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!!!

What about a Jewish deli refusing to serve a group of neo nazis?

To me, that's refusing to serve someone based on their behavior, not based on who they are.

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

Again, based on behavior. And on health codes, actually. Not on the actual person.

How about Hooter's refusing to hire fat women?

I do think that's discrimination.

Or an airline restricting the weight of their stewardesses to ensure that they fit down the aisle?

If someone's weight prevents them from doing their job, firing them isn't discriminating against them.

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

Again, I think that's discrimination.

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

They would, if men had vaginas and could give birth.

They would, if men had vaginas and could give birth.

That's funny!

BTW, lots of employers prevent their employees from wearing nose rings and having pink hair. As far as I know, it's perfectly legal.

Oh -- and Hollywood discriminates all the time. They won't cast a black man in a white woman's role You'd think people as socially evolved as those in Hollywood would know better!

Oh -- and Hollywood discriminates all the time. They won't cast a black man in a white woman's role You'd think people as socially evolved as those in Hollywood would know better!

That's not discrimination. Now, if they were refusing to cast a black woman for the role, that's different. And I would actually be all for casting men in women's roles. It would be nice to get over the latent homophobia in Hollywood.

BTW, lots of employers prevent their employees from wearing nose rings and having pink hair. As far as I know, it's perfectly legal.

It's legal, but it shouldn't be, IMO. Pink hair and nose rings don't necessarily change how a person can do a job. If someone can do a job well, they should be hired, whether they're black, white, latino, gay, straight, or have pink hair.

Pink hair and nose rings don't necessarily change how a person can do a job. If someone can do a job well, they should be hired, whether they're black, white, latino, gay, straight, or have pink hair.

Very, very true, but if you go to the Ritz-Carlton you don't expect your concierge to have a nose ring and pink hair. And I doubt the Ritz-Carlton would hire someone who did. They might be turning down a great employee, but they still wouldn't do it.

Very, very true, but if you go to the Ritz-Carlton you don't expect your concierge to have a nose ring and pink hair. And I doubt the Ritz-Carlton would hire someone who did. They might be turning down a great employee, but they still wouldn't do it.

Very true. I don't know how many people with obvious piercings and wildly colored hair would apply to somewhere like the Ritz-Carlton, though. This is one of the situations where I go back and forth. On one hand, I think that companies should hire the best-qualified person to do the job, regardless of what they look like. On the other, what makes these people different is something they can easily change. It isn't something completely intrinsic to them that is being rejected. So I can see where it wouldn't be considered discrimination.

Very true. I don't know how many people with obvious piercings and wildly colored hair would apply to somewhere like the Ritz-Carlton, though. This is one of the situations where I go back and forth. On one hand, I think that companies should hire the best-qualified person to do the job, regardless of what they look like. On the other, what makes these people different is something they can easily change. It isn't something completely intrinsic to them that is being rejected. So I can see where it wouldn't be considered discrimination.

Pink hair and a nose ring are BEHAVIOUR just like my neonazi example. you sure werent born with those now were you?

Like it or not, your appearance speaks for you as loudly as any words in a business setting.

You still haven't addressed WHY if I put MY money at risk to start a business. Maybe I mortgaged my family's house and quit my job, for instance. I work night and day trying to make it a success. Why should anyone be able to tell me who I can hire or what type of clientele I must serve? Why would anyone have that right in a free country?

Now, if you think I should be serving some segment of the public you are totally free to mortgage YOUR home and start a competing business that serves anyone and everyone.

How about Hooter's refusing to hire fat women?

What about Hooters not hiring MEN to serve tables for that matter? It would destroy their business model...wouldn't it? Put just one man in daisy duke shorts and a tank top and that place goes out of business cause most of the current patrons would rather eat the plants outside than look at THAT guy.

What about Hooters not hiring MEN to serve tables for that matter? It would destroy their business model...wouldn't it? Put just one man in daisy duke shorts and a tank top and that place goes out of business cause most of the current patrons would rather eat the plants outside than look at THAT guy.

Interesting point about the business model. I was thinking along those lines as well.

The example I came up with for myself was a customer wanting the right to order non-kosher food from a Kosher deli. What they want is not what the business offers. It's not about who the customer is, it wouldn't matter if they were black or white or gay or straight.

It's different then turning down a customer who wants to order something off your menu because of who they are.

The fact is, the Eharmony policy violates laws that are already in place for anti-discrimination, so the argument isn't "should we refuse to serve so-and-so" it's "should we make sure anti-discrimnation laws are enforced". If you don't think they should be enforced, then in essence you support Jim-Crow type laws: seperate but equal.

With regard to people with piercings and neo Natzi's, they have chosen to be such things, while Gays have not. No one should be discriminated against because of who they are from birth.

Brand new research is cropping up now regarding hormones in the womb and homosexuality. Compelling scientific evidence. The day is coming very, very soon, when it will be proven that being Gay is not a choice, and the poor right wingers will be out of business. Soon, that theory will sit right beside "the earth is 6,000 years old" theory.

The fact is, the Eharmony policy violates laws that are already in place for anti-discrimination, so the argument isn't "should we refuse to serve so-and-so" it's "should we make sure anti-discrimnation laws are enforced". If you don't think they should be enforced, then in essence you support Jim-Crow type laws: seperate but equal.

With regard to people with piercings and neo Natzi's, they have chosen to be such things, while Gays have not. No one should be discriminated against because of who they are from birth.

Brand new research is cropping up now regarding hormones in the womb and homosexuality. Compelling scientific evidence. The day is coming very, very soon, when it will be proven that being Gay is not a choice, and the poor right wingers will be out of business. Soon, that theory will sit right beside "the earth is 6,000 years old" theory.

Just so you know. I'm not anit gay. And I'm not racist.

Also, us right-wingers care about a whole lot more than this little issue. Just think, if Hillary Clinton wins the oval office lap bands will be free to everyone.........you just won't be able to find a surgeon to do it.

After watching Fred Thompson on Fox last night I was planning to send my $1000 donation to him today. After reading your posts I decided to double it.

.

You still haven't addressed WHY if I put MY money at risk to start a business. Maybe I mortgaged my family's house and quit my job, for instance. I work night and day trying to make it a success. Why should anyone be able to tell me who I can hire or what type of clientele I must serve? Why would anyone have that right in a free country?

To answer that specifically:

Fundamentally we are a republic that is held together though codified laws. Those laws are base on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those are amazing documents.

Our economy is capitalist, where the market drives who buys what. However there are laws that address fundamentally unethical practices from monopolies and to harmful production. Human rights are to be taken into account and not put aside simply because there is no profit in them.

Human rights are addressed in the constitution.

Your thinking, about your money in OUR economy is that you should be allowed to do anything to make a buck because of your risk. What you need to factor into business risks are the laws of the country where you do business. US law says you can't discriminate. You can't.

You can't mislabel food.

You can't employ children for a dollar a day.

Laws change as people get more Enlightened. It's a matter of who pushes first and then who pushes back.

And our fantastic government, with the 3 elected branches, helps those who are pushing figure out how things should be.

So by all means in our free market invest. But keep it legal.

To answer that specifically:

Fundamentally we are a republic that is held together though codified laws. Those laws are base on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those are amazing documents.

Our economy is capitalist, where the market drives who buys what. However there are laws that address fundamentally unethical practices from monopolies and to harmful production. Human rights are to be taken into account and not put aside simply because there is no profit in them.

Human rights are addressed in the constitution.

Your thinking, about your money in OUR economy is that you should be allowed to do anything to make a buck because of your risk. What you need to factor into business risks are the laws of the country where you do business. US law says you can't discriminate. You can't.

You can't mislabel food.

You can't employ children for a dollar a day.

Laws change as people get more Enlightened. It's a matter of who pushes first and then who pushes back.

And our fantastic government, with the 3 elected branches, helps those who are pushing figure out how things should be.

So by all means in our free market invest. But keep it legal.

I never advocated breaking the law. My portion of this debate is over whether the law is right. As you well know, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right.

Also, I never said that I should be allowed to do anything just because my money is at risk.

I frankly could care less whether or not Eharmony is inclusive or exclusive of gays. What I do stand up for is their right to conduct their business as they see fit so long as they are not taking actions to harm anyone.

After watching Fred Thompson on Fox last night I was planning to send my $1000 donation to him today. After reading your posts I decided to double it.

I have no idea how sending in a donation to Fred Thompson is related to my posts.

I never advocated breaking the law. My portion of this debate is over whether the law is right. As you well know, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right.

Also, I never said that I should be allowed to do anything just because my money is at risk.

I frankly could care less whether or not Eharmony is inclusive or exclusive of gays. What I do stand up for is their right to conduct their business as they see fit so long as they are not taking actions to harm anyone.

Got it.

True legal doesn't equal right.

However, gay doesn't equal pink hair.

And truly demanding a grocery store to sell lumber is daft and goes against their business model and they needn't comply.

But gay is a status that has been (in some circles) defined as protected because it is not a choice. It's how we are born. I expect in my lifetime to see it added as protected by an admendment to the Bill of Rights.

What's cool is that we can debate that and vote our opinions. GO USA!

Talking about flight attendants weight...a company is allowed to establish a code of behavior or expectations that when a person signs on they are explained and accepted. Weight is something that can affect performance. Ask the military or firefighters.

Age is another touchy area. Think about female newscasters who are let go because they don't look youthful enough.

ok. done.

Brand new research is cropping up now regarding hormones in the womb and homosexuality. Compelling scientific evidence.

I'd love to read about this. Can you point me to some studies? TIA!