Another ongoing thread is raising some questions about discrimination based on religion, which reminded me of this online dating service. Advertised on TV here, it’s called “Christian Mingle Dot Com”, which purports to cater exclusively to christians. Its slogan is, “Find God’s Match for You”.
Besides apparently discriminating against non-christians, it also apparently discriminates against gays, in that it offers no options for men seeking men or women seeking women. Which reminded me also of e-Harmony dot com, which was forced by the state of California to add capability for gay dating. Their headquarters are in CA and it turned out they were in violation of state anti-discrimination law.
Christian Mingle Dot Com is operated by something called Sparks Network. I see from this page they also run dating sites for Catholics, Jews, blacks, interracial couples, seniors, and fat women, among others. They’re like a V-8 engine of discrimination.
Anyway, I’m curious as to how they manage this. It appears from this page that they are based in California and Utah. Anyway, I’m curious about how they managed this. I thought at first they were an offshore company that didn’t need to be concerned against state anti-discrimination laws, but I no
Can discrimination be viewed a mathematical sum? If little bits of your business discriminate against separate groups, can your business as a while be said to be non-discriminatory? I wouldn’t think so. That would be like claiming because I have one housing development that is white-only, and another that is black-only, then I am a net non-discriminator.
Somehow this doesn’t upset me. If they want to cater solely to straight Christians then let them. There are other dating sites out there. If another company wants to cater solely to pagan homosexual midgets from eastern Nebraska, let them. It’s the companies that cater to the widest base that are going to make the most money anyway, and there are a ton of them.
Are they really excluding non-Christains? I’m sure that a non-Christain could join and make a profile. They would have absolutely no luck there but they could do it.
I’m not sure. I’d guess you’d have to start creating a profile to find out, and I’m not willing to do that. OTOH, if a store puts out a sign that says “Whites Only”, but in fact will serve whoever comes in the door, is that ok?
Actually, that’s a damn good question. Whether signage in and of itself can be discriminatory and can be considered as an entirely separate questions from service.
But IMO the site definitely discriminates against gays, in that they are not offered the same dating tools to find a match that straight people are.
How does one screen for faith anyway? A non-Christian can easily lie and pick the “Christian” button, or not select anything at all.
What might be more telling is if there is no same-sex option. If it’s a California-based company, and eHarmony was forced to put in same-sex options, then it’s only a matter of time before this company will be too.
I am now imagining a dating site specifically for closeted evangelical Christians. If you could figure out how to market it, you could have a real money-spinner.
This I could confirm immediately without even going past the home page. There is a browse option, and you can select “I am a man seeking a woman” or “I am a woman seeking a man”. No other choices.
As I recall, eHarmony was not forced by the state of California to add capability for gay dating. It was done voluntarily by eHarmony to settle the suit. Perhaps this website/company is more willing to take its chances at trial.
JDate is run by the same company, Sparks Network, and is one of those I referred to in the OP. Answer: it’s no different at all.
You are probably right right about the voluntary settlement. Now that I think of it, there was a brief flurry of press about California threatening, and e-Harmony caving. I don’t think there was time to have been a trial, let alone any appeals.
But I think “forcing” in this context is a legitimate use of the term, in that e-Harmony acted under threat/duress.
OK, then why are you upset with ChristianMingle.com and think they are doing something wrong when JDate is much more famous and has been around since 1997?
Why do you think dating sites shouldn’t cater to people with similar interests/lifestyles?
Only for the sake of clarity am I going to nitpick. Without passing on the question whether eHarmony was subject to force, threats, duress, or coercion or instead merely hard bargaining in litigation, the entity applying this pressure was not the state of California and no state action was present. Although it’s true that we say that litigants negotiate in the shadow of the law, shadows still aren’t thought to have a seat at the bargaining table.
I never heard of either before. My level of upset is completely equal.
Dating sites, IMO, should allow individuals to discriminate based on the their personal preferences, which is why people set up their own profiles, and are matched against others. Dating sites, IMO, should not pre-discriminate for you.
A RW analogy would be dining at a restaurant. If I were a racist, I would be free to refuse to dine with any minority I dislike. But a whites-only restaurant would not be allowed.
BTW, this is not something that angers me. It is more of an amused curiosity than the rage of a thousand burning suns.
But the same story refers to a settlement with the New Jersey attorney general’s office regarding a different claim of discrimination. I was unaware of this, and there may be others that I’m also not aware of. But if a prosecutor’s office is getting involved, I would say there is still justification for the term “force”.
Even if I didn’t know it at the time I applied it.
A different spin on that analogy would be going to an Italian restaurant and complaining that they don’t have egg rolls. Even better, going to a kosher restaurant and complaining that you can’t get lobster bisque. They’ll serve anyone, they might just not have what you want on the menu.
Whether signage in and of itself can be discriminatory and can be considered as an entirely separate questions from service.