Here is another case regarding a suit filed against eHarmony. Really, I don't understand this feeling of entitlement. A business caters to a certain niche market, and now is forced to change? Can I sue the all womens gym in LA for not letting me in?
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
And So Begins the Witch Hunts
Considering how the left and Hollywood still remember the days when members of their own community were picked out and literally had their lives destroyed, I find it too ironic (and scary) what is being done now. Contributions over $1,000 have been published publicly on the internet for all to see. Now, they are being used. Of course, this isn't the first, and it's not the last.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You tell 'em Ezzie! Let's go back to the good old days of pious American values, when Jews and Blacks were banned from country clubs, swim clubs and upscale restaurant/lounges -- when real estate brokers weren't required to submit to equal opportunity laws and they could refuse business to anyone based on their race or religion. That's the America you and I long for, right Ezzie?
ReplyDeletePutz.
Mobius - posted by Holy Hyrax
ReplyDeleteRead, putz.
Also, are you seriously comparing them? Talk about being a putz.
Then Mobius, I guess you would agree with me that I should go after the All women's gym?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the guy that sued the bars against them having Happy Hours that girls were getting free drinks and he complained that that was discrimination
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should sue Victorias Secret for not selling mens underwear. They are basically descriminating against half the population
ReplyDeleteRead what -- read about gay activists fighting against the use of state institutions to enforce the religious prerogatives of others onto them?
ReplyDeleteThat you would compare the shaming of religious bigots to McCarthyism illustrates the colossal putziness of your position. Go read a book on HUAC before you open up such an ignorant mouth. There is a monumental difference between governmental agencies persecuting individuals for their personal and private political beliefs and a disenfranchised minority fighting against powerful agents who would use the mechanisms of the state to infringe upon their rights.
Am I seriously comparing eHarmony's disenfranchisement of gay patrons to segregated lunch counters? Why yes, yes I am. Am I seriously comparing country clubs which ban Jews to dating sites (virtual social clubs) from banning gays? Yes, yes I am. If you don't see how they compare, you need to go read a history book.
HH:
ReplyDeleteDo you think men and women should have separate restrooms?
Do you think gay people should have separate restrooms?
Read what
ReplyDeleteYou're STILL not reading. Ezzie didn't write the post. Holy Hyrax did.
Also, when you're trying to make an argument, it's generally not a good idea to call people names. It's not classy and pretty unintelligent sounding.
Read what -- read about gay activists fighting against the use of state institutions to enforce the religious prerogatives of others onto them?
ReplyDeleteLOL. Wow, you couldn't even read the line that said "Read". Ya know, where it wasn't written by me? Yeah, that one.
read about gay activists fighting against the use of state institutions to enforce the religious prerogatives of others onto them?
That's insane. Protecting the definition of marriage is somehow "forcing" "religious prerogatives" onto gays?
There is a monumental difference between governmental agencies persecuting individuals for their personal and private political beliefs and a disenfranchised minority fighting against powerful agents who would use the mechanisms of the state to infringe upon their rights
Very different argument. You're saying that witch hunts isn't a fair comparison? Perhaps. You're presuming that by witch hunt someone must mean something like McCarthyism, while most people tend to use the term for anytime people go after individuals for expressing their viewpoints.
Am I seriously comparing eHarmony's disenfranchisement of gay patrons to segregated lunch counters? Why yes, yes I am. Am I seriously comparing country clubs which ban Jews to dating sites (virtual social clubs) from banning gays? Yes, yes I am.
"Disenfranchisement"? Are you serious? By setting up a service to cater to most people, and not to all, they are guilty of not just something (which is laughable), but of the same thing that people who kept blacks separate from whites were? You're insane. (I know, you take pride in it.)
They weren't "banning" gays. They weren't offering a service to them. It's like HH's examples above. Don't be stupid.
Erachet - He's an anarchist, he doesn't care.
ReplyDeleteMobius - What's the point of your Q?
>That you would compare the shaming of religious bigots to McCarthyism illustrates the colossal putziness of your position. Go read a book on HUAC before you open up such an ignorant mouth. There is a monumental difference between governmental agencies persecuting individuals for their personal and private political beliefs and a disenfranchised minority fighting against powerful agents who would use the mechanisms of the state to infringe upon their rights.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is who is doing it. Do they they have a right to go out and protest? Sure, I never said otherwise. But to go inside peoples lives and threaten their employers for all practical reasons is no different. An employer should not feel threatened for employing someone with different views and basically using his rights of voting. If you are worried about precedence, than you should fear this as well. That anytime a proposition comes by with one group not liking the results, they go out on witch hunts? Is that what you want?
>Am I seriously comparing eHarmony's disenfranchisement of gay patrons to segregated lunch counters? Why yes, yes I am. Am I seriously comparing country clubs which ban Jews to dating sites (virtual social clubs) from banning gays? Yes, yes I am. If you don't see how they compare, you need to go read a history book.
This is where you are an idiot. I'm glad you actually said this. Nobody is being disenfranchised. I know people like you enjoy using words like "bigot, hate, disenfrancihised etc" but you rarely describe how. A gay individual IS NOT being kicked out of anywhere. A gay individual is NOT being excluded. He is given the EXACT same level of service anyone else gets. The gay individual simply does not like THE PRODUCT OFFERED. This is NO DIFFERENT if I come in complained to Victorias Secret that they do not sell mens underwear. How you can't see a difference is simply mind boggling.
>Do you think gay people should have separate restrooms?
ReplyDeleteNo you moron. Last time I checked, a gay person is either a man or a woman.
>from banning gays?
ReplyDeleteThis is where nuance simply does not enter your brain. Nobody is being banned. It's just that eHarmony provides a specific service. If a gay person WANTS that SPECIFIC service, nobody is stopping him.
EZZIE:
ReplyDelete#1. I apologize for misattributing authorship of the original post. HH is the chief putz in question.
#2. "Protecting the definition of marriage is somehow 'forcing' 'religious prerogatives' onto gays?"
The definition of marriage is a legally binding union between to individuals that enables joint ownership of property, certain tax reductions and exemptions, the ability to share health insurance coverage, etc.
To "protect the definition" of such so that those rights can only apply to male-female couples is in fact disenfranchisement and discrimination which emanates from a religious prerogative that has no legal basis.
#3. "You're presuming that by witch hunt someone must mean something like McCarthyism..."
HH is the one who brought up Hollywood in the 1940s.
#4. They weren't "banning" gays. They weren't offering a service to them.
"I'm not banning Blacks. I'm just not offering lunch to them. They can come in all they like, I just won't wait on them."
~~~
HH:
#1. "But to go inside peoples lives and threaten their employers for all practical reasons is no different. An employer should not feel threatened for employing someone with different views and basically using his rights of voting."
So then I assume you're against the activities of Daniel Pipes and others who are attempting to ouster anti-Zionist professors from the Middle East studies departments at various universities by pushing for the federal government and/or Jewish donors to cut aid to those universities which employ such academics.
And I assume that you're also against bringing pressure to bare on other institutions like the Oxford Union for inviting the Holocaust denier David Irving to speak.
If you're not against this form of activism generally, then I guess you're a hypocrite because you're only against it when it comes to gays standing up against the bigots who persecute them.
#2. "That anytime a proposition comes by with one group not liking the results, they go out on witch hunts? Is that what you want?"
The decision to give people equal rights should not be decided by referendum. It should be no decision at all. They should just have equal rights as they are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
#3. "A gay individual IS NOT being kicked out of anywhere. A gay individual is NOT being excluded. He is given the EXACT same level of service anyone else gets. The gay individual simply does not like THE PRODUCT OFFERED. This is NO DIFFERENT if I come in complained to Victorias Secret that they do not sell mens underwear. How you can't see a difference is simply mind boggling."
Having products for men vs. products for women is not the same as having products for straight men and women vs. products for gay men and women. As you say, "Last time I checked, a gay person is either a man or a woman." Thus a gay man wears the same underwear as a straight man. A gay woman wears the same underwear as a straight woman. Ie., the options available to gays and straights are sufficient to both of them. However, in dating or choosing a partner, the options made available to straights are insufficient to the needs of gays.
Does eHarmony have a legal obligation to provide equal service to gays? No. It's their prerogative not to provide that service. Fine. But is it discriminatory that they don't? Yes. They are, ultimately, discriminating against gays by refusing to provide them equal service sufficient to their needs.
If a private university offered only pork chops in the cafeteria at lunch time and the school's Jewish students wanted a kosher option, would you say the school has no obligation to provide a kosher meal, or would you say they're discriminating against Jewish students?
You'd probably say the latter. And you'd be a hypocrite again.
#1 - Woo!
ReplyDelete#2 - Why aren't civil unions enough? Also, see my previous post on the subject.
#3 - Fair point.
#4 - Not comparable. More comparable would be walking into a store that sells coffee and demanding tea.
#1H - "bigots who persecute them"?! Really?
#2H - What rights? They have equal rights.
#3H - That's ridiculous? How is providing a service to some a form of discrimination to others?! If I open a clothing line that caters to Big & Tall, am I discriminating against everyone else? Or am I finding a niche market?
And the pork question depends on what the school says they offer students. Brooklyn College and Queens College found it worthwhile to open a Kosher section. Most schools that have Jews do not, and as far as I know, people have not complained about it.
I'm going to sue victoria's secret. They simply don't carry the underwear I like. That's completely racist. I want all options. Come to think of it the skirts in AnnTaylor just aren't long enough for me. I want to cover my knees but AnnTaylor isn't an option when I shop. I want all the options like everyone else!
ReplyDeleteIn that case, I guess these Jewish prisoners shouldn't be entitled to kosher meals.
ReplyDeletehttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7231/is_/ai_n30061159
If you'd lived 50 years ago, you'd be posting about how unfair it was that people who publicly supported segregation weren't being treated fairly. Boo-hoo.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying the eHarmony suit or Hollywood's hypothetical punitive action are right, but talk about siding with the wrong victims. 52% of Californians just voted to forbid less than 5% of Californians from marrying. If your sympathy is with those poor Yes on 8 supporters, you've got a seriously defective moral compass.
PB - LOL
ReplyDeleteMobius - ?! Prisons vs. schools? Are you kidding?
JA - Huh? You don't think it's right to do what those people are doing, yet you think that sympathy toward those they're doing it to is misplaced? This is where liberals so often lose respect - when they lose their sense.
Seriously - the comparisons between segregation and gay marriage are gross. It's about time y'all realized that. Note that blacks voted for Prop 8 by an overwhelming margin.
Just my two cents on the way this conversation is going (not really sure why I'm giving it, but there ya go):
ReplyDeleteTruthfully, comparison between one thing and another is dangerous. Each issue is its own with its own nuances.
Talking about the way peanut butter and jelly should or should not be mixed in a sandwich is not the same as talking about whether or not you should bake your cookies with chocolate chips. Just because they're both about the combination of food doesn't mean you can conclude about one based on the way you conclude about the other.
Instead of comparing to other things, deal with the actual issue at hand. Seriously.
erachet, erachet-erachet-erachet...when will you learn...
ReplyDeleteEVERYBODY knows that you put the peanut butter on one piece of bread and the jelly on the other piece of bread and then put them together...and GOOD LORD where have you been living that there is even the option of baking cookies without chocolate chips - HONESTLY!
I mean if all you're going to try to do is add sensible positions to this comment thread...
I mean if all you're going to try to do is add sensible positions to this comment thread...
ReplyDeleteMy bad. :P
I realize now why for fanatic liberals, its so easy to compare Israel with the Arabs. To them there is no distinctions between anything.
ReplyDelete>"I'm not banning Blacks. I'm just not offering lunch to them. They can come in all they like, I just won't wait on them."
Idiot. It doesn't matter to whom the lunch goes to. Lunch is lunch, no matter who buys it. You are not forcing the man to change his business. eHarmony is a MARRIAGE BUSINESS, catering to a specific marriage.
>So then I assume you're against the activities of Daniel Pipes and others who are attempting to ouster anti-Zionist professors from the Middle East studies departments at various universities by pushing for the federal government and/or Jewish donors to cut aid to those universities which employ such academics.
I am against ALL efforts to censor freedom of speech, even if its something I don't like. That is, unless they are sponsoring active murders.
>Having products for men vs. products for women is not the same as having products for straight men and women vs. products for gay men and women.
No, its the exact same thing. You are just not too pleased that you are against a corner here and therefore decided to draw the line where you want when it comes to discrimination.
Victorias Secret targets niche market
eHarmony targets niche market.
>They are, ultimately, discriminating against gays by refusing to provide them equal service sufficient to their needs.
As is Victorias Secret for not selling mens boxer shorts.
>If a private university offered only pork chops in the cafeteria at lunch time and the school's Jewish students wanted a kosher option, would you say the school has no obligation to provide a kosher meal, or would you say they're discriminating against Jewish students?
universities have public funds they shouldn't discriminate against anyone. Does the school have to offer mehadrin or badatz kosher food? What if a chabad student insists only on rubashkin hechsher, does the school have to provide that as well?
Would you say a private school has to offer a specific employee a vegan menu catered exactly to that of vegan rules?
>If your sympathy is with those poor Yes on 8 supporters, you've got a seriously defective moral compass.
ReplyDeleteMy sympathy would lie with ANYONE that had to face such tactics. Protests are one thing and they have all the right, but they are only harming their own image in the public eye.
>However, in dating or choosing a partner, the options made available to straights are insufficient to the needs of gays.
ReplyDeleteInsufficient to their needs????
Do you think online dating is some fundamental right in their lives?
>EVERYBODY knows that you put the peanut butter on one piece of bread and the jelly on the other piece of bread and then put them together
ReplyDeleteHoly crap!! I've never done that before. Its so simple that its brilliant
HH - Special for you. :)
ReplyDeleteIve always been lazy to either wipe the knife or get a new one.
ReplyDeleteNow the peanut butter is mixed with the Jelly. It's a horrible site
I hate it when people mix it like that, HH. Grr.
ReplyDeleteIf you guys weren't religious, you'd be on the same page as me regarding gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteJA
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean? Those that are not religious can't find value in waiting for marriage?
HH:
ReplyDeleteHuh? This post is about gay marriage.
Sorry JA
ReplyDeletefor some reason, I skipped over the word "gay" and thought you were referring to your post. (go figure how I made that mistake)
Anyways, I can catagorically say that you are wrong. I hold of other reasons other than being "religious." I have a friend that it is an atheist who feels like me.
HH:
ReplyDeleteI was exaggerating. SOME non-religious people are opposed to gay marriage, but the correlation between opposing gay marriage and religiosity is unmistakable. Frequency of church attendance was more correlated with voting yes on 8 than any other factor.
Fine
ReplyDeleteNo need to argue that.
It's two competing sets of values. But for the same reason that some non religious are opposed to SSM is actually the reason why religious people are opposed to SSM. Just listen to Prager from time to time.