Discrimination against adulterers / swingers--is it wrong?

[_asbestosman]

Asking for a daughter's hand in marriage is basically the same, just much closer nit. And was he not refused by some???

Joseph didn't run to the government to force those who refused to reconsider.

I consider buisness (like eHarmony) different than personal relationships (like Joseph and the early saints) as does the law. I know of no law that says I cannot discriminate in what friends I choose, but I do know of laws that forbid discrimination when it comes to employment or serving customers.

[_asbestosman]

Why the hell would Joseph Smith need eHarmony to find him his mates, when Elohim had already given them to him? And it's not as if he had a choice in the matter, is it? Not with the angel and the flaming sword and all.

Too bad Elohim wasn't as fastidious about setting Joseph up with married women as eHarmony would have been - could have saved Joseph Smith a whole ration of crap, don't you think?

I give you bonus points for finding the relevance of Joseph's polygamy to this thread. However, it really is tangential. Joseph's polygamy is irrelevant when determining whether I or anyone thinks a buisness should be forced to cater to all sexual preferences so as not to discriminate.

[_Sethbag]

Asking for a daughter's hand in marriage is basically the same, just much closer nit. And was he not refused by some???

Joseph didn't run to the government to force those who refused to reconsider.

No, instead he pulled out the Elohim card, telling these girls and women that Elohim had already given them to him - that it was truly a Celestial fait accompli.

But still, some refused him, and he moved on - there was apparently no shortage of women Joseph could, and did, succeed with.

I consider business (like eHarmony) different than personal relationships (like Joseph and the early saints) as does the law. I know of no law that says I cannot discriminate in what friends I choose, but I do know of laws that forbid discrimination when it comes to employment or serving customers.

eHarmony is in the business of hooking up single people looking for a potential long-term mate. Facilitating swingers or adulterous affairs is simply not in their business plan. As far as the married guy is concerned, it may be less a case of discrimination, and more a case of a guy going into a car dealership and being upset because they wouldn't sell him a watermelon.

[_Sethbag]

I give you bonus points for finding the relevance of Joseph's polygamy to this thread. However, it really is tangential. Joseph's polygamy is irrelevant when determining whether I or anyone thinks a buisness should be forced to cater to all sexual preferences so as not to discriminate.

eHarmony wasn't set up to help guys find guys, and girls find girls. It was set up to help guys find girls, and vice versa. They were unable to help out the gay folks because they were never set up to do that. There was, however, a market niche to be tapped, and so in the fulness of time eHarmony has retooled a subsidiary site specifically to cater to it. What has any of this got to do with discrimination?

[_asbestosman]

They were unable to help out the gay folks because they were never set up to do that. There was, however, a market niche to be tapped, and so in the fulness of time eHarmony has retooled a subsidiary site specifically to cater to it. What has any of this got to do with discrimination?

They were forced to do it because of a lawsuit against discrimination.

[_asbestosman]

As far as the married guy is concerned, it may be less a case of discrimination, and more a case of a guy going into a car dealership and being upset because they wouldn't sell him a watermelon.

That's about what I was thinking. Why did there have to be a discrimination lawsuit to force them to set up a watermelon stand so to speak?

[_Sethbag]

They were unable to help out the gay folks because they were never set up to do that. There was, however, a market niche to be tapped, and so in the fulness of time eHarmony has retooled a subsidiary site specifically to cater to it. What has any of this got to do with discrimination?

They were forced to do it because of a lawsuit against discrimination.

How do you know they were forced to do it? They refused to serve the gay people who filed the suits, but how do we know they refused because they were bigoted against gays, rather than they were simply not set up to serve them? And how do you know these lawsuits weren't really a wakeup call to eHarmony that there was indeed a market to be tapped, and served as an impetus to creating this other gay singles site?

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

[_Sethbag]

As far as the married guy is concerned, it may be less a case of discrimination, and more a case of a guy going into a car dealership and being upset because they wouldn't sell him a watermelon.

That's about what I was thinking. Why did there have to be a discrimination lawsuit to force them to set up a watermelon stand so to speak?

I'm not sure there "had to be" a lawsuit, but someone else thought it was a great idea, so there was one. I'm not sure eHarmony should have been forced to set up a watermelon stand, but they figured it was the way to go, and are probably going to make some coin on it.

[_asbestosman]

How do you know they were forced to do it? They refused to serve the gay people who filed the suits, but how do we know they refused because they were bigoted against gays, rather than they were simply not set up to serve them? And how do you know these lawsuits weren't really a wakeup call to eHarmony that there was indeed a market to be tapped, and served as an impetus to creating this other gay singles site?

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

Very well. If eHarmony had refused to set up a site to cater to gays, should they have been criminallly liable for discrimination?

I'm not sure eHarmony should have been forced to set up a watermelon stand, but they figured it was the way to go, and are probably going to make some coin on it.

I can agree with that. I think money talks quite loudly for buisnesses. I don't think a lawsuit should have even entered the picture. I don't like the idea of forcing buisness to cater to every possible want. The market will take care of itself in these instances. We are not talking about refusing to hire blacks or rent to them. We talking about a free market where if one video store doesn't carry R rated movies then another will.

[_collegeterrace]

Asking for a daughter's hand in marriage is basically the same, just much closer nit. And was he not refused by some???

Joseph didn't run to the government to force those who refused to reconsider.

That's because he thought that he was above the law.

And when he thought the will of the people might over take him, he broke the laws by burning a publishing press.

The will of the people finally won over in the end by putting a cap in his ass.