eHarmony Gay Shakedown a Success - What's next, [CENSORED]?

N

nintendokid

CAGiversary!
Feedback
23 (100%)
News link HERE

eHarmony, a private business catered to a specified group, heterosexuals, has been FORCED into providing services to homosexuals. I don't want political analysis. I want real, honest discussion. I want to know if gays or those who support gay marriage actually believe that bullying a private business to cater to your needs is "right".

Personally, I'm not happy with this. If people are going after private businesses, who is to say that they won't come after private property and individuals? The fact that eHarmony is run on the internet, which I thought until today was a "free market", makes this even worse. This is not about gay rights or discrimination. This is about forcing the policies and lifestyle of gays down our throats as the norm.

I know that there has to be gays out there who think this is going too far (yes, HEX, intelligent gays, ain't that a shocker). This may also push people to question the validity of the gay rights movement. I know I'm not the only person questioning how gay rights has a priority over an individual's right to run his/her private business.

I bet these chicken-shit gays won't even go after the black dating sites just like they won't go after the black churches. That's the truth. They voted 70% for Prop 8. If gays want "rights", wouldn't it make sense to go after the group that voted against you the most? Obviously not, because the agenda is not acceptance. The agenda is hostile integration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Serious response incoming.

After my biology lab.

Maybe.

EDIT: Then again, nobody ever fucking reads my serious responses. Either what I write makes far less sense than I think it does, or people would much rather just flame/complain about getting flamed than actually fucking read something.
 
[quote name='evanft']You're a piece of fucking shit. Ignored.[/quote]

Awesome counter-argument!

EDIT: And kirin, it doesn't matter what columnist I choose to put up. It doesn't change the subject at all even if Krusty the Clown wrote it.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Serious response incoming.

After my biology lab.

Maybe.

EDIT: Then again, nobody ever fucking reads my serious responses. Either what I write makes far less sense than I think it does, or people would much rather just flame/complain about getting flamed than actually fucking read something.[/quote]

Hey, I want to hear your response. I don't care if it's coming from the left or right, as long as it's honest.
 
Wait so the only intelligent gay people are the ones who agree with you? You're even more pigheaded than I thought. :rofl:

As for the topic at hand, I wouldn't expect a dating website that caters to homosexuals be forced to accept heterosexuals, even if it is stupid to exclude people. Also, wtf is with Xbox Live in the title? Last time I looked microsoft could give a shit about sexual orientation.

[quote name='nintendokid']News link HERE

eHarmony, a private business catered to a specified group, heterosexuals, has been FORCED into providing services to homosexuals. I don't want political analysis. I want real, honest discussion. I want to know if gays or those who support gay marriage actually believe that bullying a private business to cater to your needs is "right".

Personally, I'm not happy with this. If people are going after private businesses, who is to say that they won't come after private property and individuals? The fact that eHarmony is run on the internet, which I thought until today was a "free market", makes this even worse. This is not about gay rights or discrimination. This is about forcing the policies and lifestyle of gays down our throats as the norm.

I know that there has to be gays out there who think this is going too far (yes, HEX, intelligent gays, ain't that a shocker). This may also push people to question the validity of the gay rights movement. I know I'm not the only person questioning how gay rights has a priority over an individual's right to run his/her private business.

I bet these chicken-shit gays won't even go after the black dating sites just like they won't go after the black churches. That's the truth. They voted 70% for Prop 8. If gays want "rights", wouldn't it make sense to go after the group that voted against you the most? Obviously not, because the agenda is not acceptance. The agenda is hostile integration.[/quote]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, let's be honest, it's not like people like you would ever grant them "acceptance" anyway. That being said, I don't think that it's fair that they have to accept gays. It's probably in poor taste that they don't accept them, but whatever. I also didn't know that it was a Christian based website. Weird.

Also, what Hex said above. Take the xbox live thing out of your title, it doesn't make any sense.
 
What's next, AOL? What's next, lawnmowers? What's next, grocery stores?


It really is like going to, say, Best Buy and demanding that they now sell furniture, too. And winning the argument.

But to say it reflects all gay people is as ignorant as assuming xbox live has anything to do with this. It was one guy.
 
[quote name='nintendokid']Awesome counter-argument!

EDIT: And kirin, it doesn't matter what columnist I choose to put up. It doesn't change the subject at all even if Krusty the Clown wrote it.[/QUOTE]

Dude, you have to *earn* the right to receive a counter-argument. With phrases like "chicken-shit gays," nobody is going to respond to your hate-filled bullshit seriously.

Though if you'd like us to truly "force the lifestyle of gays down your throat," I'm sure lilboo would be happy to assist.
 
Lots of stupidity in the post, but I do agree that private businesses should not be forced to cater to gays or any specific group of people.

Public/government businesses, offices etc. should be open to every race, gender, ethnicity, religious group, sexual preference etc., but private businesses should be able to do what they want IMO.

Hopefully places that choose to discriminate would simply go out of business as people wouldn't give them their business.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
eHarmony had an easy way out of this - Dont do business in New Jersey. They have a thing on the books about discrimination.

But they wanted the money, and thus have to abide by the current law.

The black thing on prop 8 is really misleading as well. It was a generational vote. Younger blacks voted against it, old voted for it. More old than young voted. Same holds true for the other races. It wouldve passed at an even higher margin had the vote been 4 or 8 years ago. Thats why singling blacks out is nonsense. If the majority of the many millions of dollars that went into prop 8 came from specifically black churches instead of the Mormons, you better believe they'd be protested. The protests arent targeting the voters, they are targeting the funding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='nintendokid']News link HERE

eHarmony, a private business catered to a specified group, heterosexuals, has been FORCED into providing services to homosexuals. I don't want political analysis. I want real, honest discussion. I want to know if gays or those who support gay marriage actually believe that bullying a private business to cater to your needs is "right".

Personally, I'm not happy with this. If people are going after private businesses, who is to say that they won't come after private property and individuals? The fact that eHarmony is run on the internet, which I thought until today was a "free market", makes this even worse. This is not about gay rights or discrimination. This is about forcing the policies and lifestyle of gays down our throats as the norm.

I know that there has to be gays out there who think this is going too far (yes, HEX, intelligent gays, ain't that a shocker). This may also push people to question the validity of the gay rights movement. I know I'm not the only person questioning how gay rights has a priority over an individual's right to run his/her private business.

I bet these chicken-shit gays won't even go after the black dating sites just like they won't go after the black churches. That's the truth. They voted 70% for Prop 8. If gays want "rights", wouldn't it make sense to go after the group that voted against you the most? Obviously not, because the agenda is not acceptance. The agenda is hostile integration.[/QUOTE]
Real, honest discussion does not involve namecalling and hatebaiting (chickenshit gays, woo!).

As far as honest discussion goes, it might be a private company but they perform a public service. They also receive funding from publicly traded companies and operate in the public sector, so yeah - discrimination ain't cool.
 
Ya know, I kinda agree with the dingbat, hateful, bigot that the OP is. Not really with his mentality, but I see nothing wrong, per se, in a "straight only" kind of dating website. If gay, black, christian, latino, asian, etc, dating sites exist..well, I see nothing wrong with a Breeder site ;)
 
[quote name='lilboo']Ya know, I kinda agree with the dingbat, hateful, bigot that the OP is. Not really with his mentality, but I see nothing wrong, per se, in a "straight only" kind of dating website. If gay, black, christian, latino, asian, etc, dating sites exist..well, I see nothing wrong with a Breeder site ;)[/quote]

There's Latino only dating sites?

Have you seen those chicks they got on Sabado Gigante.........:drool:

Damn.
 
An individual sued them, not the entire gay population.

If they were breaking New Jersey law, then why are you saying "if gay people want to have a dating service then they should go to one that offers it" rather than "if eHarmony wants to discriminate in ways that are against the law then they should go to a state in which it isn't"?
 
I agree with the OP that they shouldn't have been forced. They are a private business, and they have the right to cater to who they want to.


That being said, I don't agree with his ridiculous anti-homosexual-ness.

[quote name='benjamouth']*some point in the past*
Gay Person - "Hey Dude, that shirt doesn't really go with those pants"
Nintendokid - "And so it begins"[/QUOTE]

Nice.
 
[quote name='benjamouth']*some point in the past*
Gay Person - "Hey Dude, that shirt doesn't really go with those pants"
Nintendokid - "And so it begins"[/quote]


:rofl:
 
I totally agree. Why should a private business have to cater to anybody's needs? They make their own rules, and they don't need to offer services to gays if they don't want to.
 
Didn't the article say they have to open a NEW site for Homosexuals? Whats the difference then? E-Harmony will make a crap-ton more money on advertising. Everybody wins.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I totally agree. Why should a private business have to cater to anybody's needs? They make their own rules, and they don't need to offer services to gays if they don't want to.[/quote]
Except they dont make their own rules. If you set up shop in this country, you're going to have to deal with various government standards/regulations on your products and services. You may have to build a ramp for wheelchairs at the front of your store. In many places you cant allow smoking inside your own building. And in New Jersey, they were in violation of some discrimination statute.
 
If they were that opposed to it then they would have just stayed out of New Jersey, since this seems like more of a New Jersey rule thing.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']If you set up shop in this country, you're going to have to deal with various government standards/regulations on your products and services. You may have to build a ramp for wheelchairs at the front of your store.[/quote]

Imposing a ramp rule for businesses is perfectly acceptable because handicap individuals just want to be able to get to your services. For example, restaurants serve food; one does not need to be physically fit or have four limbs to eat food. Clothing stores sell clothes - people in wheelchair or using walking canes can still wear the very same clothes that physically fit individuals wear. Which brings me to my next point..

What if handicap people decide to sue Kohl's because they don't offer a section for handicap - pants with one leg inseam shorter or shirts with only right or left open sleeve? Should the whole clothing industry, from the manufacturers to the retailers, have to enforce a handicap overhaul? I bet Benjamouth and Chase would say yes.

The big question is: is eHarmony being asked to build a ramp, or carry one-legged pants and single sleeve shirts?

In my opinion, it is the latter.
 
[quote name='JJSP']Real, honest discussion does not involve namecalling and hatebaiting (chickenshit gays, woo!).

As far as honest discussion goes, it might be a private company but they perform a public service. They also receive funding from publicly traded companies and operate in the public sector, so yeah - discrimination ain't cool.[/quote]

If eharmony is providing a public service than so are Walmart, Circuit City, Joe's Pizza Shop, Image Nail Salon, Comcast Cable, and every other company in the country. eharmony probably charges somewhere in the neighborhood of $35-50 a month for a membership. They provide a "service" for the purpose of turning a profit, nothing more, nothing less.

Note: I don't really care either way. Though I may try to see if I can force my local movie theater to show porn on weekends.
 
[quote name='nintendokid']Imposing a ramp rule for businesses is perfectly acceptable because handicap individuals just want to be able to get to your services. For example, restaurants serve food; one does not need to be physically fit or have four limbs to eat food. Clothing stores sell clothes - people in wheelchair or using walking canes can still wear the very same clothes that physically fit individuals wear. Which brings me to my next point..

What if handicap people decide to sue Kohl's because they don't offer a section for handicap - pants with one leg inseam shorter or shirts with only right or left open sleeve? Should the whole clothing industry, from the manufacturers to the retailers, have to enforce a handicap overhaul? I bet Benjamouth and Chase would say yes.

The big question is: is eHarmony being asked to build a ramp, or carry one-legged pants and single sleeve shirts?

In my opinion, it is the latter.[/quote]

It doesn't matter. If they were breaking the law then they were breaking the law, their choice was either to comply with the law or stop selling their product.

He wasn't suing them because he spilled their coffee on himself and it burnt him (though I know that case itself was more complicated than that). He sued them based on an anti-discimination law that they were apparently breaking. I don't know the details of the law or this case, but if they were breaking the law then that's their problem.
 
[quote name='SpazX']He wasn't suing them because he spilled their coffee on himself and it burnt him (though I know that case itself was more complicated than that). He sued them based on an anti-discimination law that they were apparently breaking. I don't know the details of the law or this case, but if they were breaking the law then that's their problem.[/quote]

Yes, but it's his opinion that the dry cleaner should have had the suit ready by 2 and since it wasn't, then at least three presses should be provided.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']Yes, but it's his opinion that the dry cleaner should have had the suit ready by 2 and since it wasn't, then at least three presses should be provided.[/quote]

I don't care about any of that extra shit, that's just general suing greed. The dude might be a total dick, but that doesn't change the basis of the suit (not the clothing metaphor). When nintendodouche talks about it being a private business and whatever and so the guy should have gone to somebody else for a product they weren't selling then he's ignoring the fact that the private business was breaking the law.
 
OP, your big problem is making generalizations about the movement for equal rights based on the actions of a single guy (the douche that sued eHarmony).

This always happens, though -- in an attempt to give a minority equal rights, or protect a controversial right, certain people take it too far. I don't support the ruling, I'm sure many people don't... I'm sure eHarmony will appeal and win in a higher court. Just chill. This is all part of the process. It's temporary.
 
Two pages for such a non-story.

NintendoKid - you get extra Newt Gingrich points for working the ubiquitous "WAT NEXT marriage to box turtles??!? lolz" arguement into the mix.
 
Ok as much as I don't like discrimination it's a private business. I'm fervently opposed to the smoking bans for businesses. They infuriate me. I said what it is too, at least here, it's about bringing your family into a bar. It's a fucking bar, it's not meant for families unless you're Chili's or Applebee's or a few others.

Otherwise when I go to a bar I wanna smell cigarette smoke, possibly cheap beer and that's about it. Guess what happened? Because of this stupid law some private businesses were put in jeopardy in staying in business but who cares right Applebee's? Chili's?

Now Nintendo you really have issues with Gay's. It seems you think they're under your bed and out to get you. Well you could be a closeted homosexual too. If you're scared we can always have our resident Lesbian strap on a dildo and peg you if she wants to. I think deflowering you that way might be better then a Genetic Guy doing it.
Seriously man get over it. We have a caller on a radio show just like you but his attitude is best described as "The Illegals are coming! The Illegals are coming!" and he thinks they're under his bed too. It's quite amusing because he's hung up on Gay's too.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Now Nintendo you really have issues with Gay's...we can always have our resident Lesbian strap on a dildo and peg you if she wants to.[/quote]

Oh, here we go. I oppose, therefore, I am to be demonized. Let's call nintendokid a closet homo and deflower him now! His heterosexuality must be questioned.

I grew up in Minnesota, land of 10,000 liberals per block. Don't even patronize me.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']This is why people hate Jersey.[/QUOTE]

I thought it was because it was smoggy as hell or a dump for most toxic waste or both.
 
A.) They're a private business operating in the public sector so they have to follow the rules of the public places they operate in.

B.) eHarmony does not state anywhere that it is for heterosexuals only until you figure it out for yourself or hear it/read it elsewhere. That's quasi-misleading.

C.) eHarmony wouldn't have the balls anyway to stand its own ground because blatantly advertising that they don't accept gays would start a shitstorm. Therefore, if they want to protect their reputation and profits, they chose the easy way out.
 
Oh btw it should be of no surprise eHarmony doesn't match gays as the founder is an Evangelical sadly. I mean after you find that out.
edit: Nintendo I'm somewhat serious and joking with you. You seriously have issues man. "Closet homo"? Can you NOT just say "closet gay"? I mean you can tell when someone has issues just by the words they use. Homo is a derogatory term for gay or "Homosexual" if you will. I put the latter in quotes because even using that term might indicate the person has issues. No one frankly uses the term Homosexual anymore except these religious groups it seems. Perhaps it's because they're old, antiquated and their views are out of date. The latter two words in said sentence are my opinion.
 
[quote name='nintendokid']Oh, here we go. I oppose, therefore, I am to be demonized. Let's call nintendokid a closet homo and deflower him now! His heterosexuality must be questioned.

I grew up in Minnesota, land of 10,000 liberals per block. Don't even patronize me.[/quote]

We're just going by the evidence, broseph. Ted Stevens? That one preacher nobody cares about anymore who preached against homosexualiy yet shot up meth and had a good time with some twink from Denver?

The most outspoken against us usually have the most to hide. :D

If he doesn't want to take up that pegging offering, I am so all over that shit right here.
 
[quote name='BigT']Why do like 80% of the posts on this board have a LGBT theme?[/quote]

I counted 5 'LGBT' threads on the first page, each roughly matched in size by a thread regarding another topic (firearms, racism, finance) that is roughly the same size. Methinks you're reading what you want to read.
 
[quote name='BigT']Why do like 80% of the posts on this board have a LGBT theme?[/QUOTE]

Takeover of the Vs. Mode forum is a part of the gay agenda, obviously.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']I counted 5 'LGBT' threads on the first page, each roughly matched in size by a thread regarding another topic (firearms, racism, finance) that is roughly the same size. Methinks you're reading what you want to read.[/quote]

It's called hyperbole...
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Takeover of the Vs. Mode forum is a part of the gay agenda, obviously.[/QUOTE]

Wait until he finds out we've taken over Xbox Live by Spring 2009...and PSN will be OURS no later than Winter 2010. :cool:
 
Do I think this is right? No
Am I surprised? No

Christians have taken a completely unreasonable stance(yourself included nintendokid, remember your childish curb stomping comment?)towards gays and essentially started a war with them. Yes some crazy gay guy or chick would have done this eventually anyways, but there would have been more support of fighting this if you wernt taking away their rights. I know I personally would have been outraged by something like this before you started taking away their rights, now I think its freaking funny as shit and the universe dishing out a little how you like it bitch.
 
Hell then, maybe private companies shouldn't have to hire women, or gays, or blacks. They are private businesses after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top