eHarmony peeved at Chemistry.com's pro-gay ads

Anti Ads

LOVE the Chemistry.com slap at E-Harmony.

And the "reasoning" behind E-harmony's denial of service to queers is specious.

BTW: In NJ, E-Harmony might be running afoul of NJ-LAD (law against discrimination), since they offer their services in the state. Businesses operating in NJ MUST serve all New Jerseyians, not just the non-queer folks.

Some legal eagle might wish to point that fact of life out to these schmucks.

---

by: brat @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 06:08:38 AM CDT

same in CA

You're right, should be exactly the same thing here in California, but haven't heard anything in this direction.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:15:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They are in the clear

E-Harmony allows gay people to sign up and subscribe to their services, but they will only match you with a person of the opposite sex and can thus escape liability under the LAD. If they refused to allow gay people to use their service, that would be actionable. I'll also note that if E-Harmony were to require information on your race and ethnicity for matching to occur and then only match people with a person of the same race and ethnicity, they are still probably be OK under the law because they aren't discriminating against blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc. per se. The law only requires they offer their services equally without regard to race, sex, ethnicity and national origin. It does not require that they don't rely on that information in their services. It a loophole you can fly one of those new huge Airbus airplanes through.

Chemistry.com is going after them the best possible way though, the court of public opinion. And E-Harmony is already responding to being shown as bigots by throwing a tantrum. When that is unsuccessful, maybe then they will change their policy.

---

by: craigkg @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:39:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, technically

If I were their lawyer I would argue that they do offer their services to gay folk. Their service just happens to be matching you up with someone of the opposite sex.

Anybody know if they turn away icky transpeople?

<3 Sam

---

by: Samie D @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:41:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

E-Harmony's Best Defenses

They could counter, "We matched David Gest with Liza Minnelli."  Case closed.

Another defense would be "Then next thing, we'd be expected to match men with goats."  This is often the direction
these matters turn.

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 13:11:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They didn't turn me away

  Though I did not out myself to them.  I was given a 6 mo. subscription for a gift, and filled it out as I could not get money back.

  One thing I did notice when filling out all the questions for finding a match for me, they did not ever ask about political leaning.

  Out of the 40+ plus matches I did respond to, only one was center, all the rest where right wingers.  And he has been a good friend since we met.

 

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 13:54:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I saw that ad 2 weeks ago.

It ran during Heroes. I thought it was great, and I wondered when eHarmony would get pissy. I hope chemistry.com continues to use the ads and ignores the nonsense.

---

by: C Diane @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 08:12:11 AM CDT

You know ...

Just to show the power of advertising to a minority ... I am inclined to try Chemistry.com out, just because of a) direct marketing to gays and lesbians, and b) because they recognised how LGBT people are discriminated against by eHarmony.com.

Course, the fact that I am stagnantly single and not had sex in months might have something to do with it too ... ;)

---

by: Sarah in Chicago @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 09:32:50 AM CDT

i'm not single

but i'm thinking about posting at chemistry.com just to give them business.

seriously, thats the only reason.

i'm sure there are ONLY single heteros registered at eharmony, right???  heteros don't commit adultery, right??  eharmony wouldn't encourage that kind of behavior would they??

 

---

by: Patrick @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 10:10:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But OF COURSE!

I mean, heterosexuals NEVER cheat, that's why "adultery" doesn't exist as a word, and the state of straight marriage is so incredibly strong!

Isn't such a good thing that us icky queers don't have access to that obviously robust and sacred institution?

*throws up in her waste-paper basket*

---

by: Sarah in Chicago @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 10:18:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah I just filled out a profile

not really pinning my hopes on an internet matching site, but it couldn't hurt.

What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?

---

by: Cambridge Kid @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:58:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Warren is an idiot!

For one, our relationships are NOT illegal!  People like him just want them to be so they choose to ignore our relationships. 

Second, if the nut is so hetero, why does he have to research hetero matchmaking?  ANDDD, what makes us so different than heteros when it comes to matchmaking?  His statement as such simply implies that our attraction to each other is somehow so vastly foreign and different that it can't compare to a hetero match.

---

by: callie @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 09:46:20 AM CDT

Now, now

He's probably just confused.  He is a religious right fundie (or he likes to snuggle with them, at least).  He's probably afraid he will have to match up interests like: "fisting," "eating each other's feces," and "destroying the institution of marriage."  Because, you know, gays and lesbians don't have any other interests that are at all similar with those of heterosexuals.

---

by: JoshWatermanMN @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 09:52:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

1 million rejected

  Hey Lanny, look back when McDonalds was claiming how many million served back in the 70s and 80s,  and what the rest of the burger places tried to go after McDonalds for false advertising.

  I bet Chemistry.com is just going to love all the free advertising it is going to recieve.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 09:52:05 AM CDT

good point

and singles are a touchy market.  nobody wants to think that they could be "unfit", gay, straight, or otherwise.

What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?

---

by: Cambridge Kid @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 10:40:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bull

"We're trying to reach the whole world - people of all spiritual orientations, all political philosophies, all racial backgrounds,"

So "the whole world" doesn't include gay people, essentially.

Also, it is not true that they reach people of all spiritual orientations. They do not accept Wiccans, for example. Maybe they don't know what makes Wiccan love work.

The fake inclusiveness reminds me of a speaker I once heard who was urging people of all faiths to unite (presumably behind a conservative agenda). He spoke breathlessly of an experience at the Brooklyn Tabernacle where he saw Catholics and Protestants and Jews all "coming together to worship Jesus". I was laughing for the rest of the week.

Oh, and its really big of him to accept "all racial backgrounds". Big round of applause. How much do you want to bet that only came after a long talk with his lawyers? Does he match couples of multiple races, or just pair both white couples and black couples?

What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?

---

by: Cambridge Kid @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 10:55:35 AM CDT

Judging from e-Harmony's Commercials

Couples are unmistakeably black, white and Asian, paired
off perfectly as if ready to board Noah's Ark.  Each member of the couple looks alarmingly similar to the other, and Saturday Night Live did a terrific take-off on that a couple of years back.  They'd have a male cast member meet his perfect match, really himself in drag, and did this a few times to form one of those nauseating E-H commercials.  The announcer said, "E-Harmony, perfectly identical except opposite sex organs."  It reminds me, not to digress... how on the old variety shows, where they had dancing boys and girls, how they had to be matched up racially.

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:14:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Haha

Its all coming together now.


What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?

---

by: Cambridge Kid @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 11:56:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

*nods*

I completely noticed that too ... invariably white couples, but when minorities did turn up, there was NO interracial dating going on at all, it was two-by-two.

---

by: Sarah in Chicago @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:26:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

African Americans have noticed these things for years...

I remember one show which kept the "negro" couple from doing a square dance so they couldn't touch the white dancers.  You never saw black people using soap in ads, and swimming pools were cemented over to prevent the heavily chlorined water from spreading cooties.

I've noticed advertising, fashion, and other things are suffering from fundie white-washing.  They are drunk with power.

---

by: gnushell @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 17:31:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Segregated Square Dancers

Gnushell, do you mean an old cornball episode of "The Lucy Show"???  I have it on DVD, I got it at the 99c store.  I can't believe anybody else saw it!!

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

---

by: Chadster @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 20:14:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

tiny violin time

Yep, tiny violin time for eHarmony....boo hoo  (and great for People magazine for not even sniffing the bait)

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:18:25 PM CDT

Chemistry rejects 6.2 billion people

I feel what some of you feel.

I tried to sign up to Chemistry.com last Thursday and I can't do it. Chemistry.com rejects those residing outside the United States -- that's the earth population minus 300 million. What irony.

http://www.pinoy.ca/...

This is just my opinion: eH is a het site, like Gay.com is a LGBT site, the JCC a jewish establishment and the YWCA a women's membership movement -- with apologies to those they've chosen to deny their service. 

---

by: eHarmony Blog @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 13:13:26 PM CDT

Fine

Then eHarmony can run ads outside of the United States that Chemistry.com will reject them.  Big whoop.  And Chemistry.com can continue their brilliant ad.

---

by: JoshWatermanMN @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 13:20:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

eH is a het site

Well, as such, what the hell business does it have trying to suppress another company's advertisements which point out that fact?  Some people may choose to patronize more inclusive services and it's their right to do so.  It would seem to be a competitor's right to distribute information explaining how they differ from the alternative.

So why the histrionic litigious response?  If eH wants to be a het site, fine, power to them.  Some of us reasonably (and probably correctly) believe that that decision is driven by supersitious religious bigotry.  Why is eH trying to crush people's ability to talk about it?

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 13:27:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

spot on, Callie

I think EH should proudly advertise its heterocentrism and let the profit chips fall where they may instead of the legal bellyaching. It has also made it pretty clear that "perfect matches" only result when couplings are racially exclusive, and should market that aspect of its services as well.

As with most bigoted organizations, they don't like it when their supremacist slips are showing.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 13:31:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Since callie's one of my favorite commenters...

...I'll take that as a compliment.  We do agree often, but we really are different people.  :-)

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 13:40:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Juggling windows

Geez, that's so ridiculous, Sportin' Life. Many apologies for that flubb-o-rama. LOL. Yes, 3 hours sleep and another hours on end at the hospital have killed a lot of brain cells lately.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 19:13:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

airing dirty little secrets...how unamerican

E Harmony jump up our queer a$$es.

---

by: underbear1 @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 14:02:21 PM CDT

well...

This add reminds me of the (hard)time when I was desperately looking for a "proof" that I was not a lesbian.I went on a french chemistry.com equivalent (meetic.com) and it ended the same way as it did here :"still gay".

---

by: sugarcane @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 15:14:02 PM CDT

Hold On Everyone

At last count, over 2,000 gay hook-up sites avail OVER and ABOVE the hundreds of mixed-sex sites. And eHarmony's exclusions are an obsession? Why? I don't see any straights (much less women) on any of the GAY hook-up sites? Maybe they have better tastes? Why aren't they outraged? Excluded from the Gay Boolean Tree does not rile them?

Frankly, this issue exposes GAY HYPOCRISY. "LET US IN, but YOU STAY OUT." Not every business enterprise need cater to every taste, or would not straights be dawning towels and haunting gay sex clubs? Nothing wrong with niche marketing. It's what gay bars and sex clubs are and have been all about for decades! Diversity. Not uniformity. Inclusion in the "marketplace of sex" seems a rather odd battle cry for those who do sex differently and WANT niches.

If NO other venue, NO other means, availed for "hook-ups," perhaps I'd have some regard for this appalling whining and pining. But Gay Boolean Trees abound. In fact, way too many of them avail. How many does one need? So some are bitching that one Boolean Tree has niched gays out? How many have gay Boolean Trees have niched straights out? Want a ledger? Next, the whiners will demand "equal opportunity partners" and "no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,  preference, or tastes." Inclusion only. Really? In affairs of sexual intimacy?

Frankly, Chemistry.com does a GREAT marketing job at exploiting eHarmony's niche, which probably drives more straights to the exclusive eHarmony than drives mix-sex and gays to Chemistry.com (reverse psychology, folks). If it appeals to your sensibilities, then spend your time and money "hooking-up" at Chemistry's Boolean Tree, rather than the thousands of other alternatives.

But since no milk has been spilled, why all the crying? They're thousands of Boolean Trees from which gays can hang,  and only gays, and you're obsessed that some enterprise chooses to market to different markets? We can be hypocrites and down-right clueless. Case in point.

---

by: The Gay Species @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 15:20:26 PM CDT

Who's Crying?

The issue is not that eHarmony doesn't accept gay people, it's that it makes a big deal to Chemistry.com pointing out that fact.  eHarmony could a)ignore the ad--since they don't offer service to gays and lesbians, what business are they losing or b)offer service to gays and lesbians--there is certainly the market for it.  In other words, put up and shut up.

Additionally, straight people can go into gay bars to have a drink, hang out with friends, etc any time they want, and they do. Only time it becomes an issue is when they start making asses of themselves and harrassing the gay clientele.
(I stopped going to the Gay 90s in Minneapolis because too many Het Suburban types came to gawk at the drag show, and too many of them went around staring at the gay guys like we were zoo animals).

Lastly, when one signs up for gay.com, "Straight" is accepted as a sexual orientatoion.  In the profile searches, one can search for males, females, male to female transfolk or female to male transfolk.  Theoretically, straight people COULD use gay.com.

---

by: JoshWatermanMN @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 15:32:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So?

"Theoretically, straight people COULD use gay.com."

Yeah, but why would they? No one is that desperate or confused.

Market segmentation is allowed in a FREE, OPEN, PLURALISTIC society with a guarantee of the right to associate freely. Apparently, such freedoms to associate with others freely ANNOYS some. They want to RULE.

Frankly, it means I cannot be FORCED into other's company, NOR they into mine. Maybe it's an old liberal value, but the alternative is worse. Much worse. Just because I thrill at our diversity does not mean I have to give every diversity "equal time." I'm not that masochistic.

---

by: The Gay Species @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 16:07:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Read the posts above

Nobody is trying to FORCE eHarmony to accept gay people, just to be truthful about not accepting them.

If eHarmony wants to market themselves as a place for straight, conservative, Christians to meet people of the same race, they can go right on ahead. That is basically what they used to do. Instead they are trying to cash in on a bigger clientele by marketing themselves as a dating service for people who are serious about a strong relationship. Consumers might like to be informed who they consider to be "marriage material"

Chemistry.com is just contrasting its policies with those of its competitor. Instead of being truthful or leaving it to the choice of consumers, eHarmony is trying to shut them up in court.

Nobody is trying to shut eHarmony down, so why is eHarmony trying to take out Chemistry.com? Who is a better example of "free choice"?

What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?

---

by: Cambridge Kid @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 16:36:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Private/Public

What? Most of the posts are citing "legal" challenges to eHarmony's discriminatory practices. Civil Rights Act of 1964, all over again. Are "hook-up" sites for sex a "public accommodation?" Are merchants required to serve EVERY need? See, below, the Bathhouse dilemma.

There is NO issue here. Except the WILL to IMPOSE uniformity in the marketplace of diversity.

It's one thing to advocate equality, another to decry discrimination, but to CONFLATE the two in precisely the error here. Discrimination in PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS, EMPLOYMENT, HOUSING, LAWS, BENEFITS, are to be deplored. EQUALITY before the law, due process, protections, and in our humanity is guaranteed. These are PUBLIC.

But forced conformity and accommodation in PRIVATE MATTERS of PERSONAL PURSUITS, whether in gay bathhouses, hook-up sites, bars, bedrooms, clubs, friendships, or whatever is NOT GUARANTEED, as it is OPPOSED by our right to FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION. These are PRIVATE.

If a vendor targets a market at the exclusion of another, the freedom of exchange and association is still guaranteed. coercive social-engineers notwithstanding. If the government extends "marriage franchises" to some, but not others, that's UNEQUAL and DISCRIMINATION and to be decried. The divide is PRIVATE/PUBLIC. It's a divide of important significance. Let's keep it.

---

by: The Gay Species @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 17:02:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A Case In Point

I'm reminded of a relevant incident several decades ago. A battalion of young, sexy, adventurous women sought entrance into one of San Francisco's most infamous gay bathhouse. ENTRANCE DENIED. Can't, they responded. 1964 Civil Rights Act bars discrimination on the basis of sex. This club is violating our Civil Rights! The CLUB's response was that so many women would change the ambience, make customers uncomfortable, cause them to leave, a loss in revenue. Women's response: Not our problem, it's yours.

The case required adroitness, and received "special pleadings." If the gay bathhouses were "private clubs," they could discriminate against women. But, no membership fee was ever charged, only an admission fee. Therefore, the baths fit the definition of a "public accommodation," no different from a hotelier, and the Civil Rights Act applied. Oops. Those damned laws. Equality in Gay Bathhouses? With women?

Well, there is always a solution to these "problems." The City changed it Charter to specify all "sex clubs as private," by definition, each would have to register as such, and even if no membership fee was required, it was a fait accompli. Therefore the straight clubs could discriminate against the gays, and the gay clubs could discriminate against women, on the very basis of sex, despite the Civil Rights Act, BUT ONLY if it was for "accommodating private sexual activity." Conservatives and Liberals were aghast at the stretch, but gays and their sex clubs were all too happy to invoke a Special Pleading for their exemption from the Civil Rights Act's "technicalities." The Women made their point!

Put that "public accommodation" in your perspective! Some matters are better left to individual discretion, and be careful for what you wish, it may come back to bite in unintended consequences. Else, pull-out your hypocritical special pleadings. But Hypocrisy and Double-Standards are never pretty, no matter who does it.

---

by: The Gay Species @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 15:53:19 PM CDT

Never said anything about special pleadings

I think I heard something about the young women wanting to hit the bathhouse.  I can understand the owner's reluctance--bathhouses are all about gay male sex, and women really don't fit into that scene.  That said, I think he should have let them in anyway.  Some guys would be annoyed, but I bet others would have fun (probably not sexual fun, but who knows)with a change of scene. 

It kind of comes down to my straights using gay.com example--women could use a gay bathhouse, but why would they want to?  It is interesting because similar institutions do not exist (as far as I know) for lesbians or heterosexuals to use. 

---

by: JoshWatermanMN @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 16:12:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let'em in if they can sing...

Legion are the female singers and comedians who have appeared at bathhouses in the old days.

If eHarmony doesn't explicitly exclude gay matching, but still accepts no-refund-allowed gay money, then it deserves what it gets. eH is dumb for fighting this - the Chemistry ad highlights the eH market-segment demographic, namely conservative or conventional-minded het couples, usually religiously inclined. Duh! FREE PUBLICITY FROM YOUR RIVAL. eHarmony probably doesn't want to lose its image as a (theoretically) marriage-minded, "serious" place. It would turn into a Craigslist otherwise, not appreciably different from any other company.

---

by: NancyP @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 16:55:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's Funny

I just got an email from them offering me to "Get your Free Profile and Start Dating today", to which I replied:

No thanks, I'm already in a very happy relationship (24 years this coming October) with my same sex partner.

---

by: whtz @ Mon May 14, 2007 at 20:44:14 PM CDT