I didn't know this until tonight, but eharmony does not include Gays in its services, so now they're being sued! GOOD!!! Screw them!

I hope they either get shut down or that they're forced to change their policy and include Gays and lesbians!

End discrimination now!!!

Quite frankly, I'd prefer people got this upset over the fact that there are so many Americans who can't afford health care and a large amount of elderly Americans who can't retire because they can't afford to pay for their Rx medications.

For the record, I am extremely upset this issue. I am as upset about it as I am about the Gay rights issue. Health care is one of my big issues, for sure. As a matter of fact, I was recently attempting to find a non-profit that accepts donations to directly benefit people with no insurance (as in, give direct grants to pay for healthcare), and after Googling for awhile, simply gave up. I could not find a group that gives direct grants to families. If anyone knows of such an organization, please direct me to it.

As for the comments about Gay dating sites discriminating against straight people, no, I do not think it's acceptable to discriminate based on anyone's sexuality. So that is just as wrong. I would never say that was ok.

As for Porkchop, AIDS is not a "Gay" disease. It doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation. And the breakdown of the family? Wouldn't you say that our over 50% divorce rate would contribute to that more than, say, people like my friends (lesbians) who have been together for 15 years and have a baby and a business together?

Yeah, I think so.

Further, I would like to post the divorce statistics for Porkchop, since he or she seems to think it's Gays that cause the breakdown of the family:

The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage

50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.” According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:

The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%

The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%

The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

Before you start making generalized statements like gays causing families to break down, why don't you do some research and think a little bit? It would help.

For the record, I am extremely upset this issue. I am as upset about it as I am about the Gay rights issue. Health care is one of my big issues, for sure. As a matter of fact, I was recently attempting to find a non-profit that accepts donations to directly benefit people with no insurance (as in, give direct grants to pay for healthcare), and after Googling for awhile, simply gave up. I could not find a group that gives direct grants to families. If anyone knows of such an organization, please direct me to it.

Sunta....there are most likely smaller, grass roots organizations in your area that provide direct aid (including prescription assistance) to low-income people. I worked for one for 15 years and networked with many others in the Dallas/Ft Worth area. If you call the United Way in your city/county, they can hook you up. Just be forewarned that they will try and get your money for themselves, but hang tough and only give it to an agency that will positively use it for what you want.

I think Porkchop would be surprised that the demographic that is currently experiencing the highest HIV infection rate are straight, married African-American women.

In Africa AIDS is an epidemic, a heterosexual epidemic.

I didn't know this until tonight, but eharmony does not include Gays in its services, so now they're being sued! GOOD!!! Screw them!

I hope they either get shut down or that they're forced to change their policy and include Gays and lesbians!

End discrimination now!!!

This brings out the libertarian in me.

In the United States we still have ownership rights. If I own something, I get to determine its best use.

Eharmony is a privately owned company. Why shouldn't they get to cater to whatever market segment they so choose? Gay, straight, whatever?

I feel the same way when it comes to no-smoking laws. If I put my money at risk to open a restaurant. I should be able to CHOOSE whether to allow smoking in MY restaurant. BTW, I'm a non smoker and hate it when the guy at the table next to me lights up!

Eharmony is being unfairly targeted for this. It is their business and they should be free to run it as they choose. If they run it poorly then the market should respond by spending their money elsewhere. Vote with your pocketbook but don't use the courts to impose your will on someone else. No one has a constitutional right to a matchmaking service.

Although I am pretty much a straight forward liberal, I'm afraid I must pretty much agree with Podna on this one.

If EHarmony accepted money from the government for anything related to their company, then I would agree with you, Sunta. But I believe that privately owned companies should be able to seek business from any segment of society that they choose.

I don't believe that it is right for government to intrude into the operations and pocketbooks of privately owned businesses, except to collect taxes. We don't collect taxes from churches, yet we are pretty much hands off when it comes to how they conduct the business of the church. Why should a privately owned business be different from a church?

We are trying so hard to be politically correct, sometimes we lose sight of the foundation that our country was built on. Freedom. Freedom from people forcing their beliefs upon others.

I do not approve of Chick fil A's conduct with regard to politics, but they should pretty much have the right to set their own standards and follow their own beliefs as long as they pay their fair share of taxes.

Any company that enjoys govenment funding of any sort is a different story. As a government by and for the people, we can't take tax money from everyone with differing beliefs and then discriminate against them by allocating that tax money to companies that discriminate against a certain segment of taxpayers. But I am sick and tired of us all trying to tell each other what to do and force each other to be good. Fairness and goodness are different for different people, based on their belief systems.

If I want to have only 100% American Indian gay women as employees in my new business, I should be able to do so without interference from the government. If you believe I am being discriminatory, you should not do business with me, and you are free to point out my policy that discriminates against whites, Asian, blacks, men, and others, to everyone you know.

What are Chik-fil-a's politics like? I know that it's a Christian company, since none of them are open on Sunday, so I am taking a leap and assuming that the rest of their politics are similar. Sort of like Curves', maybe?

BJean, I think this might be the first thing you and I agree on 100%! I am perfectly happy when businesses who support something I disagree with flop, but that doesn't mean I think anyone has the right to shut them down.

I agree in general principle, except when the business is providing a service that is otherwise unavailable. Obviously, that isn't the case here. If E-Harmony was the only online dating service out there, I would feel differently.

Eharmony is a privately owned company. Why shouldn't they get to cater to whatever market segment they so choose? Gay, straight, whatever?

Because it violates anti-discrimination laws, that's why.

Based on your argument, it is also ok for a business to refuse to serve Blacks.

Sorry, maybe you want to go back to Jim Crow, but I sure don't!

After thinking on this issue for a while, I think that Sunta has a very good point. If we say that some companies can refuse to serve customers based on their sexual orientation, where would it end? They could refuse to serve blacks, or hispanics, women, or fat people.

I think that companies can focus their services towards any demographic they want to, but they shouldn't be allowed to completely refuse to serve people of other demographics.

Eharmony is a privately owned company. Why shouldn't they get to cater to whatever market segment they so choose? Gay, straight, whatever?

Because it violates anti-discrimination laws, that's why.

Based on your argument, it is also ok for a business to refuse to serve Blacks.

Sorry, maybe you want to go back to Jim Crow, but I sure don't!

That's a pretty selective quote from my post. I don't support anti-discrimination laws when it comes to private businesses.

Again, if I put my money at risk, why should you be able to tell me who I can hire, fire or cater to? It's not YOUR money. But you could use your money to compete with me...couldn't you?

After thinking on this issue for a while, I think that Sunta has a very good point. If we say that some companies can refuse to serve customers based on their sexual orientation, where would it end? They could refuse to serve blacks, or hispanics, women, or fat people.

I think that companies can focus their services towards any demographic they want to, but they shouldn't be allowed to completely refuse to serve people of other demographics.

Sure they should. What about a Jewish deli refusing to serve a group of neo nazis?

What about a restaurant refusing to serve someone without a shirt on. What if their religion dictated that they dine without a shirt?

How about Hooter's refusing to hire fat women? Or an airline restricting the weight of their stewardesses to ensure that they fit down the aisle?

What about businesses that tell their employees not to wear nose rings or dye their hair pink?

And why the heck, darn it, won't my OB/GYN see men????? That's what I wanna know.