Yeah this would be my question. Does it say anywhere on their website that non-Christians are not welcome, and will have their profiles deleted? A non-Christian who joins will have to put up with a lot of Christian glurge, but that’s not the same thing as being shown to the door. And as mentioned, JDate is known for attracting users who are not Jewish but just want to tap into that dating pool, so at least in that case just being Jewish dating site hasn’t excluded people.
I don’t see how it would be much different than a Christian book store advertising that they serve the Christian community and run a Christian business. Anyone can still come in and browse the shelves. (ETA: what tdn said!)
Or, if you don’t like that analogy, how about this one: A job-search website that connects job-seekers and employers. What’s wrong if it specializes in one particular type of job, like academic jobs or clerical work?
These are both very good points, certainly as far as religious affiliation goes, and I’m not sure I can come up with a satisfactory answer. I will have to give it some thought.
But IMO the same arguments can’t be made about discrimination against gays. If you do not have a choice to seek a same sex match, you cannot use their service.
But to argue against myself, I see that the New Jersey settlement involves eHarmony setting up a separate gay dating website, not adding the capability to the original site. How the CA case was ultimately resolved, I dunno, as I’ve never set up a profile there.
Again, I have to wonder how that is an acceptable solution to law authorities. Do two opposing discriminations cancel each other out?
The law recognizes particular classes of people and explicitly prohibits discrimination. Religion and race are two of those classes.
I don’t believe sexual orientation is protected under federal law, and I find it interesting that they seem to have more success in the courts. Perhaps they are simply more aggressive about filing lawsuits than say, American Hindus.
I don’t see a damn reason why any dating website should not be able to determine whom it will and will not cater to. I don’t care if there’s a White Girls As Hot as Kristen Bell Who Absolutely Refuse to Date Black, Indian, Hispanic, or Asian Guys service. In fact that service is performing a public good even for the non-white guys who might wish to date the comely blondes, because the latter will be drawn to it rather than eHarmony or whatever and not waste the non-white guys’ time & effort.
Now THAT’S interesting. A site that caters to racist hot blond chicks is providing a useful service to the men they would refuse to date. Ya know, it’s not like gathering them all into one room where they can be blowed up with the most effccient amount of explosives.
But are we talking about an organization that discriminates or refuses service to a parrticular type of people? Or one that caters to and is aimed at a particular type of person—like a gay bar or a Christian bookstore or a Jewish synagogue?
I don’t see the discrimination either. Not everything is for everybody; I think that site and others like it (and things in the real world) are preferential, not discriminatory. In other words, for example, you’re free to join our gay men website, but you might not get much out of it if you’re not interested in what gay men are interested in.
Yes, it is, because the vast, vast majority of black men who are interested in hot blonde chicks are interested ONLY in those hot blonde chicks who might be interested back.
Like I noted in the case of gay people – it is impossible to find a match of someone of the same sex. The software doesn’t allow it. I would argue that this constitutes refusal of service.
The religious issue is murkier, in my mind, at least as far as being able to prove discrimination is taking place.
E-Harmony, in contrast to any other site I’ve seen, came/comes off as particularly discriminatory simply because their process is very structured. You don’t get to search for mates, they assign them to you. So if you were a man, you would never be assigned a man, and could literally not try to use eHarmony to meet men.
And even that restriction was clearly incidental to eHarmony’s otherwise innocent differentiator. EHarmony’s schtick is that they pick people for you instead of letting you search, so never getting to message men as a man isn’t the primary purpose. On the other hand, with any other site I’ve seen, you can search for and communicate with anyone you want.
A site that is designed for Christians is not at all upsetting to me. On the other hand, if I made a profile on it, searched for a dude and tried to message him and it said “This site is for Christians, faggot, your message has NOT been sent”, that would be pretty offensive.
But I’ve never heard of a site like that… if you create a profile as a white guy on an interracial dating site, it doesn`t prohibit you from messaging or searching for white women.
IIRC, when eHarmony eventually set up their same-sex service, they did so under a different domain name, correct? So if you go to eharmony.com, you still won’t be able to look for a same-sex partner, but if you go to whatever the other address is, you can. Given that this organization has a large number of specialized dating sites, I’d suspect that they have the same sort of setup.
The Christian Mingle site will only allow a man to search for another man is if he lies and claims to be a “woman seeking a man”. Presumably this means that their profile doesn’t allow a choice of sexual orientation for the profile maker, as the default and only choice seems to be heterosexual.
I can’t tell from your post whether you would have a problem with this or not.
As an actual Christian who is fairly young, I’ve used a Christian dating site before. They very well do allow you to say you are not a Christian in your profile. But you will be filtered out, since it allows you to select by denomination in your preferences. Nobody includes the atheist option.
That automatically takes you to their other site. I just tried it out with some fake info. You get a popup asking if you want to switch sites, and if you choose no, you can’t register. Which, honestly, is the dumbest way to do it. Other websites just take you straight there and set up your new account there.
I have to agree with you on the same-sex option, BoyoJim.
I think some posters confuse discrimination in the legal sense of the word, and social discrimination, for lack of a better term.
Sure, I have a discriminating palate, but oysters are not legally protected by civil rights laws. Likewise, as a human being (not a business), I discriminate in who I chose to associate with (only folks I like), but that ain’t legal discrimination, either.
Discrimination in the legal sense of the word involves a business or government entity offering unequal treatment to people based on certain protected factors. I know race and religion are protected. What else is?
Ya know, it’s not like gathering them all into one room where they can be blowed up with the most effccient amount of explosives.
Likewise, as a human being (not a business), I discriminate in who I chose to associate with (only folks I like), but that ain’t legal discrimination, either.