Married Man Sues To Get On Dating Site
from the there-are-plenty-of-dating-sites-in-the-sea dept
Apparently some people will go to amazing lengths just to get a date. The San Jose Mercury News is reporting that a man has chosen to file a lawsuit against dating site eHarmony for not letting him on the site, due to the fact that he's married. He says he's separated and the site is discriminating against him due to his marital status. Of course, eHarmony, which likes to tout the fact it has a patent in building successful relationships, has always had a reputation for not letting everyone in (it's part of their marketing pitch, apparently). It's actually somewhat impressive just how many lawsuits there have been recently over dating sites and people not finding what they'd hoped. Either way, there's plenty of competition out there, and if one site isn't satisfying your needs, why not just jump to another one? Of course, if I were eHarmony, and somehow (unlikely) required to let this guy in, I'd make sure his profile had a very prominent note about how he filed this lawsuit after getting rejected by the site -- just to let any potential matches know the type of person they were meeting.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am wondering what does this man's wife think about the law suit??
She is probably thinking "Thank You" for helping to make the divorce easier, and more in her favor now... The man's actions are clearly such that he is attempting, or desiring, to commit adultery while still married. I say, let the man win his lawsuit, and then the divorce judge can award the amount won to the wife !!
The man should just wait to actually be divorced before trying to find a new mate...
I appluad eHarmony for denying the prick the ability to disrepect the sanctity of marriage, and in his specific case, his wife !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
some guys just cant wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not another bogus lawsuit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looser move on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looser move on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get'm Get'm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get'm Get'm
it goes agianst the Bible
and wat kind of guy would outrightly bring this out for the public especialy for his wife to find out
not very smart i see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get'm Get'm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Get'm Get'm
So, ladies and gents, whatever the majority thinks is right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Get'm Get'm
uuuhhhhhh........ Yeah???
duh.... that is why it is CALLED A MAJORITY dumbass. And in a democracy, THE MAJORITY RULES. And the majority are the vocal.
Civics 101 For Dummies. No charge for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Democracy in action
Its obvious that this guy has been through a rough time with his divorce and is not thinking clearly or maybe he is crystal clear and is just trying to make a fast buck. I dont even want to know. The point being the owners of this dating service want to maintain a standard which most people would appreciate which is what will keep their business afloat. Its simple business in action. Just get divorced and then all the best with your hunt.
With regards to homosexuals and latinos and all other races, I dont think that's relevant at all in this discussion and won't even go there!
But as part of a democracy, everyone is entitled to an opinion everyone has the right to disregard it or say something about it in the hope that we will eventually lead to some sort of agreement on the matter through mature discussion.
Name calling doesnt help people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Get'm Get'm
And Yoop replies:
So, ladies and gents, whatever the majority thinks is right."
But Yoop, you see, a large majority would be like 70 to 90%, whereas a small majority would be anything over 50% and less than a large majority. There IS a difference. Furthermore a large minority is likewise a little less than 50% but more than say, 30%. Lastly, there's the small minority. Like users of Internet Explorer 5.x for the Mac. Who gives a crap about 'em? (Well, their internet experience, not them, personally). Upgrade, luddite laggers! Get a PC if you can't affort a new Mac. You're literally holding all of us up! The Net Must Move On!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Get'm Get'm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Get'm Get'm
As for my "bible thumpin bigoted opinions," they're non-existant. I had quoted someone else's post, in bold, I had hoped that would have been made clear.
For the record, I support equal marriage as well as same-sex relationships. I didn't mention this before, but I am transgendered. Any laws banning same-sex marriage could prohibit me from marrying anybody, male or female.
Look, I'm on your side buddy. Don't be bashing me before you read my post correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Get'm Get'm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get'm Get'm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get'm Get'm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Get'm Get'm
Seriously. I dont think eHarmony's patented system is built for that. Theres probably thousands of sites on the internet that cater to that kind of thing (and worse).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get'm Get'm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lame
And so what if they don't do same sex matches. It's their right. How can you attack a private company for the service it provides just because the service doesn't fit your idea of broad enough? They make matches for members of the opposite sex, plain and simple. It's not that they won't sell to homosexuals, it's just that homosexuals don't need a match with a member of the opposite sex. They need a differnt service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reply to eHarmony
Your part on posting about the guys legal battle has nothing to do with what he feel's is right, or is your name HITLER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reply to eHarmony
Your part on posting about the guys legal battle has nothing to do with what he feel's is right, or is your name HITLER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway, has anyone noticed if this silly sense of entitlement is a new thing? Have people always felt like they somehow deserve to have every privilage? I hear it a lot with 'free speech' when the conversation is about private entities. I wonder if this guy would sue if a neighbor didn't let him into their family reunion party.
You have rights when dealing with gov't because you have little choice who governs you. This twerp has many other dating services that would serve him, and deserves nuttin. Homosexuals have a number of services that cater to them, exclusively or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moogle's Comment
and may i add . . . this decisioin for a lawsuit is probably going back to the same deeply rooted issues his soon to be x-wife has with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2nd: Its called a democracy genius. You damn well have ALL THE CHOICE who governs you. But only if you vote. Otherwise, your opinion is useless, unwarranted, and counts for nothing. You have no voice, and no choice, and no rights to complain. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really? So they only count my vote, right? It's not possible that I don't get full choice who governs me, huh?
Moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks to the choad who brought THAT cliche to life!
If eHarmony wishes to take an approach where it's only for single, heterosexual adults, then that is their perogative. The reality is, of course, that there are MANY sites (adultfriendfinder pops to mind) where there's a definite sense of "anything goes." If he's not happy with eHarmony's stance on his desire to play the field after the game's already over, then he should suck it up and drive on to the next website.
I'm sick to death of this sense of entitlement that people of all races, genders and sexual preferences have built up around themselves, then use as a battering ram against other people, groups, corporate entities, etc.
You are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness. Not actual happiness.
Life sucks. Get a fuckin' helmet. eHarmony's within their rights to restrict their offerings to the group(s) of their choice. Don't like it? Then either start your own service, use someone else's, or try to buy yourself a seat on the corporate board.
But quit wasting bandwidth whining about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
try another site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get'm Get'm
So they don't do married people and gays. Who's next? Fat people? Blacks? Latinos? Who gets to decide? If they aren't going to do business with everyone I think maybe they shouldn't have commercials every 15 minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get'm Get'm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get'm Get'm
How in the hell did you make the leap from
"So they don't do married people and gays. Who's next? Fat people? Blacks? Latinos? Who gets to decide?" to saying they shouldn't have commericials every 15 minutes???
You question and immediately criticize their private business policy, and in the same sentence YOU desire to limit their free speech? IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR PRACTICE, DON'T EVER USE THE SERVICE! There is NO difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
come on people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Democracy != Majority Rule
In the American system, however, majority does not always rule. Several examples of this exist: 2/3 of both houses of Congress must assent to overrule a Presidential veto; in California, 2/3 of the local electorate must agree to a tax increase before it goes into effect; in order to amend the US Constitution, 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the the State Legislatures must agree to the new terms. Last but not least, a majority of all voters may vote for a given Presidential candidate nationally but fail to reach enough points in the Electoral College, therefore failing to ascend to office.
The limits on majority rules also extend beyond the procedural mentioned above. The judiciary has repeatedly blocked majority attempts to undermine minority rights. For example, the US Supreme Court has stated that majorities must include language and mechanisms to prevent such trampling, especially in areas such as voting rights and redistricting initiatives that would have substantially diluted minority voting power.
Enough of the Civics lecture. The point here is that the opinions of a majority are not necessarily sufficient to pound a minority into submission. Secondly, the most vocal are not always part of the majority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is this really about?
E-Harmony offers a service. That service is voluntary, so democracy doesn't really apply here. If it was a applied force, say a govermental system, or a state sponsored program, then yes, I can understand that.
Next, I define racism as the emotional judgement of a person or situation based on a pre-determined notion that the person has no control over. There are three parts fo that. One, the judging of a person based on a fact they have no controll over. Take for instant someone that thinks a man is not intellegent just because he may speak with a accent, or even inpediment. Two, the judging of a collective group based on a prior experiance with a individual. Say if that person happened to steal from you, is it right to think all people with accents steal? And the last, is the judging of a individual based on the collective group. Say if the majority of people with accents are from another country, is it right to assume that any person you meet with a accent is? Now, assuming that his marrage is something he has control over, and he can get a devorce, then I don't see how any of those apply. So racism or prejudice isn't the issue. Even though I would LOVE to come down on some of the dribble which has been posted here. Against the Bible, Oi vey. Shal we start up the Spanish Inquisition again? But I won't go there.
I think it all comes down to something simpler. People are getting lazier. Hmm, betcha didn't think I was going to go that route with it aye? But think about it. People these days want easy solutions. They want instant gratifaction. And they want that gratifaction with not only little risk of failure, but even with little actual effort. Larger Family weddings are on the decline. Couple therepy is on the rise. "How to stir up the Love life in 10 easy steps" graces the cover of most women magazines(and mens too sometimes) on a almost monthly basis. We are approaching a Generation of people Raised on Cable TV. Burger King. And now DVDs. It is the flip side of so much choice. So much ability to ease through life with little effort and few times where you actually have to think. You pretty much buy into a good college. You can BS your way up to a good job. Then sell out and live your life out in bliss. That's the fact Jack. It can be done, but the reality is very few people manage it. But so many aim for the easy life that when someone goes wrong, they are horrified. They point fingers, they sue and cry. They go on Talk shows and look for support groups. Anything to hide from the fact that perhaps they could approve. This man's marrage is over. This matter is just a way for him to escape his admitting that he fracked up. That doesn't make him a bad person in it's self, but the fact he is deluding himself into think this will improve anything points to the fact that he doesn't want to change yet. So very sad. I hope he doesn't win just so he has to face the reality of his failed marrage. Then he can move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same-Sex couples need more...
Anyway, if you're that concerned about the rights of same-sex couples, you should focus on local and federal government discrimination. Bible thumping rednecks and their "god don't like that" bullshit have to be taught that their book of silly myths and lies is not a basis for civil law anymore than the books of silly myths and lies of other religions are.
You don't like eHarmony's policies? Don't use their service. Stop trying to force them to provide a service that they don't want to provide. You don't like the discriminatory actions of your government based on nothing more than juvenile "the bible sez it, I believe it, end of story" mentality? Get people in office who have an ounce of sense. Fortunately for all of us, the Christian religion is on its way out in this country, though it may be replaced with Islam, which is just as bad.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same-Sex couples need more...
God help you - even though you don't think you need it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suing the wrong entity
In fact, I'm suing half the women on the east coast, the Olsen twins, Charlize Theron, and Mrs. Howell (from Gilligan's Island).
My plan is to get rich enough from the lawsuits that the chicks I sued will want to date me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not just say you're single??
eHarmony should have no obligation to let in married people anyway! It's good to know that there are some companies out there who stick to morals versus letting any jackass in there that wants to cheat on his/her spouse!! Most, if not all, companies have a disclaimer reserving the right to refuse service. I can't see this even going to court, it should be thrown out due to ignorance.
Where does it say you have the RIGHT to use a private company's service? That's like saying you MUST give me a driver's license even though I'm blind. It just doesn't make sense. No one held a gun to his head and said use eHarmony or you'll get it. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND FORGET ABOUT IT!
Why does everyone think they have the RIGHT to everything? This guy was probably a spoiled little brat. Correction, he IS a spoiled little brat that can't get what he wants so he throws a fit like a child.
People like this guy are part of the reason large companies are raising prices to cover the costs of protecting their asses from being sued by morons like this guy trying to get rich quick instead of getting an education and working for a living like the rest of us!!
I agree with KingObvious above, he sits right next to the people suing McD's and M&Ms. He would be better off just using this money to buy some better armor for the soldiers. That would probably get him a date.
I hope his soon to be ex-wife takes this guy to the bank for everything he's got!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not just say you're single??
eHarmony should have no obligation to let in married people anyway! It's good to know that there are some companies out there who stick to morals versus letting any jackass in there that wants to cheat on his/her spouse!! Most, if not all, companies have a disclaimer reserving the right to refuse service. I can't see this even going to court, it should be thrown out due to ignorance.
Where does it say you have the RIGHT to use a private company's service? That's like saying you MUST give me a driver's license even though I'm blind. It just doesn't make sense. No one held a gun to his head and said use eHarmony or you'll get it. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND FORGET ABOUT IT!
Why does everyone think they have the RIGHT to everything? This guy was probably a spoiled little brat. Correction, he IS a spoiled little brat that can't get what he wants so he throws a fit like a child.
People like this guy are part of the reason large companies are raising prices to cover the costs of protecting their asses from being sued by morons like this guy trying to get rich quick instead of getting an education and working for a living like the rest of us!!
I agree with KingObvious above, he sits right next to the people suing McD's and M&Ms. He would be better off just using this money to buy some better armor for the soldiers. That would probably get him a date.
I hope his soon to be ex-wife takes this guy to the bank for everything he's got!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not just say you're single??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why not just say you're single??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you SUE a dating service, you are all the above plus you are wearing a sign that says that you are so idiotic that you shouldn't be allowed to date for fear of accidental procreation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eharmony lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eharmony lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Discrimination?
It's perfectly legitimate to have a company that caters to people with similar choices. I'm not on eharmony, but I'm a single woman and I'd like to know there are places I could go where I would be "safe" and I wouldn't be hit on by married men. Yuk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]