Jump to content
Rex Kickass

The Republican Thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 11:26 AM)
So a straight guy could go sue a gay hookup site if they refused to hook him up with a woman?

 

He might be able to sue if they refused to allow him to register. There's nothing that says they actually have to match you up. Straight people get turned down on that site all the time (I think one of their competitors made a commercial about it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 01:56 PM)
He might be able to sue if they refused to allow him to register. There's nothing that says they actually have to match you up. Straight people get turned down on that site all the time (I think one of their competitors made a commercial about it).

So maybe they shouldhave just taken their money and tried to hook him up with women. It sucks that they caved in and didn't take it to trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 01:56 PM)
He might be able to sue if they refused to allow him to register. There's nothing that says they actually have to match you up. Straight people get turned down on that site all the time (I think one of their competitors made a commercial about it).

 

Yes; they can legally reject a person because he or she is a dork, but not because of their legally protected characteristics; Its not a perfect analogy, but the situation would be similar to a "gay" bar refusing admittance to straight clientele. Sexual orientation isn't quite on the same legal footing as race, ethnicity, religion, and other protected classes, but the issues are similar to those that used to come up with lunch counters refusing service to Blacks in the 60's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Nov 23, 2008 -> 09:25 AM)
Yes; they can legally reject a person because he or she is a dork, but not because of their legally protected characteristics; Its not a perfect analogy, but the situation would be similar to a "gay" bar refusing admittance to straight clientele. Sexual orientation isn't quite on the same legal footing as race, ethnicity, religion, and other protected classes, but the issues are similar to those that used to come up with lunch counters refusing service to Blacks in the 60's.

 

it's not really the same situation as forced segregation. it is basically (from what i can tell) a dating service geared towards evangelical straight couples. this whole case is fairly suspect.

 

the fact is that dating services that cater to certain ethnic groups is not anything hateful, illegal, or out of the ordinary. jewish americans, hispanics, and african-americans have similar services.

Edited by mr_genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 23, 2008 -> 10:52 AM)
the fact is that dating services that cater to certain ethnic groups is not anything hateful, illegal, or out of the ordinary. jewish americans, hispanics, and african-americans have similar services.

True, good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 23, 2008 -> 09:52 AM)
it's not really the same situation as forced segregation. it is basically (from what i can tell) a dating service geared towards evangelical straight couples. this whole case is fairly suspect.

 

the fact is that dating services that cater to certain ethnic groups is not anything hateful, illegal, or out of the ordinary. jewish americans, hispanics, and african-americans have similar services.

 

I don't write 'em, I just fight 'em (the EEO laws, that is).

 

The fact that it isn't really the same as "forced segregation" has nothing to do with it. Neither does the fact that its not "hateful." Very few commercial entities can lawfully exclude others based solely upon protected characteristics. There are tons of cases just as silly as this one fought every day. Believe me, they help feed and clothe my kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Nov 23, 2008 -> 05:26 PM)
There are tons of cases just as silly as this one fought every day.

 

well i can agree with that

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 23, 2008 -> 10:52 AM)
it's not really the same situation as forced segregation. it is basically (from what i can tell) a dating service geared towards evangelical straight couples. this whole case is fairly suspect.

 

the fact is that dating services that cater to certain ethnic groups is not anything hateful, illegal, or out of the ordinary. jewish americans, hispanics, and african-americans have similar services.

 

But the difference is, if youre a white guy, you can still register on the African American dating site. If you're a gay guy, you couldn't register on eHarmony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 12:04 AM)
But the difference is, if youre a white guy, you can still register on the African American dating site. If you're a gay guy, you couldn't register on eHarmony.

 

But why would would you want to register on a site that's not targeted to your preferences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 12:04 AM)
But the difference is, if youre a white guy, you can still register on the African American dating site. If you're a gay guy, you couldn't register on eHarmony.

 

you could register i think, but they didn't have a gay section. oh well. so someone could register for a black dating service then demand white girls to be there? i guess they could do that, but they would probably just get laughed at as it would be obvious they were just trying to start trouble.

Edited by mr_genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 01:11 AM)
But why would would you want to register on a site that's not targeted to your preferences?

Most people don't and won't, but by not allowing people who aren't part of the target (wrong color, religion, etc.) it is a violation of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 12:55 AM)
Most people don't and won't, but by not allowing people who aren't part of the target (wrong color, religion, etc.) it is a violation of the law.

 

There is a site that's strictly for people making $100K a year or something along those lines. There's another site that you have to be consider "hot" to get on. There are Jewish singles and Catholic singles sites. I really don't think it's against the law. There are viable options for everyone on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 08:05 AM)
There is a site that's strictly for people making $100K a year or something along those lines. There's another site that you have to be consider "hot" to get on. There are Jewish singles and Catholic singles sites. I really don't think it's against the law. There are viable options for everyone on the internet.

 

They may cater to and target these people, but I imagine they would run into the same legal challenges as eHarmony if they were to specifically exclude a group (if they were big enough, playsomefnjrny mentioned interstate commerce issues).

 

I also don't know if there's a legal difference between having an exclusive group (Jewish singles, for example) and excluding one group (everyone but gays).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 08:05 AM)
There is a site that's strictly for people making $100K a year or something along those lines. There's another site that you have to be consider "hot" to get on. There are Jewish singles and Catholic singles sites. I really don't think it's against the law. There are viable options for everyone on the internet.

 

It IS against the law (as Casey Stengel said in a different context, "you can look it up") and has been since 1964; for-profit, commerical entities operating in interstate commerce cannot restrict or exclude their products or services on the basis of protected characteristics. Religion, like race, is a protected characteristic. Sexual orientation is one in many jurisdictions, but not on a federal level (yet).

 

The fact that there are sites strictly for high wage earners or "hotties" doesn't advance your point. Income status and beauty are not legally protected characteristics; race, religion, sex, age, disability status, and national origin (and sometimes sexual orientation) are.

 

The fact that there are separate commerical sites for Jewish and Catholic singles is also academic. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" almost 50 years ago. Its fine for those sites to cater to those specific groups as a marketing niche, but generally AGAINST THE LAW, for them to exclude others from access based solely upon protected status. Also, as I said above, whether an underlying motive is illicit or benign is legally irrelevant. Even policies that are "fair in form" can be unlawful if they are "discriminatory in practice."

 

Somebody on here asked for the legal reasoning behind this dating case; I've tried to provide it without arguing or taking sides. There are entire treatises on this subject and therefore it can't easily be summarized in a couple of posts (at least without my sending somebody a bill ;)). But while we're all free to debate the wisdom of this reasoning and the theories and principles behind the civil rights laws, the fact is these laws and prohibitions do indeed exist, our personal "beliefs" notwithstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 09:18 AM)
It IS against the law (as Casey Stengel said in a different context, "you can look it up") and has been since 1964; for-profit, commerical entities operating in interstate commerce cannot restrict or exclude their products or services on the basis of protected characteristics. Religion, like race, is a protected characteristic. Sexual orientation is one in many jurisdictions, but not on a federal level (yet).

 

The fact that there are sites strictly for high wage earners or "hotties" doesn't advance your point. Income status and beauty are not legally protected characteristics; race, religion, sex, age, disability status, and national origin (and sometimes sexual orientation) are.

 

The fact that there are separate commerical sites for Jewish and Catholic singles is also academic. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" almost 50 years ago. Its fine for those sites to cater to those specific groups as a marketing niche, but generally AGAINST THE LAW, for them to exclude others from access based solely upon protected status. Also, as I said above, whether an underlying motive is illicit or benign is legally irrelevant. Even policies that are "fair in form" can be unlawful if they are "discriminatory in practice."

 

Somebody on here asked for the legal reasoning behind this dating case; I've tried to provide it without arguing or taking sides. There are entire treatises on this subject and therefore it can't easily be summarized in a couple of posts (at least without my sending somebody a bill ;)). But while we're all free to debate the wisdom of this reasoning and the theories and principles behind the civil rights laws, the fact is these laws and prohibitions do indeed exist, our personal "beliefs" notwithstanding.

 

So all they had to do was let them register, and then fail to provide them with same sex dates as their software wasn't designed for that, and all would be fine? If the software decided that 'John' was compatible with 'Jane' and sent him that info, or decided that eh didn't match anyone and told him that, could they still have been sued?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 09:18 AM)
It IS against the law (as Casey Stengel said in a different context, "you can look it up") and has been since 1964; for-profit, commerical entities operating in interstate commerce cannot restrict or exclude their products or services on the basis of protected characteristics. Religion, like race, is a protected characteristic. Sexual orientation is one in many jurisdictions, but not on a federal level (yet).

 

The fact that there are sites strictly for high wage earners or "hotties" doesn't advance your point. Income status and beauty are not legally protected characteristics; race, religion, sex, age, disability status, and national origin (and sometimes sexual orientation) are.

 

The fact that there are separate commerical sites for Jewish and Catholic singles is also academic. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" almost 50 years ago. Its fine for those sites to cater to those specific groups as a marketing niche, but generally AGAINST THE LAW, for them to exclude others from access based solely upon protected status. Also, as I said above, whether an underlying motive is illicit or benign is legally irrelevant. Even policies that are "fair in form" can be unlawful if they are "discriminatory in practice."

 

Somebody on here asked for the legal reasoning behind this dating case; I've tried to provide it without arguing or taking sides. There are entire treatises on this subject and therefore it can't easily be summarized in a couple of posts (at least without my sending somebody a bill ;)). But while we're all free to debate the wisdom of this reasoning and the theories and principles behind the civil rights laws, the fact is these laws and prohibitions do indeed exist, our personal "beliefs" notwithstanding.

 

Thank you for your insight. :cheers

 

So all they had to do was let them register, and then fail to provide them with same sex dates as their software wasn't designed for that, and all would be fine? If the software decided that 'John' was compatible with 'Jane' and sent him that info, or decided that eh didn't match anyone and told him that, could they still have been sued?

 

That would still be discriminatory in practice, right? They would be hard pressed to prove it was difficult to modify their software to make "opposite sex" one of the options in their personality profile.

 

What about places like Curves that clearly discriminate based on gender?

Edited by StrangeSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 09:22 AM)
So all they had to do was let them register, and then fail to provide them with same sex dates as their software wasn't designed for that, and all would be fine? If the software decided that 'John' was compatible with 'Jane' and sent him that info, or decided that eh didn't match anyone and told him that, could they still have been sued?

 

Of course they could have been "sued." You can sue anybody for anything these days. ;)

 

As to whether they could be sued "successfully," that depends (how about that for a lawyerly answer).

 

Ultimately, if they had at least let him register, it would come down to a question of fact as to whether John was rejected for legitimate or illegal reasons. That can be more readily defended; a per se rule of exclusion is much, much harder.

 

These cases have mixed burdens of proof. A Plaintiff has the burden of proving discrimination, but the defendant has the burden of articulating a legitmate non-discriminatory reason for its actions. John says "I wasn't matched because I'm gay;" the site says, "no, its because you're a loser." Usually, a jury has to decide who is telling the truth.

 

I defend employment cases. There, a plaintiff says: "You didn't hire me because I'm [fill in the blank]." We say: "No its because you're a loser." Sometimes those cases can be thrown out before they even get to the jury, if the employer can show that it also rejected other people outside the plaintiff's protected class who it also deemed losers for similar reasons. However, an employer with a policy of per se exclusion is almost certainly toast.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 09:40 AM)
What about places like Curves that clearly discriminate based on gender?

 

As ridiculous as it sounds, if there's a weirdo hellbent on joining, he could probably state a claim. Hell, the EEOC initiated a class action gender claim against Hooters a few years ago, after a weirdo claimed he couldn't get hired as a waiter. IIRC, the EEOC ultimately dropped the case after Hooters mounted an ingenious PR campaign that called the agency out on its misplaced priorities.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'm reading these responses and I'm thinking "What if I wanted to start a website targeting heterosexual singles, like Jewish singles or catholic singles, etc ... Then on a lark I went to www.heterosexual.com. Hit the link, I think you'll find it interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 12:51 PM)
No pics, but there are text links that are definitely NSFW.

 

Correct. Sorry folks. I should have stated that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

 

So the Daughters of the American Revolution has to allow men?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 25, 2008 -> 07:26 AM)
Interesting.

 

So the Daughters of the American Revolution has to allow men?

 

To my understanding, they do not because they are a private club, not a public for-profit business. The Boy Scouts can exclude gays and atheists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 25, 2008 -> 07:40 AM)
To my understanding, they do not because they are a private club, not a public for-profit business. The Boy Scouts can exclude gays and atheists.

 

Just to be accurate, Boy Scouts has never excluded a youth member for being gay that I am aware of. Also, you can count on one hand, with some fingers left over, how many gay adults have been removed. Basically it's "don't ask, don't tell". I think most everyone here knows how I feel about it, and it is which is the better vantage point to help change, from within, or from outside. I've always felt both.

 

And it is only in a couple of the programs that either issue comes into play. BSA has several divisions, including the fastest growing, that do allow gays and atheists, (and girls). We have excluded adults with felonies, drunk driving convictions, molestation accusations, pornography, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×