As I was driving into work this morning, something on the radio got me thinking about how the left likes to use the judicial system to reverse the will of the people. It’s a pretty solid tactic if you can get aways with it since instead of having a normal discussion and a vote on an issue, one only need to convince – or coerce – between one and nine justices to your side of the issue.
One of the most popular arguments requiring institutions who receive government funding; you’re fair game when it comes to “equal rights.” An example would be the Catholic hospitals in the state of Connecticut struggling with the legislature about An Act Concerning Compassionate Care for Victims of Sexual Assault passed in 2007.
Man, how can you argue with a law with a name like that. Anyway…
What about government demands of companies who do not get government funding? Let’s say I walked into your grocery store – catering to vegetarians – and asked for a rack of lamb? You’d probably just tell me that you did not stock meat in your store.
But how would you feel if I took you to court demanding your store starts selling meat? Yes I know, you’re a private business and you should be able to sell anything you wish to your customers. You may even have a strong moral or religious conviction that required you not kill animals for food, let alone sell the meat in your store.
I don’t care. I want my rack of lamb and I’m taking you to court.
In a similar situation, Michelle Malkin leads us to this story. In short, EHarmony – the popular online dating service – was taken to court in New Jersey by Eric McKinley because, get this, EHarmony refused to provide service to him since he was a gay male looking for the love of his life.
Warren [psychologist Neil Clark Warren, the founder of EHarmony] had said in past interviews that he didn’t want to feature same-sex services on EHarmony — which matches people based on long questionnaires concerning personality traits, relationship history and interests — because he felt he didn’t know enough about gay relationships.
McKinley, who works at a nonprofit in New Jersey he declined to identify, said that he had originally heard of EHarmony through its radio ads. “You hear these wonderful people saying, ‘I met my soul mate on EHarmony.’ I thought, I could do that too,” he said.
But he couldn’t. When he tried to enter the site, the pull-down menus had categories only for a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man. “I felt the whole range of emotions,” McKinley said. “Anger, that I was a second-class citizen.”
But instead of just surfing over to a dating site that admits gay lonely hearts, he contacted the New Jersey civil rights division to file a complaint.
Unbelievable as it may seem, EHarmony settled the case and agreed to start a new site for same sex couples.
The next lawsuit will be after a review of the EHarmony success rates. After the new site is launched I can guaranty someone will complain that the same-sex partner site does not provide the “same level of service” since – as an example – only 40 percent of the customers find someone special as compared to the heterosexual site with a 55 percent success rate. Think it won’t happen?
More from Malkin. Note that she references the anti-Proposition 8 mobs harassing people in California.
So, this is “progress?” eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled. I wish they hadn’t, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users.
Here are some comments from the tolerant left tied to the LA Times story.
Brendan Patrick: It’s about time!!! Enough discrimination, already. Americans wouldn’t allow matchmaking websites to discriminate on the basis of race or religion; how is sexual orientation any different? Finally, the end is near for the hate-based discrimination against the gay and lesbian community. The religious zealots who are trying to stop civil rights will be silenced soon enough by a wonderful document called the united States Constitution:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Mark VanGelder: They shouldn’t be on television claiming to find “soul mates” unless they are equipped to provide equal rights. It would be just as wrong and discriminatory if they were only offering white people matches. The homophobes in this country are either going to have to get over it on their own or seek professional help. Gay people WILL have equal rights and those of us that support them will be right along side them protesting until they do! Enough is enough already. This country has been sick with hate and discrimination for far too long to claim to be so free and democratic.
oshea: No matter how you feel on this is has signifigant (sic) meaning. The message is clear DISCRIMINATION WILL NOT BE TOLERATED AND GAY PEOPLE WILL NO LONGER WAIT FOR YOU TO LEARN TOLERANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get with the times people.
This is not tolerance. Tolerance would be to be fine with EHarmony’s business practice and moving on. This is pure bully tactics.
Update: Malkin’s column this week provides more details about the shakedown of eHarmony by the New Jersey attorney general.