# Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 8, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529 "2015-07-08T00:03:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/461 "2015-07-16T18:42:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, let’s say I am an artist who has painted only white people all my life, and have never painted a black person. My skill set is just not developed in terms of getting darker skin tones accurately, so I kindly ask a potential black client to find another artist. He refuses to do so, insisting that I paint his portrait. Am I required to spend time making sure I am able to get darker skin tones right? Can I ask him to sign a disclaimer that he won’t reject the painting afterwards if the skin tone looks wrong? When the dating site eHarmony was sued for not offering dating services for same sex couples, I believe they made the argument that their success was largely due to their proprietary match-making algorithms that were designed to match opposite sex couples and they did not feel those algorithms would successfully transfer to same-sex couples. For what it’s worth, they lost. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/462 "2015-07-16T18:48:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The point is not whether someone might ask for it. The point is whether the request is equivalent from the baker’s point of view. People who celebrate the death of Matthew Shepard do not form a classification that is recognized under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nor do Nazis. > [@DrFidelius](#): > > I wish him luck in his windmill tilting. > > Are you okay with the bakeries refusing to make this cake? It sounds as if he was put through an extra, unneeded level of effort due to the ignorance and prejudice of the bakers who refused his request. > > Wouldn’t his wedding day preparations be that much less stressful if he had the cake made locally? > > And this is not equivalent to a wedding-cake baker refusing because they do not recognize the legitimacy of the union. Its not very clear which side of the argument you guys are taking with these posts. Nazis and homosexuals are both not included in the civil rights act AFAIK In what way is not recognizing the legitimacy of a union on religious grounds any less legitimate than distaste of anything that kinda sorta looks like a swastika? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/463 "2015-07-16T18:48:56Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > When the dating site eHarmony was sued for not offering dating services for same sex couples, I believe they made the argument that their success was largely due to their proprietary match-making algorithms that were designed to match opposite sex couples and they did not feel those algorithms would successfully transfer to same-sex couples. For what it’s worth, they lost. Cite (that they lost)? I only see references to them settling cases out of court. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/464 "2015-07-16T18:55:21Z")
nvm. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/465 "2015-07-16T19:06:56Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > When the dating site eHarmony was sued for not offering dating services for same sex couples, I believe they made the argument that their success was largely due to their proprietary match-making algorithms that were designed to match opposite sex couples and they did not feel those algorithms would successfully transfer to same-sex couples. For what it’s worth, they lost. Wow, that’s nuts. so, they develop a way to make really good matches for heterosexual couples, but because they don’t have the same expertise regarding gay couples, they get sued. Unfuckingbelievable. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/466 "2015-07-16T19:12:29Z")
That’s weird, because it seems like you really wholeheartedly believe it, having just heard about it for the first time right now. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/467 "2015-07-16T20:25:55Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wow, that’s nuts. so, they develop a way to make really good matches for heterosexual couples, but because they don’t have the same expertise regarding gay couples, they get sued. Unfuckingbelievable. As we all know, anyone can sue anyone for anything (minor hyperbole). Whether there is any merit to the suit depends on the details. Here’s the first story I got when I Googled it, since it was 7+ years ago and personally I’ve only got vague memories of the story myself: [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/EHarmony-settles-lawsuit-over-gay-matchmaking-3274826.php](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/EHarmony-settles-lawsuit-over-gay-matchmaking-3274826.php) Assuming that’s accurate, eHarmony was sued by the state of NJ and settled with them, also sued by the state of CA and settled with them. At least for here in CA the issue was that “…eHarmony violated California law barring businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation.” Two results, they have to provide links to dating sites that handle same-sex couples (so it’s not like eHarmony has to start offering that service themselves) and they paid a chunk of money ($2M total) to the state, with 25% of that “set aside for gay, lesbian and bisexual Californians who can show they were harmed by eHarmony’s policies.” So my quickie reading is that those states could reasonably show that eHarmony violated state antidiscrimination laws related to sexual orientation, nobody wanted a messy legal fight, they settled. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/468 "2015-07-16T20:37:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, let’s say I am an artist who has painted only white people all my life, and have never painted a black person. My skill set is just not developed in terms of getting darker skin tones accurately, so I kindly ask a potential black client to find another artist. He refuses to do so, insisting that I paint his portrait. Am I required to spend time making sure I am able to get darker skin tones right? Can I ask him to sign a disclaimer that he won’t reject the painting afterwards if the skin tone looks wrong? > > What if I specialize in painting the female form, or painting children or dogs. Am I required to paint a man or an adult pr a human? Children and dogs, of course, aren’t protected groups. But sex and race are protected, so, no, you can’t open a business, but refuse to serve men or whites. The way around this, if you must, is to paint what you like, and put the paintings up for sale, as they are, in galleries, while refusing all commissions. Since you do not intend to accept commissions from white people, you cannot operate as a business. No one is “compelled to paint pictures of whites.” You simply cannot paint pictures of people for hire…and refuse to be hired by whites. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/469 "2015-07-16T20:39:39Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Doesn’t matter. The RFRA does not apply to the states. Most states have now adopted their own RFRAs. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its not very clear which side of the argument you guys are taking with these posts. > > Nazis and homosexuals are both not included in the civil rights act AFAIK > > In what way is not recognizing the legitimacy of a union on religious grounds any less legitimate than distaste of anything that kinda sorta looks like a swastika? No, homosexuals are not covered by the CRA. The point was that they could easily be. On what basis would you extend it to cover Nazis? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/470 "2015-07-16T20:42:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wow, that’s nuts. so, they develop a way to make really good matches for heterosexual couples, but because they don’t have the same expertise regarding gay couples, they get sued. Unfuckingbelievable. I find their claim that their algorithms wouldn’t work for gay people to be pretty suspect. I don’t know a lot about these algorithms, so it could be true. Or it could be something they made up so they can avoid dealing with a minority they don’t care for. I have trouble conceiving of something about gay dating that’s so radically different from straight dating that it completely breaks their code. It’s mostly about matching up people with similar interests. Even if the interests are wildly different between the two groups, matching them should work about the same. That said, even if they are a bunch of lying homophobes, I’m still not sure that forcing them to offer gay dating services is fair. They offer a service to allow people to meet people of the opposite sex. So long as they’re providing that service to everyone, I’m not sure you can argue that they’re discriminating - anymore than a deli is discriminating against Jews by not keeping a kosher kitchen. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/471 "2015-07-16T20:45:51Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > When the dating site eHarmony was sued for not offering dating services for same sex couples, I believe they made the argument that their success was largely due to their proprietary match-making algorithms that were designed to match opposite sex couples and they did not feel those algorithms would successfully transfer to same-sex couples. For what it’s worth, they lost. I remember hearing the founder of eHarmony being interviewed and he was asked why his site wasn’t open to same sex couples as well. His response was something along the lines of “Well, we don’t know what those people are looking for in a relationship.” The inevitable followup was “Why do you think it’s anything different than what straight people are looking for in a relationship?”. Given his site’s focus on long-term relationships leading to marriage I don’t understand why the same questions they’d ask straight people couldn’t be asked of gay people. Off the top of my head I can’t even think of a question that wouldn’t apply. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/472 "2015-07-16T21:13:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Most states have now adopted their own RFRAs. I am not familiar with them but I shouldn’t have been so flip. The RFRA does not make religious freedom invulnerable to any other concerns. It merely makes the application of any law that infringement of religious freedom subject to strict scrutiny. There is no world where a law against murder in order to satisfy the state interest in not having murders does not pass that scrutiny. > [@](#): > > No, homosexuals are not covered by the CRA. The point was that they could easily be. On what basis would you extend it to cover Nazis? A lot of things could easily be covered by the CRA. Gender identity, height, weight, appearance, as well as political ideology. There was a time when we persecuted communists for their political beliefs (heck we still do), can we agree that this sort of persecution and discrimination served very little useful purpose? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/473 "2015-07-16T21:17:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I find their claim that their algorithms wouldn’t work for gay people to be pretty suspect. I don’t know a lot about these algorithms, so it could be true. Or it could be something they made up so they can avoid dealing with a minority they don’t care for. I have trouble conceiving of something about gay dating that’s so radically different from straight dating that it completely breaks their code. It’s mostly about matching up people with similar interests. Even if the interests are wildly different between the two groups, matching them should work about the same. > > That said, even if they are a bunch of lying homophobes, I’m still not sure that forcing them to offer gay dating services is fair. They offer a service to allow people to meet people of the opposite sex. So long as they’re providing that service to everyone, I’m not sure you can argue that they’re discriminating - anymore than a deli is discriminating against Jews by not keeping a kosher kitchen. And states were offering marriage licenses to anyone that was marrying someone of the opposite sex. Like you say, there might be some practical reason why they couldn’t just have a box on your profile that says gay/straight/bi/ewok and sort the matches based on that additional variable but the reason is not apparent to me. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/474 "2015-07-16T21:36:39Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > I remember hearing the founder of eHarmony being interviewed and he was asked why his site wasn’t open to same sex couples as well. His response was something along the lines of “Well, we don’t know what those people are looking for in a relationship.” What a load of dookie. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/475 "2015-07-16T21:48:21Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I am not familiar with them but I shouldn’t have been so flip. You probably recall the recent kerfuffle over Mike Pence signing a particularly “strong” version of the RFRA into Indiana law. > [@](#): > > There was a time when we persecuted communists for their political beliefs (heck we still do), can we agree that this sort of persecution and discrimination served very little useful purpose? That’s not a bad point, actually. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/476 "2015-07-16T22:12:55Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > Two results, they have to provide links to dating sites that handle same-sex couples (so it’s not like eHarmony has to start offering that service themselves) and they paid a chunk of money ($2M total) to the state, with 25% of that “set aside for gay, lesbian and bisexual Californians who can show they were harmed by eHarmony’s policies.” I wonder if any Californians have claimed part of that 25% set aside? After all, how could anyone show that they were “harmed by EHarmony’s policies”? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/477 "2015-07-16T23:22:56Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I wonder if any Californians have claimed part of that 25% set aside? After all, how could anyone show that they were “harmed by EHarmony’s policies”? I don’t think it is harmed so much as a lesser version of having to use the “coloreds only” water fountain. People naturally want to feel accepted and respected. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/478 "2015-07-17T00:04:26Z")
I wonder why ChristianMingle doesn’t have same sex choices? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/479 "2015-07-17T00:24:13Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > I remember hearing the founder of eHarmony being interviewed and he was asked why his site wasn’t open to same sex couples as well. His response was something along the lines of “Well, we don’t know what those people are looking for in a relationship.” The inevitable followup was “Why do you think it’s anything different than what straight people are looking for in a relationship?”. > > Given his site’s focus on long-term relationships leading to marriage I don’t understand why the same questions they’d ask straight people couldn’t be asked of gay people. Off the top of my head I can’t even think of a question that wouldn’t apply. Because too many people still think that homosexual relationships are about wild promiscuous sex, and not at all about love or commitment or anything else besides getting off. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/480 "2015-07-17T00:33:25Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > I wonder why ChristianMingle doesn’t have same sex choices? The intrawebs don’t go that deep in the closet. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529.md?page=25)