estabilishments?

__________________________

Obviously not, since the laws were passed. Otherwise there would have been no need for them. Thanks for playing.

Bring me Solo and the Wookiee.

161, The point is gynos offer gynecological services (things that men do not and cannot need). They are not discriminating because of the sex of the patient. eHarmony offers dating services (things that can do and can need). They discriminate based on the sexual orientation of participant. We cannot have any law prohibiting discrimination in any form if we were to frame questions like you choose to. [Take a look at Bowers and Lawrence. You'll see two instances where framing the question was results driven.]

164, that's an interesting point. I see the logic, but be serious. Many Jews don't eat Kosher; many Muslims don't eat Halal. I just can't agree, and I'm too tired to play logic games.

165, I don't force you to act like you like them. I force you to abide by the law and provide to them the same services you would provides others. Law cannot control personal prejudices but it can ensure that institutional prejudices are not condoned.

166, you need to elaborate. I don't get ya.

::: The point is gynos offer gynecological services (things that men do not and cannot need). They are not discriminating because of the sex of the patient. eHarmony offers dating services

There. Right there. That's where you make your mistake.

Why don't you say "eHarmony offers heterosexual dating services"? Why is the women's health center allowed to add the level of specificity that they deal with women's health issues, but eHarmony isn't allowed to add the level of specificity that they deal with heterosexual dating?

So here's my question for all of you T-14 students/grads, particularly any Harvard, Yale, and Stanford folks: Are/were there a lot of people at your schools like Elie? I go to a T50 law school at a state school that is better known for its superb football program than academics. I've always been under the impression that people at HYS were exceptionally bright people who were the future leaders of the country. All of my professors who attended these schools are more intelligent than I can ever hope to be. Most of the lawyers I have met from these schools are also superb. Elie has two, count them two, degrees from Harvard and yet he has poor reasoning skills (see his comment at 24 for example) and has trouble composing coherent sentences. What gives? How did he slip through the cracks? Please tell me he is the example and not the rule for people at these schools

174, basically if we create a special term that defines the discriminatory service, that's acceptable? "Gynecological services" means sexual organ services for women. The very definition of the term builds in a discrimination against men. The gyno hospitals could very easily offer medical services for male sexual organs.

Let's define "heterodating" as the provision of dating services of members of the opposite sex. Like what you said about gynos, eHarmony offers heterodating services (things that gays do not and cannot need). They are not discriminating because of the orientation of the client. They just so happen to offer a service that only straights can use.

And it's ok for a restaurant to discriminate in food service against groups like orthodox jews or observant muslims, as long as those people are a minority of all jews and muslims? Are you fucking serious?

"The point is gynos offer gynecological services (things that men do not and cannot need). They are not discriminating because of the sex of the patient. "

I'm flabbergasted how someone can't get this point.

Does this work:

The point is eHarmony offers heterosexual dating services (things homosexuals do not and cannot need). They are not discriminating because of the sexual orientation of the client.

@ 176: Elie only CLAIMS to have Harvard degrees, kinda like Obama CLAIMS to be a natural-born citizen eligible for the presidency.

Until I see degrees and birth certificates, neither is qualified for these positions.

Wow, what horrible web-coding. Lemme guess, no one here has ever heard of a lock file.

Comment Submission Error

Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

Publish failed: Renaming tempfile '/var/www/html/domains/abovethelaw.com/2008/11/index.php.new' failed: Renaming '/var/www/html/domains/abovethelaw.com/2008/11/index.php.new' to '/var/www/html/domains/abovethelaw.com/2008/11/index.php' failed: No such file or directory

176,

It's because he is gay.

You know what makes this even more frightening? It means that every time someone posts a comment on a thread, the blog has to update the index.php file for the whole day. No wonder making a comment here is such a freaking nightmare.

Publish failed: Renaming tempfile '/var/www/html/domains/abovethelaw.com/2008/11/index.php.new'

::: The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

No shit?

::: Please contact the server administrator, contact@apperceptive.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

The error occurred at fuck o'clock. I caused the error by using the website. I am sorry.

::: More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Well, goody.

This is no victory for anyone. I did eharm for months and only met boring boring boring people. Met lots of cool guys on match.com, but unless you want to meet a bunch of people who list "the bible" as their favorite book, dont give eharm your money, gay or straight.

This is no victory for anyone. I did eharm for months and only met boring boring boring people. Met lots of cool guys on match.com, but unless you want to meet a bunch of people who list "the bible" as their favorite book, dont give eharm your money, gay or straight.

This is no victory for anyone. I did eharm for months and only met boring boring boring people. Met lots of cool guys on match.com, but unless you want to meet a bunch of people who list "the bible" as their favorite book, dont give eharm your money, gay or straight.

Maybe this will clear it up some. eHarmony is not a typical internet dating service. They do not simply charge you for access to a database of interested singles, and then let you pick which ones you find attractive. eHarmony is not analogous to, say, the personals section in a newspaper.

eHarmony has developed a proprietary algorythm with they claim will help match heterosexual couples who are romantically compatible. They claim their algorythm is scientifically tested and reliable, and back that claim with a guarantee.

The algorythm has not been tested for same-sex couples, and it may not be possible to do so given the small available sample size of married same-sex couples.

When you sign into eHarmony, you are paying for that algorythm. You are paying for the use of a program they have that is designed to match men and women romanitcally. Anyone can pay to use the program, but practically only heterosexual people would want to do so.

What Elie and the plaintiff don't seem to appreciate is that what they are asking eHarmony to do is to create a brand new algorythm that works for homosexual couples. So, the analogy to asking a steak house to offer a new hindu-approved menu is apt.

Algorithm. No "y". Fuck it hurts to read that.

45/73/154, etc.

what you're missing here is that eharmony is not a place of "public accomodation" at least as it was defined by the lunch counter cases. if you recall from conlaw, the lunch counter case (Guest, i believe) ruled that "whites only" hotels and restaurants infringed on the right of black people to TRAVEL and the court deemed TRAVEL to be a fundamental right. this is why they carved an exception to the civil rights cases, which otherwise provide that only state actors can be found to violate constitutional guarantees.

i doubt very much that any court would find that a gay person's inability to access a dating website would leave them unable to travel.

maybe there is a hook under the constition of the people's republic of new jersey. i dunno. what's more likely is that eharmony didn't want the bad price.

score one for the gays.

45/73/154, etc.

what you're missing here is that eharmony is not a place of "public accomodation" at least as it was defined by the lunch counter cases. if you recall from conlaw, the lunch counter case (Guest, i believe) ruled that "whites only" hotels and restaurants infringed on the right of black people to TRAVEL and the court deemed TRAVEL to be a fundamental right. this is why they carved an exception to the civil rights cases, which otherwise provide that only state actors can be found to violate constitutional guarantees.

i doubt very much that any court would find that a gay person's inability to access a dating website would leave them unable to travel.

maybe there is a hook under the constition of the people's republic of new jersey. i dunno. what's more likely is that eharmony didn't want the bad price.

score one for the gays.

175, 177, 178,

You've made up your mind. I will not convince you, but I will respond, because I'm tired of conservative idiots like you dominating the legal discussions that abound on the internet.

THE POINT IS, UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW, YOU CANNOT DISCRIMINATE IN THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION. That means...you cannot refuse to provide services to people based on their sexual orientation when you provide THE SAME SERVICES to people of the opposite sexual orientation. You can't exclude gays from Appleby's or football games, and gays can't exclude you from gay bars or boutiques. You can't refuse to sell pickups to fags or flowers to frat boys based on their sexual orientation. ALL OF THAT IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE NJ ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW.

Your gyno example does not work. Gynos offer vaginal exams. They are not discriminating against men based on their sex. If men have vaginas, they can get services. I imagine that man from Oprah who just had a second baby can get all the vaginal exams he wants in NJ. Otherwise, men are shit out of luck.

Another example. ID docs who specialized in hepatitis (and only treat hep patients) are not discriminating against HIV patients based on their HIV status by refusing to treat them. Does that need explanation?

eHarmony offers services only to heterosexuals. (and don't try fags can get matched with women). Homosexuals could use those services, if they were offered. This is unlike the gyno example, because men cannot get vaginal exams, even if they were offered to them. AGAIN, because I assume you three are unlikely to be very acquainted with the vagina (aside from in pictures), I reiterate. MEN DO NOT HAVE VAGINAS. Similarly, women do not have penises, nor do they have testicles. Oncologists who focus on testicular cancer are not discriminating against women either.

Your definition of discrimination does not allow for ANY anti-discrimination legislation. How can you honestly say...we're not discriminating against gays, we just don't provide a service for gays? I'm sorry, President Obama, it's not that we're discriminating against you, we just don't cut black hair.

My God...please tell me you live in Texas.

191

Your argument works perfectly with your definitions. It doesn't work at all with someone else's definitions.

Why is your set of definitions right, besides the fact that it leads you to a conclusion that you enjoy?

191,

Sounds like men should be able to walk into a woman's bathroom because it is a public service that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. I like it!!

NYC, and you're an idiot. Really.

You think its ok for a service to offer specific services to women, but not general services to men, even though they could clearly do so. I don't need a vagina to get a fucking physical, but I know for certain that my wife's gynecologist would not take the time out of her schedule to give me one, notwithstanding that she is more than qualified to do it, she will refer me to someone else.

But its not ok for a service to offer specific services to straight relationships, but not general services to all relationships, when maybe or maybe not they could do so. If eHarmony doesn't think they can advise on homosexual relationships, maybe they just point to gays where they can get such services.

The reason why you are so unconvincing is that you're being the intolerant one.

190, there is an applicable State of NJ statute. This has nothing to do with the federal constitution.

191 - You are not intelligent.

191: I haven't weighed in on this yet, but I think the fact is that the other so called conservative posters have made a point to which you have no real answer. It is, of course, all in how you define the service. You keep defining it as, e.g., "gyno" services, and not, say, reproductive services. Of course under that definition there is no discrimination. If you define eharmony's service as dating, then they do discriminate (in contravention, apparently of NJ law). If however, you define eharmony's service as heterosexual dating, then they don't discriminate in the same way that the gyno example works.

What you say is probably true that maybe EVERY anti-discrimination law is susceptible to the definition attack. But why is your definition of the services offered right (or any more right than someone else's)? Other than your ipse dixit statement that eharmony offers dating services, there really isn't any support for it. I tend to agree that the focus on eharmony is stupid, and needless intervention by the government. If I went into business as a matchmaker, and I felt I had some expertise in finding heterosexual matches, but had never even, say, met a gay person, I'm not sure how helpful it is to have the government force me to wing it, but that's just what eharmony's purported to be doing.

Bottom line: when you get to define what's happening, you're pretty much always right.

192, 193, 194...let's air this. Please respond to my questions:

1. Do you support any anti-discrimination legislation? If so, which do you support?

2. Would it be the same thing if eHarmony refused to offer services to Asians, Blacks and Latinos, because they haven't tested their algorithm sufficiently on those groups?

3. Is it not discrimination if Gotham Grill decides to exclude Indian patrons, because they really only offer food services for non-Indians?

4. Based on the logical extension of your argument, should the State of NJ sue Victoria's Secret for discriminating against men, because they don't sell men's underwear?

5. 193, what the hell do you mean? I don't follow.

Done. It honestly amazes me that those who espouse the conservative viewpoint turn around and blame the "liberals" for being intolerant. This law is intended to prevent discrimination. THE PEOPLE OF NEW JERSEY ENACTED IT. If eHarmony wants to do business there, it needs to abide by this law just like it needs to abide by every other NJ law.

This has nothing to do with eHarmony not believing that it can advise on homo relationships. That is a post-hoc justification. It has everything to do with the owner of eHarmony not agreeing with homosexuality. (And if you don't believe me, do some Google research).

PS 194, I do think it's ok. I think it's prudent for society to foster medical specialties and not require that all docs be generalists. We benefit from that.

I also think your definition of "discrimination" is different than mine, does not comport with the manner in which that term is used in any anti-discrimination statute, and clearly contradicts the understanding most people have of that term in relation to similar statutes. So you can argue all you want, but you, my friend, are the one who is a little off here.

PS, love you. Let's get a drink tonight. Top of the Gansevoort? :)

I, for one, would love to hear Elie's opinions on the commerce clause jurisprudence. Let me guess: the "complaint" threatened against eHarmony.com would certainly win in the U.S. Supreme Court since Internet dating has a substantial impact on interstate commerce thus making it ripe for federal regulation.

191, just like how gynos offer a vaginal exam, eHarmony offers an opposite-sex matching algorithm. A vaginal exam is useless to men. An opposite-sex matching algorithm is useless to gays. Gays can of course try to use the service, but it would do as much good as a vaginal exam to men. Read how eHarmony had to develop a whole new algorithm -- they are not providing the same service and extending it to gays, but they are providing a new and different service. If you are going to make eHarmony create a same-sex matching algorithm, then we can make gynecologists treat male sexual organs (which they probably know how to do anyway).
Notice how opposite-sex matching service and same-sex matching service require developers to retool their algorithms, so they are not "THE SAME SERVICE."

I love how you have such a narrow definition of what gynecologists do, that they are only capable of treating female sexual organs, yet you turn around and say that eHarmony does "dating." Why don't we instead say that gynecologists do "doctoring" and eHarmony does "heterosexual dating." See, I can play the definition game too.

From Elie's ATL bio:

"I believe that my personal opinions and beliefs should be as far removed from the content that I post as possible. However, I'll let the readers be the judge of whether I am doing a good job at maintaining intellectual and professional impartiality."

Right...

196, just because you don't agree does not mean I am not intelligent. I won't justify you with more.

197, I agree with you that framing is the issue. That's why the others and I will never agree. That's why you didn't find a fundamental right in Bowers but you did in Lawrence. My point is, saying we only offer straight matching is the same as saying we only offer food for whites or we only braid black hair or we only dress Asian women.

It is wholly illogical to assume that you can avoid coverage of the statute by saying: we're not in violation. we just don't offer the same services to those people.

Now, we can play semantics all day long, but the reality is that the reading the conservatives here espouse is one that eviscerates the statute. No court would read it that way, and no lawyer (who should be interested in ensuring the will of the people who enacted the statute is enforced) should read it that way either.

NJ is a much more progressive state than many people think.

202 -- you have the IQ of a wet ball sack

202, is saying we only offer straight matching the same as saying we only offer food for people other than orthodox Jews (i.e., all non-kosher restaurants) or we only dress women (i.e., all women's lines)?

Why is religious and sex discrimination any lesser than sexual orientation discrimination?

Look, here's perhaps a slightly different take on the issue:

I tend to agree with the point that the services offered are same-sex matching and thus that eHarmony is not discriminating impermissibly. This is not quite enough, though.

As 198 hints at, we would not accept the argument if eHarmony said, "We offer services which pair you with a member of the same race." (Such that whites would be paired only with whites, black only with blacks, etc.) Or, you could conceivably imagine a company gear toward multi-racial couples only. The real issue is whether or not race and sexual orientation should receive the same levels of protection. In traditional constitutional analysis, we treat them differently (with gender somewhere in the middle). May New Jersey statutory law is different. I wouldn't do it that way, but I don't live in New Jersey.

205, go ahead and try to sue all the same-race dating sites then. You'll collect millions with your argument, starting with blacksingles.com.

>> 1. Do you support any anti-discrimination legislation?

In general, yes.

>> 2. Would it be the same thing if eHarmony refused to offer services to Asians, Blacks and Latinos, because they haven't tested their algorithm sufficiently on those groups?

Probably not. However, if they were offering dating services to, say, "people interested in Asian culture," and this is something that Black people don't want, that's too bad. They can still sign up and fill in the forms, but since they're not interested in Asian culture they're probably gonna lose.

See also: JDate.

>> 3. Is it not discrimination if Gotham Grill decides to exclude Indian patrons, because they really only offer food services for non-Indians?

Yes that is discrimination if they refused service. EHarmony should offer to match a gay man with a woman, but, obviously, the gay man will have no interest in that, just like someone who wants Indian food won't get what they want at your Gotham Grill.

>> 4. Based on the logical extension of your argument, should the State of NJ sue Victoria's Secret for discriminating against men, because they don't sell men's underwear?

That would be as stupid as suing EHarmony.

>> 5. 193, what the hell do you mean? I don't follow.

That's okay, you aren't very smart.

200,

"191, just like how gynos offer a vaginal exam, eHarmony offers an opposite-sex matching algorithm."

eHarmony violates the statute BY providing a service that is defined by sexual orientation. That itself is per se discriminatory.

I'm done. I'm tired. Why is there only one of us fighting the evil conservative empire?

198/202 - It doesn't eviscerate the statute. There is a middle ground. Under such a reading it is permissible for eHarmony to provide straight matching services, but it is not permissible for a restaurant to say, "We don't serve gay people."

198, once again, eHarmony is not refusing to offer services to anyone. It just wasn't offering services that gays want.

A restaurant can refuse to serve race X. This is bad.

A restaurant can refuse to serve food that race X wants. Members of race X can still go in and use the restaurant. This is widely accepted, since you may have noticed that many restaurants serve pork and beef.

Nobody would be objecting if eHarmony refused to let gay people register, and the site got sued.

Would a white person actively be prohibited from blacksingles.com?

If a white person signs up looking to date black people, they might not have any luck, but that doesn't seem to be the website's problem.

206 - Good point. I guess that strengthens the "conservative" argument, then. If we allow services to be race-focused, how much more should orientation-focused services be allowed.

- 205

@ 208 "because good is dumb"

208, so likewise, gynecologists violates the statute BY providing a service that is defined by the sex of the client. The gynecologists could easily do reproductive health services for men.

But waaah, you say, what the gynecologists are doing is vaginal exams (as if that is all they do). It's not their fault men don't have vaginas. So likewise, eHarmony offers matching based on its computer data, which is based on opposite sex couples. It's not their fault some people don't like the opposite sex.

When you're the only one making idiotic arguments and nobody is backing you up, perhaps you should reflect on the reason why.

208 - "I'm done. I'm tired. Why is there only one of us fighting the evil conservative empire?"

Because the people arguing with you are not evil nor part of the "empire" (and chances are they're not all "conservative" either). Rather, the people arguing with you are more observant, reasonable, and logical than you.

Fortunately for you, ATL does not promote itself as a site where "reasonable and logical legal professionals come to discuss legal matters." Well, maybe it is actually unfortunate for you. If ATL did prevent you from commenting since you don't fit the service-profile described above, you could spend the next two years of your life arguing that you have standing to sue.

Have a good night.

210 - I disagree with your last point. If a gay person applied, and identified himself as such, then I think it would permissible for eHarmony to reject them on the grounds that they are not a suitable match for their heterosexual clients. If people can be rejected for other non-compatibility issues, isn't the fact that you're not interested a big one?

198/202 - It doesn't eviscerate the statute. There is a middle ground. Under such a reading it is permissible for eHarmony to provide straight matching services, but it is not permissible for a restaurant to say, "We don't serve gay people."

So...it's ok for eHarmony to say: we don't serve gay people, but it's not ok for a restaurant to say that.

211, no what happens is that a white person signs up looking for white people on blacksingles.com, but it turns out the site doesn't offer that kind of dating partners. So the white person sues blacksingles.com to make the site put white couples on its advertisements.

217 - Exactly. Because the refusal by eHarmony has, to borrow the language of the relevant jurisprudence, a "rational basis" in light of the services they provide. The refusal to serve gays in a restaurant lacks such a rational basis.

Dude, for all those debating whether or not this is legal, have any of you actually looked at the NJ statute? You're blowing 1L conlaw crap out of your arses, or using policy arguments to say what the law is (not what it should be). It's ridiculous.

219, why do you think you know what the standard of review is under NJ law? We're not talking federal constitutional review here. There is an NJ statute and the NJ Constitution applies.

207 and others, my only point in ranting tonight is that under NJ law discrimination based on sexual orientation is treated the same as discrimination based on race (at least in terms of public accommodations). I doubt you would take the position that your are, if eHarmony refused to match blacks on the basis that its algorithm was only tested on matching whites. You would be aghast and ashamed. But you're not. Again, while you might not think the discrimination is the same (or it may not be read the same way in the US Constitution), I reiterate, it is the same under NJ law.

Now, if would you argue the same point if the refusal was to provide services to blacks, then my apologies. If you wouldn't, ask yourself why you would not.

220,

You might be the only fucker with sense on here. Thank you.

I am filing a class action against every OB/GYN in New Jersey to demand they start offering services to men.

I understand the New Jersey law requires this, but that doesn't make the requirement any less stupid. Tjhe fouder of eHarmony has said for years that he has nothing against homosexuals, but that he developed his system by studying successful heterosexual couples and is concerned that the same system would not be of benefit to homosexual couples.

New Jersey law seems to prefer that eHarmony offer a possibly badly flawed product rather than none at all. That said, perhaps the law requires them to develop an equally effective product, with the intendent cost and expense of all that (which would make the apporiate anaology requiring that all gynecologists also either co-specialize in androcology or have a partner available with that specialty).

The law is certainly fair and sensible as it relates to goods and services for which there is no substantial variation in the way that homosexuals and heterosexuals make use of it. You cannot refuse to serve a homosexual in a restaurant, for example, because both homosexuals and heterosexuals eat food in the exact same way. You cannot refuse to sell a woman power tools, because she can and would use them in the same way as a man would.

Some situations, however, require substantial retooling to make them applicable to "other" groups. In the same way that it would be foolish to require a movie producer to ignore race, sex and age in casting a movie ("the role of Harry Potter will be played by Ms. Nichelle Nichols..."), it is foolish to require that dating software designed for heterosexual couples be applied to other *unless* one believes either (i) that all relationships are the same and the software would apply equally well (a question of fact that I do not myself know the answer to) or (ii) that the founder of eHarmony was lying and did the research needed and developed the software required to match homosexuals (in which case the company is refusing to make the product available based on the bad motive of disapproving of homosexual relationships. Either is a factual question.

Now, the New Jersey law may not in fact work that way. New Jersey may require that gay relationships be served equally with whites notwithstanding a substantial, good-faith, non-invidious reason for the distinction...but as I suggested above, New Jersey law *could* require that gynecologists treat men. The law could be an ass.

Wow, what's happened to this country? GM is forced to make the kind of cars Congress wants, eHarmony is forced to provide the type of service that New Jersey wants. Free markets be damned.

People used to be able to create private businesses the way they believed would be most profitable for them, within recognized limits. But this isn't a diner with a NO GAYS ALLOWED sign, it's a relationship service that claims to have certain expertise--which didn't include gay relationships. There are gay websites that can cater to that service and probably better.

Is a child psychologist committing age discrimination by refusing to serve adults?

And you Mystal, your liberal bastardization of this website has gone too far. Your half witted brain cell reflexively thinks that "the state would surely win" based on nothing other than your own stupidity. And you suck.

221, a dating website is not a public accommodation.

If eHarmony were called blacksingles.com, and it refused to provide dating services to whites because its algorithm and resources are focused on blacks, I doubt you would be too aghast and ashamed. I don't see you suing jdate or any race-based dating site.

Though if you have, could you let me know the docket number so I can admit I'm wrong.

1. Back off Elie. Yes he makes some typos, but who doesn't?
2. Elie reported on a relevant matter. Race discrimination, while not eliminated, is against the law at least. Homos are the new Black. Gays are the civil rights group of our generation, an on-going effort that will take homosexual acts of love between consenting adults from a CRIME to a SACRAMENT, as it is between the straights. If Elie hadn't posted about a gay (and actually, a U.S. victory) victory you all would say he wasn't covering relevant topics. IF he posts about the gays, you bash him. SORRY, BUT FYI, MOST CONTENTIOUS CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES NOWADAYS ARE GAY ISSUES. Read a God*amn paper if you don't believe me.
3. Did anyone read the god*amn settlement agreement? I did and guess what, ELIE IS CORRECT. eHarmony would have lost. eHarmony would have lost so badly they even paid for the Division of Civil Rights costs of 50,000. You don't change your business model and fork over your opponents costs if you have a winning case.
4. The legal arguments on here are beyond pathetic. How dare anyone on here criticize Elie's logic and arguments and show up with this trash. Seriously, someone above said something like 'should a jockstrap company be forced to change their business model to accomodate women.' No. Read Title VII and you will understand. That company would have a Bona Fide Occupational Qualifacation (BFOQ) that allows that kind of discrimination. This is why Hooter's can refuse to hire men are waiters. And strip clubs can refuse to hire men (and gay clubs can refuse to hire women). Also, someone above said something like 'you shouldn't be able to exclude blacks from a restaurant, but you shouldn't have to make them offer collard greens and chicken'. Again, under Federal Law (Title VII) the restaurant would have a BFOQ. In fact, the restaurant could legally REFUSE to hire blacks if it hurt the "ethnic authenticity" of the restaurant. HOMOSEXUALITY is a completely different matter under the NJ constitution (it is NOT covered under Title VII currently). Thus, this IS a civil rights issue in New Jersey. Attend fu*king law school before you post about the law or critique Elie's (correct) conclusions about the law.
5. To make it clear: (1) Yes I am gay, and NO, I don't only care about gay issues. However, as I indicated above, they are some of the most cutting-edge civil rights issues of our generation. (2) Yes I am biracial (like Obama). (3) Yes I'm liberal. (4). No I'm not Elie.
6. I don't mean to be the grand defender of Elie or the gay-agenda, but come on, you guys seriously need some stronger critiques before you step to Elie.
7. Stop the Elie is fat shit. What would your mothers say? You're being mean little jerks. Yea he's not slim, but that's the kind of constant insult that's cute at first, but causes people to think less of themselves. Believe me, society gives him the "slim down" message enough, you don't need to reiterate it here. Let him live his life as he chooses. Besides, you critics probably aren't the best looking either.

As usual, both sides in this debate have oversimplified things in an effort to make a winning point.

Of course eHarmony can offer its services to homosexuals -- all it needs to do is have subscribers specify whether they want opposite sex, same sex or don't care. If eHarmony's claims about its algorithm are true, the same sex "matches" will be substandard and eventually gays/bis will largely go to another site. The free market in action. Nobody is saying you have to come up with a new algorithm.

The rub is that eHarmony has made a business decision to differentiate itself in the marketplace by offering a money-back guarantee. As long as it offers that guarantee to all subscribers, there's no problem. But presumably eHarmony will be unwilling to offer that guarantee to homosexuals because they'll lose too much money. Still, regardless of its motive, it would be illegal discrimination under NJ law to offer the guarantee only to heterosexuals -- and it should be.

So the only thing being prohibited are promotional offers that discriminate against homosexuals. Why is that a problem? If you serve all customers, but offer 15% discount to the first 10 white customers, it's illegal discrimination.

Find another way to promote your business, or come up with a better business model.

I'm going to go home and play call of duty 5 right now... that game is sweet.

226 - You wrote a long post, and I read it all. You say that the legal arguments that others made were very poor. Then, you said that Elie was correct. Why was Elie correct? What is the "correct" argument? You never explained that in your really long post. You did, however, say you were gay.

229, Elie said "Unless somebody wants to argue that eHarmony is a religious institution, I think the law is pretty clear on this one." Admittedly, this is not an elaborate argument, but Elie's quote comes as a commentary on a direct quote from the settlement. No he did not rehash the ins and outs of the facts, but his legal argument is correct. Short, but correct. IF eHarmony were a religious institution, then they could discriminate against gays. Under NJ law homosexuals are a quasi suspect class. This means that gays as a group are protected against discrimination, though not to the extent that racial minorities are protected. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. Just because the legal argument is short, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's wrong. Example: you can't discriminate against blacks, unless you want to claim that (the company/entity discriminating against blacks) is a religious institution. Same here. What more do you need for a legal argument. Under NJ law you cannot discriminate against a quasi suspect class without a damn strong reason. None exists here. Match.com proves eHarmony can do what it had refused to do as Match.com has algorithms for straights and gays.
-226

226 -

Since when did the BFOQ exception to Title VII anti-discrimination requirements apply to customers of a private business? A black person can't sue Burger King under Title VII if Burger King refuses to serve him because he is black. The BFOQ exception applies to employees and employment practices.

I must have skipped the law school class where they talked about adopting and commingling different parts of various statutes in order to make your argument sound like it has some legitimacy. You might want to consider the potential audience (a bunch of bored, over-worked lawyers) before you simply start making up new federal statutes.

Good try though.

231-
Nice try at rebuttal. I was pointing out how stupid the critiques of Elie were. They were the ones mixing law. I never said Title VII was the cause of action. Title VII BFOQ was mentioned to shoot their completely off-base arguments. As I originally said, under NJ law this is a civil rights issue because the NJ courts have read into the constitution's equal protection clause that gays are deserving of rights AND at the level of a quasi-suspect class.
-226

226, BFOQ does not apply to whether a jockstrap company should change their business model to accomodate women. BCOQ applies only to employees, and women who want to buy jockstraps are customers, not employees of the company. So your attempt to shoot down a "pathetic" legal argument turned out to be wrong, and quite pathetic.

BFOQ also does not apply to goods provided by a restaurant, so it would not affect whether a restaurant has to offer collard greens and chicken. There goes another attempt to shoot down a "beyond pathetic" legal argument.

Repeat after me: employees are not the same as customers or food products. Read Title VII and you'll understand.

SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL

226/232

You're correct in arguing that, if anything, this is a civil rights issue under New Jersey law. Unfortunately, your criticisms of the various comments are supported by nothing more than your assertion that "you're wrong." Elie's conclusions about the law are still wrong, especially when he assumes that the case was an automatic win for the plaintiffs. I'm not saying that the arguments in favor of eHarmony are all eloquently stated or well reasoned, but they do make more sense and are better supported than your arguments to the contrary (particularly when you consider and apply the policies underlying the BFOQ Title VII exception). Two cents... Enjoy...

-231

226,

I love you in a platonic, super-mo kinda way. Why were you working all day when I was yelling on this website?

I love Elie. I'm glad there's more than just "Skadden pays over-indulgent, over-worked and under-utilized 1st years a 30K bonus in NYC" on this site now.

THIS JUST IN:

E-harmony has announced that its new dating website for gays will be known as abovethelaw.com!

230 -

You say that the legal argument is "IF eHarmony were a religious institution, then they could discriminate against gays." This leads to the conclusion that because eHarmony is not such an institution, that they may not permissibly discriminate against gays. I don't think a single person here believes (realistically) that under NJ law eHarmony can so discriminate. Yet, this is not a convincing argument but a mere tautology.

The real question is, where is the discrimination? I submit that eHarmony does not discriminate against gays. Gays may register and use the site (how could eHarmony stop them?) the same as heterosexuals. However, eHarmony offers services that match men with women. Gays don't want this service. They may not like what eHarmony offers, but where is the discrimination?

By analogy: I am a man and like to see naked breasts in the flesh. Thus, I like Club A that has naked women dancing. There are clubs that only offer naked men dancing (Club B). However, I do not like clubs with naked men dancing. I'm sure Club B would let me in (as eHarmony would let gays register) if I wanted to patronize their establishment. Should I be able to sue Club B and force them to offer a product (naked women) that I want but they don't offer?

Answer: No, I should go to Club A across the street. eHarmony offers a product (male/female matching) that gays do not want. There are other matching services that do offer what gays want. They should go there.

- 226

Right on, 238, and before someone makes the inevitable race-analogy argument, the situation is the same as if a website that allows anyone to register, but lets you pick only black dating partners.
If you happen to not like blacks, you won't find the site useful. But the site is not discriminating by not offering white dating partners and should not be forced to offer all dating opportunities.

Otherwise, sites like russianbrides.com would be unconstitutional since they discriminate on the basis of national origin.

238 here: should be 229, not 226 on the sign off. Sorry.

227 - But then they have to suffer from the perception that they offer a bad service.

237 - Best comment.

238, you serious?

229 / 238 -

Good save. I was wondering how 226 / 232 suddenly started to make sense. On a side note, all the number references to various commenters is entertaining.

- 231 / 235

After a cruise around WestLaw, this is the only hook they've got, unless the state argues that eHarmony offers a "public accomodation."

N.J.S.A. 10:5-4

All persons shall have the opportunity to obtain employment, and to obtain all the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of any place of public accommodation, publicly assisted housing accommodation, and other real property without discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, familial status, disability, nationality, sex , gender identity or expression or source of lawful income used for rental or mortgage payments, subject only to conditions and limitations applicable alike to all persons. This opportunity is recognized as and declared to be a civil right.

That is, the only hook they've got is to argue that eHarmony offers a "public accomodation."

I have always thought of gays as a quasi-suspect class.

Does AIDS make you Gay? Or does being Gay give you AIDS?

[[Of course eHarmony can offer its services to homosexuals -- all it needs to do is have subscribers specify whether they want opposite sex, same sex or don't care.]]

This is the stupidest thing that has been said in the history of the universe, ever.

EHarmony doesn't treat men and women as interchangeable. Their algorithms depend on one partner being the woman and one partner being the man.

Maybe gays could specify whether they want to be the man or the woman in the relationship. That would do a whole lot to dispel misconceptions, right?

I support gay marriage, but stupid arguments are stupid arguments.

I have a question. I have lots of gay friends and none of them will answer this. But, during gay sex, right? How do you guys keep from getting shit all over the place?

248, does abstinence make you stupid or does stupidity cause abstinence?

250, you've never gone there with your girl? ever?

When it's dirty, you don't go there. When's it's not, you're fine. Kinda like the va-jay-jay.

Nice DB reference, 250. Do try to keep up, 252.

This is not an issue of definition; that would only make sense if the AG was forcing eharmony to alter its services. Eharmony will provide the same or equivilent service to gays. In fact, it will include a disclaimer that says that its algorithm may not be effective in matching same-sex couples.

By the way, men are allowed to see a gyno, and Orthodox Jews are allowed to eat at non-kosher restaurants. Eharmony had the option of allowing gays to use its site, but opted to start a new site. The NJ AG saw eharmony's restriction on searches by sexual orientation as effectively prohibiting entry to its store by gays.

189--wrong. The Heart of Atlanta Motel case referred to the right to travel (a right revived in Saenz v. Roe); what you are referring to as "the lunch counter case" is Katzenbach v. McClung, the "Ollie's Barbeque case," which contained an argument that a seemingly local business engaged in interstate commerce when it purchased meat from a supplier who got a percentage of its meat from out of state. Both cases dealt with the phrase "affect commerce" under the civil rights act of 1964. As others have pointed out, the case at hand dealt with state rather than federal law anyway.

(lest anyone accuse me of being a law student, I'm referring back to learning these cases in 1999).

95--the very phemonmeon you just dismissively laughed (the fact that there is subtle discrimination going on when a dating website only features happy heterosexual couples in its advertisements) it is the one which resulted in the outpouring of support for Obama--under-represented minority groups need to see reflections of their members in the government, in novels, and in mass culture. At one time it was a big deal to have black characters in tv/movies as main characters, as it later was with gay characters (see Will and Grace and Queer Eye). This year, it was a big deal for women and people of color to see members of their historically oppressed groups running for President. Gay people, in turn, need to see themselves reflected in all media.

16 and 18 are both assuming dickheads.

You both assume that somehow their models ONLY work for hetero couples because that was their initial target market.

Although I've never been associated with eHarmony, I have created/built a few eCommerce type sites that had personality as a large component of their focus. Suffice to say that even a rank beginner considered sexual orientation as a possible target market. I'm sure eHarmony did as well.

It would be technically trivial to extend this to same sex couples because eHarmony doesn't really apply much internal processing to their matches, but rather uses a given participants weighting of factors in order to best align them with a mate.

Therefore if you rank buttfucking, perhaps, as a top rated attribute and a same sex partner does, it's likely they'll make it into your match list.

I could explain further, but I'd need charts and an easel.

256 is a pie-fucker. You assume that men and women can be substituted at will? Brillant!

I don't think "small breasted women" are a protected class.

If I was the owner I would have ridden this ride further through the courts. And If it looked like I was about to loose, I would restrict the service to not include NJ residents. Then there is no NJ suit because I would not operate in that state. The owner is a duffis for bowing out early. NJ is retarded and instead of fixing their budget, they play gay rights games. No wonder they are one of the worst stats in the union.