ChristianMingle Loses Lawsuit, Will Have to Accommodate Members Looking for Same-Sex Relationships

[TexasTiger 14,070]

So a site intended for people who adhere to a traditional Christian sexual ethic (one of the main reasons it was created), is now forced to facilitate matches that violate that ethic?

Nice. Maybe they should be forced to create a way for people to just hook up for casual sex too so they don't discriminate again Christians that reject that whole "no sex outside of marriage" thing.

What standing does that (commercial) site have to determine that homosexuality violates Christian sexual ethics?

There are plenty of Christians who don't believe that, not to mention Christian homosexuals themselves.

Well hell, while we're at it lets just have them dispense with the pesky Christian belief that Jesus is God? Who are they to say that's a necessary belief to call oneself Christian?

Not sure how that is relevant to violating anyone's civil rights.

The free exercise clause, freedom of association...are those not Constitutional rights also? Or do all rights bow to sexual right Side?

And it continues...

Yes it does, because a certain segment of this society cannot bear having anyone get away with any show of disapproval of the modern sexual ethic. Heaven forbid people just be left alone.

Like a dog with a bone, facts be damned.

[homersapien 12,172]

What a bizarre ruling. It is going to be fun (in a sick way) to see where the Law of Unintended Consequences ends up with rulings like this. A Christian dating site is REQUIRED BY THE COURT to help arrange relationships that violate longstanding and closely held Christian values. It sure seems unconstitutional to me, but I'm certainly no constitutional scholar.

What if they operated a site marketed to white supremacists and refused people of color?

What if there was a similar service only for gay people to meet other gay people to date?

Wait...

Well, if the company was operating such a site and prevented heterosexuals from participating, it would be a similar case.

Which is patently absurd. And for the record, there are dating sites that cater to same sex relationships. And there's nothing wrong with that. The existence of such a thing in no way violates the civil rights of heterosexuals.

No, it's not absurd from a legal standpoint.

The legal premise is that the company is operating a commercial website that is marketed toward a particular group. That doesn't mean the company can arbitrarily refuse business from anyone wanting to use those services based on their sex or sexuality. Or at least that's the legal theory that's being used.

It's not for you or me to simply dismiss such a complaint as being non-discriminatory. It's for the court.

[homersapien 12,172]

So a site intended for people who adhere to a traditional Christian sexual ethic (one of the main reasons it was created), is now forced to facilitate matches that violate that ethic?

Nice. Maybe they should be forced to create a way for people to just hook up for casual sex too so they don't discriminate again Christians that reject that whole "no sex outside of marriage" thing.

What standing does that (commercial) site have to determine that homosexuality violates Christian sexual ethics?

There are plenty of Christians who don't believe that, not to mention Christian homosexuals themselves.

Well hell, while we're at it lets just have them dispense with the pesky Christian belief that Jesus is God? Who are they to say that's a necessary belief to call oneself Christian?

Not sure how that is relevant to violating anyone's civil rights.

The free exercise clause, freedom of association...are those not Constitutional rights also? Or do all rights bow to sexual right Side?

And it continues...

Yes it does, because a certain segment of this society cannot bear having anyone get away with any show of disapproval of the modern sexual ethic. Heaven forbid people just be left alone.

That's a unwarranted generalization that obfuscates the simple facts.

This is about a specific individual(s) - presumably Christians - who were not allowed to participate on a site because the (commercial) owner of the site deemed they were ineligible due to their sexuality. They had a case.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

The entire thing is absurd. if a site wants to market itself, and make itself exclusive to, a certain viewpoint, so be it. That's the great thing about the Internet, anyone can go any craft a site that caters to a certain niche subset of people that they want to. Hence we can have sites that are for black people who want to meet other black people. We can have sites for LBGT people to meet other LBGT people. And they can and should be able to be exclusive. This does no actual harm to anyone so long as the government or some sort of unseen monopoly prevents differing viewpoints from having their own space.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

The entire thing is absurd. if a site wants to market itself, and make itself exclusive to, a certain viewpoint, so be it. That's the great thing about the Internet, anyone can go any craft a site that caters to a certain niche subset of people that they want to. Hence we can have sites that are for black people who want to meet other black people. We can have sites for LBGT people to meet other LBGT people. And they can and should be able to be exclusive. This does no actual harm to anyone so long as the government or some sort of unseen monopoly prevents differing viewpoints from having their own space.

But the whole thread started from a misleading article pushing a point of view.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

What point of view was the article pushing?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb. ;)/>

Humor me. What point of view do you believe the article was pushing?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb. ;)/>

Humor me. What point of view do you believe the article was pushing?

The original post got the story wrong. The judge didn't rule against the company, he approved a proposed settlement by a business that doesn't appear to have a clear religious orientation. Perhaps they decided it was better for business in CA. They could have contested, and IF they got an adverse ruling, taken it to Federal Court if they believed they had religious grounds. Now, you usually care if a thread is started on a false premise, except...when you don't. And that's when it supports one of your favorite narratives. So, no, I won't play further. When you get back to having honest meaningful discussion, let me know.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

IMHO, a religious organization/institution is free to discriminate. However, a business is not.

Are our religious freedoms based upon our rights to worship as we see fit or, our rights to impose, even promote, our beliefs throughout society?

Is homosexuality a sin? Is condoning homosexuality in any way a sin? Is attempting to marginalize/demonize/dehumanize homosexuals a sin?

[TitanTiger 21,064]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb. ;)/>

Humor me. What point of view do you believe the article was pushing?

The original post got the story wrong. The judge didn't rule against the company, he approved a proposed settlement by a business that doesn't appear to have a clear religious orientation. Perhaps they decided it was better for business in CA. They could have contested, and IF they got an adverse ruling, taken it to Federal Court if they believed they had religious grounds. Now, you usually care if a thread is started on a false premise, except...when you don't. And that's when it supports one of your favorite narratives. So, no, I won't play further. When you get back to having honest meaningful discussion, let me know.

You said the original article was misleading and pushed a certain point of view. Is this a view you still hold? And if so, I'm still curious as to what point of view you think the original article was pushing.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

IMHO, a religious organization/institution is free to discriminate. However, a business is not.

Are our religious freedoms based upon our rights to worship as we see fit or, our rights to impose, even promote, our beliefs throughout society?

Is homosexuality a sin? Is condoning homosexuality in any way a sin? Is attempting to marginalize/demonize/dehumanize homosexuals a sin?

I think that not every business should be treated the exact same way. One of the great things about the internet is the ability for anyone to find sites and communities that cater to their views. That ability for people to find that like-minded individuals even if they don't live in a physical community with such people is an amazing thing. So I simply don't have a problem with any of these sites "discriminating" in this fashion. Let there be Jewish, Catholic, Christian, Muslim, African-American, Hispanic, gay, trans, and yes even white supremacist dating sites without anyone feeling the need to accommodate everyone that doesn't fit within those parameters. Maybe I'd feel differently if there were only one outlet for this sort of thing but there are dozens if not hundreds. Why can't we all just leave each other alone?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb. ;)/>

Humor me. What point of view do you believe the article was pushing?

The original post got the story wrong. The judge didn't rule against the company, he approved a proposed settlement by a business that doesn't appear to have a clear religious orientation. Perhaps they decided it was better for business in CA. They could have contested, and IF they got an adverse ruling, taken it to Federal Court if they believed they had religious grounds. Now, you usually care if a thread is started on a false premise, except...when you don't. And that's when it supports one of your favorite narratives. So, no, I won't play further. When you get back to having honest meaningful discussion, let me know.

You said the original article was misleading and pushed a certain point of view. Is this a view you still hold? And if so, I'm still curious as to what point of view you think the original article was pushing.

It was slanted to support the argument you ran with.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

So a site intended for people who adhere to a traditional Christian sexual ethic (one of the main reasons it was created), is now forced to facilitate matches that violate that ethic?

Nice. Maybe they should be forced to create a way for people to just hook up for casual sex too so they don't discriminate again Christians that reject that whole "no sex outside of marriage" thing.

Site promoting Christian ethic FORCED to violate its ethics.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb. ;)/>

Humor me. What point of view do you believe the article was pushing?

The original post got the story wrong. The judge didn't rule against the company, he approved a proposed settlement by a business that doesn't appear to have a clear religious orientation. Perhaps they decided it was better for business in CA. They could have contested, and IF they got an adverse ruling, taken it to Federal Court if they believed they had religious grounds. Now, you usually care if a thread is started on a false premise, except...when you don't. And that's when it supports one of your favorite narratives. So, no, I won't play further. When you get back to having honest meaningful discussion, let me know.

You said the original article was misleading and pushed a certain point of view. Is this a view you still hold? And if so, I'm still curious as to what point of view you think the original article was pushing.

It was slanted to support the argument you ran with.

I find it interesting that you think a site called The New Civil Rights Movement, which caters to "delivering news and opinion dedicated to the wide interests of the progressive and LGBT communities" and is a "winner of a 2014 GLAAD Media Award" would slant the story to support the argument I ran with.

I think if anyone was reading things in a slanted way here, it was you.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb. ;)/>

Humor me. What point of view do you believe the article was pushing?

The original post got the story wrong. The judge didn't rule against the company, he approved a proposed settlement by a business that doesn't appear to have a clear religious orientation. Perhaps they decided it was better for business in CA. They could have contested, and IF they got an adverse ruling, taken it to Federal Court if they believed they had religious grounds. Now, you usually care if a thread is started on a false premise, except...when you don't. And that's when it supports one of your favorite narratives. So, no, I won't play further. When you get back to having honest meaningful discussion, let me know.

You said the original article was misleading and pushed a certain point of view. Is this a view you still hold? And if so, I'm still curious as to what point of view you think the original article was pushing.

It was slanted to support the argument you ran with.

I find it interesting that you think a site called The New Civil Rights Movement, which caters to "delivering news and opinion dedicated to the wide interests of the progressive and LGBT communities" and is a "winner of a 2014 GLAAD Media Award" would slant the story to support the argument I ran with.

I think if anyone was reading things in a slanted way here, it was you.

The story was slanted. What folks think of that slant depends on the perspective they bring to it. They have an agenda that entities can't do what this site was doing and they like that view. You abhor that view. The dishonest slant is the same.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb. ;)/>

Humor me. What point of view do you believe the article was pushing?

The original post got the story wrong. The judge didn't rule against the company, he approved a proposed settlement by a business that doesn't appear to have a clear religious orientation. Perhaps they decided it was better for business in CA. They could have contested, and IF they got an adverse ruling, taken it to Federal Court if they believed they had religious grounds. Now, you usually care if a thread is started on a false premise, except...when you don't. And that's when it supports one of your favorite narratives. So, no, I won't play further. When you get back to having honest meaningful discussion, let me know.

You said the original article was misleading and pushed a certain point of view. Is this a view you still hold? And if so, I'm still curious as to what point of view you think the original article was pushing.

It was slanted to support the argument you ran with.

I find it interesting that you think a site called The New Civil Rights Movement, which caters to "delivering news and opinion dedicated to the wide interests of the progressive and LGBT communities" and is a "winner of a 2014 GLAAD Media Award" would slant the story to support the argument I ran with.

I think if anyone was reading things in a slanted way here, it was you.

The story was slanted. What folks think of that slant depends on the perspective they bring to it. They have an agenda that entities can't do what this site was doing and they like that view. You abhor that view. The dishonest slant is the same.

The story was in error. That's different than slanting it.

Do you think the act of bringing a lawsuit against someone has any coercive power in and of itself?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb. ;)/>

Humor me. What point of view do you believe the article was pushing?

The original post got the story wrong. The judge didn't rule against the company, he approved a proposed settlement by a business that doesn't appear to have a clear religious orientation. Perhaps they decided it was better for business in CA. They could have contested, and IF they got an adverse ruling, taken it to Federal Court if they believed they had religious grounds. Now, you usually care if a thread is started on a false premise, except...when you don't. And that's when it supports one of your favorite narratives. So, no, I won't play further. When you get back to having honest meaningful discussion, let me know.

You said the original article was misleading and pushed a certain point of view. Is this a view you still hold? And if so, I'm still curious as to what point of view you think the original article was pushing.

It was slanted to support the argument you ran with.

I find it interesting that you think a site called The New Civil Rights Movement, which caters to "delivering news and opinion dedicated to the wide interests of the progressive and LGBT communities" and is a "winner of a 2014 GLAAD Media Award" would slant the story to support the argument I ran with.

I think if anyone was reading things in a slanted way here, it was you.

The story was slanted. What folks think of that slant depends on the perspective they bring to it. They have an agenda that entities can't do what this site was doing and they like that view. You abhor that view. The dishonest slant is the same.

The story was in error. That's different than slanting it.

Do you think the act of bringing a lawsuit against someone has any coercive power in and of itself?

It was both.

It can, but likely won't for folks with true religious convictions.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb. ;)/>

Humor me. What point of view do you believe the article was pushing?

The original post got the story wrong. The judge didn't rule against the company, he approved a proposed settlement by a business that doesn't appear to have a clear religious orientation. Perhaps they decided it was better for business in CA. They could have contested, and IF they got an adverse ruling, taken it to Federal Court if they believed they had religious grounds. Now, you usually care if a thread is started on a false premise, except...when you don't. And that's when it supports one of your favorite narratives. So, no, I won't play further. When you get back to having honest meaningful discussion, let me know.

You said the original article was misleading and pushed a certain point of view. Is this a view you still hold? And if so, I'm still curious as to what point of view you think the original article was pushing.

It was slanted to support the argument you ran with.

I find it interesting that you think a site called The New Civil Rights Movement, which caters to "delivering news and opinion dedicated to the wide interests of the progressive and LGBT communities" and is a "winner of a 2014 GLAAD Media Award" would slant the story to support the argument I ran with.

I think if anyone was reading things in a slanted way here, it was you.

The story was slanted. What folks think of that slant depends on the perspective they bring to it. They have an agenda that entities can't do what this site was doing and they like that view. You abhor that view. The dishonest slant is the same.

The story was in error. That's different than slanting it.

Do you think the act of bringing a lawsuit against someone has any coercive power in and of itself?

It was both.

It can, but likely won't for folks with true religious convictions.

Likely. If it were a site I owned and I had set it up for a specific purpose and I was being coerced through the threat of financial ruin, I'd just stop doing business in CA. But I'm not everybody.

It was still an unnecessary lawsuit.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb. ;)/>

Humor me. What point of view do you believe the article was pushing?

The original post got the story wrong. The judge didn't rule against the company, he approved a proposed settlement by a business that doesn't appear to have a clear religious orientation. Perhaps they decided it was better for business in CA. They could have contested, and IF they got an adverse ruling, taken it to Federal Court if they believed they had religious grounds. Now, you usually care if a thread is started on a false premise, except...when you don't. And that's when it supports one of your favorite narratives. So, no, I won't play further. When you get back to having honest meaningful discussion, let me know.

You said the original article was misleading and pushed a certain point of view. Is this a view you still hold? And if so, I'm still curious as to what point of view you think the original article was pushing.

It was slanted to support the argument you ran with.

I find it interesting that you think a site called The New Civil Rights Movement, which caters to "delivering news and opinion dedicated to the wide interests of the progressive and LGBT communities" and is a "winner of a 2014 GLAAD Media Award" would slant the story to support the argument I ran with.

I think if anyone was reading things in a slanted way here, it was you.

The story was slanted. What folks think of that slant depends on the perspective they bring to it. They have an agenda that entities can't do what this site was doing and they like that view. You abhor that view. The dishonest slant is the same.

The story was in error. That's different than slanting it.

Do you think the act of bringing a lawsuit against someone has any coercive power in and of itself?

It was both.

It can, but likely won't for folks with true religious convictions.

Likely. If it were a site I owned and I had set it up for a specific purpose and I was being coerced through the threat of financial ruin, I'd just stop doing business in CA. But I'm not everybody.

It was still an unnecessary lawsuit.

Perhaps this business owner discerned a business advantage to changing.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb. ;)/>

Humor me. What point of view do you believe the article was pushing?

The original post got the story wrong. The judge didn't rule against the company, he approved a proposed settlement by a business that doesn't appear to have a clear religious orientation. Perhaps they decided it was better for business in CA. They could have contested, and IF they got an adverse ruling, taken it to Federal Court if they believed they had religious grounds. Now, you usually care if a thread is started on a false premise, except...when you don't. And that's when it supports one of your favorite narratives. So, no, I won't play further. When you get back to having honest meaningful discussion, let me know.

You said the original article was misleading and pushed a certain point of view. Is this a view you still hold? And if so, I'm still curious as to what point of view you think the original article was pushing.

It was slanted to support the argument you ran with.

I find it interesting that you think a site called The New Civil Rights Movement, which caters to "delivering news and opinion dedicated to the wide interests of the progressive and LGBT communities" and is a "winner of a 2014 GLAAD Media Award" would slant the story to support the argument I ran with.

I think if anyone was reading things in a slanted way here, it was you.

The story was slanted. What folks think of that slant depends on the perspective they bring to it. They have an agenda that entities can't do what this site was doing and they like that view. You abhor that view. The dishonest slant is the same.

The story was in error. That's different than slanting it.

Do you think the act of bringing a lawsuit against someone has any coercive power in and of itself?

It was both.

It can, but likely won't for folks with true religious convictions.

Likely. If it were a site I owned and I had set it up for a specific purpose and I was being coerced through the threat of financial ruin, I'd just stop doing business in CA. But I'm not everybody.

It was still an unnecessary lawsuit.

Perhaps this business owner discerned a business advantage to changing.

Perhaps. Or perhaps he just gave into fear about the damages being far worse and the legal costs continuing to escalate.

[aujeff11 6,243]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb. ;)/>

Humor me. What point of view do you believe the article was pushing?

The original post got the story wrong. The judge didn't rule against the company, he approved a proposed settlement by a business that doesn't appear to have a clear religious orientation. Perhaps they decided it was better for business in CA. They could have contested, and IF they got an adverse ruling, taken it to Federal Court if they believed they had religious grounds. Now, you usually care if a thread is started on a false premise, except...when you don't. And that's when it supports one of your favorite narratives. So, no, I won't play further. When you get back to having honest meaningful discussion, let me know.

You said the original article was misleading and pushed a certain point of view. Is this a view you still hold? And if so, I'm still curious as to what point of view you think the original article was pushing.

It was slanted to support the argument you ran with.

I find it interesting that you think a site called The New Civil Rights Movement, which caters to "delivering news and opinion dedicated to the wide interests of the progressive and LGBT communities" and is a "winner of a 2014 GLAAD Media Award" would slant the story to support the argument I ran with.

I think if anyone was reading things in a slanted way here, it was you.

The story was slanted. What folks think of that slant depends on the perspective they bring to it. They have an agenda that entities can't do what this site was doing and they like that view. You abhor that view. The dishonest slant is the same.

The story was in error. That's different than slanting it.

Do you think the act of bringing a lawsuit against someone has any coercive power in and of itself?

It was both.

It can, but likely won't for folks with true religious convictions.

Entities succumb to lawsuits all the time, definitely if the entity doesnt have the money to fight the plaintiffs. I remember when the Rainbow City fire department was at risk of a lawsuit for having nativity scenes you the same anti religious group that is trying to go after Bro Chette.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

What point of view was the article pushing?

Don't play dumb. ;)/>

Humor me. What point of view do you believe the article was pushing?

The original post got the story wrong. The judge didn't rule against the company, he approved a proposed settlement by a business that doesn't appear to have a clear religious orientation. Perhaps they decided it was better for business in CA. They could have contested, and IF they got an adverse ruling, taken it to Federal Court if they believed they had religious grounds. Now, you usually care if a thread is started on a false premise, except...when you don't. And that's when it supports one of your favorite narratives. So, no, I won't play further. When you get back to having honest meaningful discussion, let me know.

You said the original article was misleading and pushed a certain point of view. Is this a view you still hold? And if so, I'm still curious as to what point of view you think the original article was pushing.

It was slanted to support the argument you ran with.

I find it interesting that you think a site called The New Civil Rights Movement, which caters to "delivering news and opinion dedicated to the wide interests of the progressive and LGBT communities" and is a "winner of a 2014 GLAAD Media Award" would slant the story to support the argument I ran with.

I think if anyone was reading things in a slanted way here, it was you.

The story was slanted. What folks think of that slant depends on the perspective they bring to it. They have an agenda that entities can't do what this site was doing and they like that view. You abhor that view. The dishonest slant is the same.

The story was in error. That's different than slanting it.

Do you think the act of bringing a lawsuit against someone has any coercive power in and of itself?

It was both.

It can, but likely won't for folks with true religious convictions.

Entities succumb to lawsuits all the time, definitely if the entity doesnt have the money to fight the plaintiffs. I remember when the Rainbow City fire department was at risk of a lawsuit for having nativity scenes you the same anti religious group that is trying to go after Bro Chette.

An actual religious organization is not likely to buckle if an actual religious conviction is challenged. A public entity is another matter.

[Auburn85 436]

What a bizarre ruling. It is going to be fun (in a sick way) to see where the Law of Unintended Consequences ends up with rulings like this. A Christian dating site is REQUIRED BY THE COURT to help arrange relationships that violate longstanding and closely held Christian values. It sure seems unconstitutional to me, but I'm certainly no constitutional scholar.

What if they operated a site marketed to white supremacists and refused people of color?

Doesn't Stormfront already sort of do that?

[homersapien 12,172]

What a bizarre ruling. It is going to be fun (in a sick way) to see where the Law of Unintended Consequences ends up with rulings like this. A Christian dating site is REQUIRED BY THE COURT to help arrange relationships that violate longstanding and closely held Christian values. It sure seems unconstitutional to me, but I'm certainly no constitutional scholar.

What if they operated a site marketed to white supremacists and refused people of color?

Doesn't Stormfront already sort of do that?

A dating site? I don't know.