Can’t add anything to this

Posted by: ST on November 20, 2008 at 11:45 am

In response to eHarmony’s decision to settle a lawsuit over its “exclusion” of matching up men to men and women to women, GayPatriotWest writes:

Not content with the numerous websites offering to match him with a male partner, a gay New Jersey man sued eHarmony, a dating service catering to Christians, because it would not match him with a male partner.

I guess maybe I should sue to make sure they provide services for Jews. And while I’m at it, maybe we’ll have a Christian sue Jdate, “The Leading Jewish Singles Network.”

This is nothing more than a nuisance lawsuit. He just felt hurt because a website offered dating services for heterosexuals, but not for him. His plea for equality has succeeded. With the help of the New Jersey Attorney General, he forced eHarmony to settle.* It will now offer a companion site for same-sex matches.

Dr. Melissa Clouthier adds:

The solution to these lawsuits is simple: Start going after every “Rainbow” (aka monochromatic) coalition and force diversity. Gay resort? Sue ‘em. Gay only hotel? Sue ‘em. Gay porn website? Sue ‘em. If they don’t have services, you know soft-focused Christian interludes, spas, hotels, etc., they’re not being diverse.

I’m not so sure that even then that the “equal ‘rights’ by any means necessary” crowd would get the point.

Thoughts?

Related: LaShawn Barber asks, “Are White Homosexuals Protesting in Black Neighborhoods?

Flashback:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

3 Responses to “Can’t add anything to this”

Comments

  1. It would have no effect because the suits would be tossed without a hearing. It’s like the Fairness Doctrine, which some people on the right seem to think would help balance out the bias in Old Media, when in fact “bias” would simply be defined as “conservatism”.

  2. Trish says:

    The suits wouldn’t be tossed. “Domestic partnership” contracts were created to provide homosexual hookups with some marital rights, but they are also required to provide those same rights to heterosexuals, lest they be considered discriminatory, and thus creating the ultimate anti-family situation.