Friday, June 1, 2007

Woman Seeks Opportunity to Meet Other Women, Sues

There’s an AP story out of Los Angeles today about a woman suing because they don’t provide their dating service for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Here’s a link to the story:

Linda Carlson said she tried to use the Internet site in February to meet a woman but could not based on her sexual orientation. When Carlson wrote to eHarmony to complain, the company refused to change its policy, according to the lawsuit filed on her behalf in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

"Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age," Carlson said in a statement.

The company denied the allegation, saying:

The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages...Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future, it's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted.

This isn’t about lesbians, gays and bi-sexuals being deprived of opportunities to meet similarly oriented people. If you Google "women meeting women" you’ll find 162 million entries. That’s an awful lot of "opportunities". There is no shortage of companies and websites willing to provide the service that Linda Carlson says she is seeking and being deprived of. This is more about trying to force your own standards on the world and making it conform to your narrow view of how it should perceive you. This isn’t in any way, shape or form similar to making colored people go to the back of the bus. It’s more like suing McDonald’s because they don’t serve pizza. And, I suspect, there are very deep pockets behind this ridiculous litigation. A sexual encounter is not exactly the kind of "opportunity" Linda Carlson is looking for.

I haven't actually checked this out; I'm just wondering if there are any services that cater exclusively to gay and lesbians, and if that isn't a problem, why isn't it? Is there some kind of double standard at work here?

No comments: