eHarmony forced to provide same-sex dating service

The Boston Herald reports that, thanks to a court settlement, the online dating service eHarmony.com will now offer a same-sex matching service, CompatiblePartners.

While not directly a Prop. 8 story, I thought this was an interesting case of how the same-sex "agenda" (for lack of a better word - I know that's painting with broad brushstrokes, but I'm blanking on a better term) has forced a private business to cater to its wants, regardless of the business's interest:

TRENTON, N.J. — Gays and lesbians seeking partners now may join an eHarmony.com affiliate, under a settlement announced Wednesday by the state Attorney General’s Office.

Membership to the same-sex matchmaking service will be free for up to 10,000 new users in the first six months, according to the agreement. The eHarmony.com charge usually is about $150.

The announcement came more than three years after Eric McKinley of Monmouth County, N.J., filed a suit claiming that the matching service violated the state’s Law Against Discrimination because it did not offer same-sex services...

Theodore B. Olson, the lawyer for eHarmony, said the company believed the lawsuit "resulted from an unfair characterization of our business," but decided to settle because "litigation outcomes can be unpredictable."...

Neither the company nor co-defendant Neil Clark Warren — its founder and pitchman in eHarmony’s widespread television and radio ads — admitted liability. Pasadena, Calif.-based eHarmony agreed to pay the state Division on Civil Rights $50,000 to cover its costs, and to pay McKinley $5,000 and provide a free 12-month membership...

Furthermore, eHarmony.com will post photos of homosexual couples, include such couples in its advertising and post a link to the same-sex site. It also may post a disclaimer pointing out that its matching system is based on research involving heterosexuals. The Compatible Partners site must state that it is affiliated with eHarmony.

Note that while eHarmony was heavily touted by the Christian community at its inception, its lack of same-sex services had nothing to do with Christian morals. Rather, the research that serves as the basis of the system's compatibility testing was conducted with heterosexual couples. Warren said he didn't feel he knew enough about same-sex relationships to offer a similar service.

I like how blogger Michelle Malkin points out that this lawsuit is "akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services."

It's a private business that didn't refuse to do business with anyone, but merely provided a limited scope of services. Someone in the gay community could have very successfully capitalized on the concept to create their own match service.

Should I be able to sue JDate because it won't match me up with LDS men? It's the same principle.

eHarmony has also famously refused to hook a married man up with an adulterous, extramarital affair. Should that be altered, too?

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com