e HARM-ony dot commies

November 21, 2008

SHARE

I’ve been shaking my head over this one since the story came out this week, wondering why eharmony.com, a company started by a devout Christian counselor, must now provide matches for same sex couples. (Agreement here)
I wondered how it came to be that a company doing business as a dating service to match men with women suddenly had to accommodate same sex couples. How is that business plan inherently discriminatory?
Well, the short answer is it’s not. But what the claimant asserted was that the eharmony business plan, it’s very way of doing business, was discriminatory against gays under New Jersey law. A similar claim is underway in California. What’s odd is that the decision sets up a separate company to accommodate gays. Isn’t that Plessy v Ferguson, separate but equal territory? No matter, I suppose. I certainly don’t think being gay should be a specially protected lifestyle. It’s certainly not in any way similar to racial differences. I digress, however.
It probably didn’t go unnoticed by eharmony that the gay lobby in Cali decided that if they couldn’t pound the law after losing the election, they’d pound the old lady with the cross. Who needs that sort of distraction and bad PR? So they capitulated. This is a horrible decision by the company. This was a shake down worthy of Rainbow Push/Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton. As Michelle Malkin puts it today–and she’s right–,

This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a rib-eye, or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. But rather than defend the persecuted business, the New Jersey attorney general intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model.

Here’s the rest of her column on it.

At the Wall Street Journal law blog here:

In what seems like a novel claim to our ears, the Garden State asserted that eHarmony violated the state’s Law Against Discrimination by not offering a same-sex matching service. New Jersey got involved following a complaint by Eric McKinley, a gay match-seeker in the state.

McKinley won his match. It won’t be long before heterosexual folks will be suing gay dating web sites to match them with opposite sex folks. Then what have you accomplished? Nada.
So the gay lobby wins a battle against a Christian based company and the rest of us can see plainly that this is part of a concerted effort to “normalize” gay behavior. (See NJ AG statement here)When the pre-election prop 8 campaign was underway, traditional marriage proponents warned there would be an even bigger effort by the gay lobby to force their lifestyle on the rest of society through curricula in schools and who knows what if the measure didn’t pass. The gay lobby called them nutters. Those traditional marriage folks? Yeah, they were right.
There’s an agenda, it doesn’t have to make sense, it certainly doesn’t have to be right, gay activists will push their lifestyle on everyone else and they won’t stop until they’re done–even if they have to take out an older lady with a cross, a man who simply wanted to match men and women in a Christian based business plan, or obliterate the biological, sociological, anthropological, theoretical, theological underpinnings that support the idea that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com