The "Ridiculous" File
Enter this one in the annals of silly lawsuits -- a man is suing eHarmony for refusing to set him up on a date. eHarmony declined because it has an "unmarrieds only" policy for its site . . . and the man is separated, but not yet divorced. So this crybaby is charging that he was "discriminated against" on account of his marital status.
Is anyone else offended by this ridiculous attempt to manipulate civil rights concepts in order simply to get one's way?
eHarmony is a site for meeting and matching. Sorry to inform the litigant, but even today, society recognizes that married people have no business trying to get dates. He's still married. Marriage is not an immutable status, and the discrimination is reasonable in light of the organization's purpose . . . especially given that it's a somewhat more spiritually oriented site than many of the others, and both those using the site and those running it should be able to do so in accordance with their own beliefs.
Please, Mr. Litigant, put on your big boy pants and knock it off. You'll have plenty of time to date when you're single. There's no invidious discrimination here.
Is anyone else offended by this ridiculous attempt to manipulate civil rights concepts in order simply to get one's way?
eHarmony is a site for meeting and matching. Sorry to inform the litigant, but even today, society recognizes that married people have no business trying to get dates. He's still married. Marriage is not an immutable status, and the discrimination is reasonable in light of the organization's purpose . . . especially given that it's a somewhat more spiritually oriented site than many of the others, and both those using the site and those running it should be able to do so in accordance with their own beliefs.
Please, Mr. Litigant, put on your big boy pants and knock it off. You'll have plenty of time to date when you're single. There's no invidious discrimination here.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:01 PM
2 Comments:
In a way, I can understand his point. The part that hits home for me is the logic that businesses are beholden to someone other than their customers.
I am an enterpreneur. Nothing so makes my blood boil as to adhere to a regulation that is imposed simply because some lobbying group told some politicians to hand down an inanity as law.
If eHarmony decides it's best to exclude the married, regardless of state of marriage, that's their call. To force them to go about its business otherwise is insane, yes. (I'm married fwiw.)
But it's not much less sane than to force "maximum" and "minimum" price controls to gasoline.
Not making that up either: Some Maryland gas stations must toe both a minimum price limit and a maximum price limit. Those who set the limits know nothing about, nor suffer any consequences of, gasoline markets.
We constantly have know-nothing third parties dictating how businesses should run affairs. This dude (hey gals, what a catch he is) is where it gets us.
We can assume Plantiff agreed to the terms of eHarmony when he posted, and that defendant expressly excluded non-singles. Defendant eHarmony presumably has the right to discriminate on the basis of marital status, at least until the Massachusetts Supreme Court weighs in. There is no reason to rely on personal opinions regarding the morality of seeking dates while married in order to dispose of this case. Additionally, plaintiff is free to choose other services that do not discriminate. Plaintiff might recover the fee based on a misunderstanding of the term "married", which is becoming more vague with each passing court case. eHarmony would be wise to give him a refund.
Post a Comment
<< Home