So I just learned that eHarmony (an online dating company) was sued for not offer same-sex dating services on their website, and that they settled today for a ton a cash and the agreement to launch a same-sex version of their website.
I'm all for not discriminating, but I think it odd that businesses are being told what goods they have to sell. It seems a little bit to me like suing McDonald's because they don't sell hotdogs. Or perhaps a little more like suing cattle ranchers for not selling vegetarian options.
Some people may say that it different because in this case they are refusing to serve a certain segment of the population just because they are gay.
But that just isn't true. A date with a man and a date with a woman are very different things. If a company finds a niche market that they manage to make profitable, I think it strange that the government would show up and tell them that because they are offering a certain good, they also have to offer other good that they maybe deem unprofitable.
If anyone can think of a reason why this whole set-up isn't really weird, let me know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
No one can tell you. It's just madness. Maybe somebody should sue me for marrying a girl after not having dated one guy!
Before de-segregation, it was often more profitable to offer food services to white people than to brown ones. . . I disagree with your assertion that it's a fundamentally different product.
Yes, well, to respond to the second person's comment, those food services didn't offer hotdogs to everyone and just happened to not offer hamburgers. In race segregation cases, they were only offering hotdogs to a select group of people. They were discriminating by preventing people who might want their product from using their product.
In e-harmony's case, they do offer the product to everyone. A homosexual male can "flirt" with a female, if he so chooses. He just happens to not want that product. ...However, in food service terms, now he's off demanding hamburgers because the hotdog company "discriminates" against people who happen to prefer hamburgers.
Xister, I agree. Perplexing indeed.
Hooray for discussion! Thanks for your thoughts, Day.
I can't see how you think it is the same. If I paid to be set up on a date and was set up with a guy, I would ask for a refund quicker than I would if I made some other online purchase and they sent the wrong thing.
There are lots of Christian book stores that don't carry Korans. Is that discriminating?
Both to serve my explanation, and as an anti-capitalist who attempts to resist commodification of relationships, I prefer that we be clear. The product being sold is not partners, but the service of helping people find potential partners in whom they are likely to be interested.
While the nature of a homosexual relationship Might be fundamentally different in some way from the nature of heterosexual ones, the nature of a service that introduces people to one another is fundamentally the same. All they have to do to minimally satisfy this requirement is add a question to find out what gender/s their applicants are interested in and sort accordingly.
How does that constitute a fundamental change in the product?
I think Xister hit the nail on the head with the niche market thing. eHarmony found a product to sell that was profitable for them, and I don't see why they should have been sued when gays could easily have taken their business to other websites that offer same-sex dating services. It also troubles me that the government, rather than market forces, are dictating the change.
Here's a question - are the gay sites being forced to add a straight section?
how was it a niche market rather than a mainstream one?
Hmmmm... hamburgers, gay folks, Korans, what a weird blog...
Post a Comment