Disharmony: The new tolerance

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 6/7/7 | Debra J. Saunders

[SmithL]

LAST WEEK, a lesbian filed suit against eHarmony.com because the online dating service does not fix up homosexual couples. It is ugly to watch how a group that has been asking straight Americans for tolerance and understanding can turn on a dime, as members seek to punish and shut down those with heterodox opinions. In the Bay Area, it is no secret. Here, tolerance is a one-way street. Equal rights for some mean fewer rights for others.

In February, after the breakup of a 10-year relationship, San Mateo County resident Linda Carlson signed on to eHarmony. As her San Francisco attorney Jeremy Pasternak told me, Carlson was not trolling for a lawsuit, but "legitimately looking for love." When Carlson saw that she could only sign on as "a man seeking a woman" or "a woman seeking a man," she contacted the company in the hope that eHarmony would add a new category: a woman seeking a woman.

Having been rejected, Carlson could have decided to go to a dating site that accommodates lesbians. That would have been the tolerant thing to do. Instead, she filed a lawsuit that charges that eHarmony violates California law by not serving "individuals based solely on their sexual orientation."

Carlson's suit, it should be noted, follows a 2006 suit filed by a lawyer because eHarmony, which boasts that an average of 90 eHarmony members marry each day, rejected him because he was married. But separated. Married and litigious -- what a catch, girls.

Or as a company spokesman noted, "To be criticized for ensuring that we're doing the best job possible is most hurtful to our members."

When I asked why Carlson didn't simply go to another dating service, Pasternak evoked the image of Rosa Parks, noting that "nearly every step in civil rights...

[SmithL]

Posted yesterday from Townhall, but worth a do-over.

[Sherman Logan]

My new tagline: Diversity in theory is the enemy of diversity in practice.

[edcoil]

Does eHarmony hook-up NAMBLA members? It is the responsibility of companies to cater to the exception and not the rule?

Since eHarmony says they hookup members for marriage and gay marriage is not legal in California - is eHarmony suppose to be breaking the law?

[rface]

I am an eHarmony success story

[liberallarry]

It is ugly to watch how a group that has been asking straight Americans for tolerance and understanding can turn on a dime, as members seek to punish and shut down those with heterodox opinions.

This is a surprise? Shouldn't be. It's just normal, everyday, garden-variety human behavior.

[sr4402]

This is a surprise? Shouldn't be. It's just normal, everyday, garden-variety human behavior.

Yes, Sin Greed and avarice rears it's ugly head. Time to pray.

[KingSnorky]

This is just another example of a succussful business being looted by trial lawyers merely because it’s a profitable enterprise.

It will be interesting to see if a court will actually order a company to offer a specific product or service to its customers.

[massgopguy]

Maybe she could meet someone on Rosie O’Donut’s Gay Cruise Line.

[GoBucks2002]

I read an article a couple years ago about the founder of eHarmony. His clinical and professional counseling experience all were with heterosexual couples, therefore, getting people into same-sex relationships is something he has no experience with and does not feel he is qualified to pursue.

The lawsuit makes about as much sense as forcing Victoria's Secret to carry men's underwear, too.

[TrailofTears]

I hope they take this lawsuit and shove it down her throat.

[gcruse]

“It will be interesting to see if a court will actually order a company to offer a specific product or service to its customers.”

Can Taco Bell be forced to offer japaleno knishes because they have no Jewish food on the menu?

[Unam Sanctam]

Given that there are plenty of “gay” dating services, this obviously is not about denial of any “rights”, but about imposing the gay ideology on everyone in society, regardless of their moral views on homosexuality.

[gcruse]

" Equal rights for some mean fewer rights for others."

This bugs me. Was an increase in rights for serfs a diminution of "droits de seigneur"?

I suppose it was. In which case I'd ask Debra, "So what??

[KingSnorky]

>>Can Taco Bell be forced to offer japaleno knishes because they have no Jewish food on the menu?<<

Exactly. And in the wacky world of California, I’m sure the answer is yes.

[BenLurkin]

When I asked why Carlson didn't simply go to another dating service, Pasternak evoked the image of Rosa Parks, noting that "nearly every step in civil rights law, you could have said the same thing."

The late Ms. Parks must be weeping in heaven. When did perversion become a civil right?

[little jeremiah]

Later potential pingout.

[Biblebelter]

It seems like lesbians tend to be an angry mean-spirited in your face group. When I think of lesbians, I think of the ugly mean spirited dyke Rosie O’Donnell. When I think of gay guys, I get better vibes, I think of the Village People and Richard Simmons. It seems the male face of perversion is just a happier face than the female version.

[sasafras]

I liked it so much that I think Ill use it too for awhile - hope thats ok. Gave you credit.

[relictele]

but they've not quite said the right thing, and their underlying tone has riled people up.

There you have it. Thought control is the first and last objective with these people. 'Acceptance' will be enforced at the end of a sword.

In addition to though control, liberals and militant gays are blessed with omniscience - they can read minds and are able to decode the 'underlying tone' of everything said or written.

The plaintiff started out as a sad, lonely outcast and will end up that way - no matter what happens to dating services or web sites. Perhaps eHarmony should threaten to cease all operations in California - that might get more than few people interested in this case.