Let me ask you, does that look right to you?

^^^^No, but with some mustard, onions, ketchup and relish it looks to be delicious. Uh oh, what does this mean?

Can I sue farmersonly.com since they only match up farmers? I'm a city folk, and I just dont get it.

Blitzkrieg wrote: Can I sue farmersonly.com since they only match up farmers? I'm a city folk, and I just dont get it.

I believe that sexual orientation is a protected class in CA/NJ, while farmer vs. city status isn't. That's probably the relevant distinction. You can run a dating site discriminating against unprotected classes (millionaire matchmaker, blondes only, left-handers only) but not against protected classes (based on race, sex, etc.).

What seems strange to me is that age is a protected class, as is national origin, but I'm positive there are dating sites directed at the elderly or people of a certain national origin (in particular, a handful of Indian friends use some Indian-only dating site). Perhaps these just haven't been sued yet.

fan_from_texas wrote: I believe that sexual orientation is a protected class in CA/NJ, while farmer vs. city status isn't. That's probably the relevant distinction. You can run a dating site discriminating against unprotected classes (millionaire matchmaker, blondes only, left-handers only) but not against protected classes (based on race, sex, etc.).

What seems strange to me is that age is a protected class, as is national origin, but I'm positive there are dating sites directed at the elderly or people of a certain national origin (in particular, a handful of Indian friends use some Indian-only dating site). Perhaps these just haven't been sued yet.

In addition, I believe there are dating sites that exist as the flipside to this very issue. They advertise little or no services to heterosexuals, but only homosexuals.

What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander here, I think.

"In addition, I believe there are dating sites that exist as the flipside to this very issue. "

That is correct. There are dating sites that cater to various folks. There's a guy in my fantasy football league that met his wife through a black dating service (blacksingles.com?). As FFT mentions, these places typically don't get sued, as thankfully the majority of Americans aren't as petulant and immature as the plaintiffs in the eHarmony suit. Can you imagine a white person suing a black dating service? They'd (rightfully) be labeled an idiot. There are plenty of services for all people of all persuasions.

Correct. As I said, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. A white person suing a dating site targeting black people would rightfully be deemed an idiot. These people should be considered as much, but I'd be willing to place money on there being far too many people on their side of the discussion.

O-Trap wrote: Correct. As I said, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. A white person suing a dating site targeting black people would rightfully be deemed an idiot. These people should be considered as much, but I'd be willing to place money on there being far too many people on their side of the discussion.

I think I'm going to start suing the elderly dating sites for not giving me a chance at all the GILFs out there.

ou1980 wrote: Let me ask you, does that look right to you?

Looks like it could be quite delicious... is that bad?

fan_from_texas wrote:

Blitzkrieg wrote: Can I sue farmersonly.com since they only match up farmers? I'm a city folk, and I just dont get it.

I believe that sexual orientation is a protected class in CA/NJ, while farmer vs. city status isn't. That's probably the relevant distinction. You can run a dating site discriminating against unprotected classes (millionaire matchmaker, blondes only, left-handers only) but not against protected classes (based on race, sex, etc.).

What seems strange to me is that age is a protected class, as is national origin, but I'm positive there are dating sites directed at the elderly or people of a certain national origin (in particular, a handful of Indian friends use some Indian-only dating site). Perhaps these just haven't been sued yet.

2 points to make on this.

First it's quite amazing how many people don't know what is protected and what is not. A good example of this is my dad and I were consulting for a lawyer who had a client who wanted to sue her landlord for refusing to renew her lease because she had made derogatory statements about gays and the complex she lived in. She didn't understand that her opinion was not part of a protected class, so he had every right to refuse service. (He uses my dad and I as consultants (ok I just do the note taking for my dad) on occasion in landlord/tenant lawsuits for settlement offers purposes).

Secondly, I don't think those sites have been sued because there is no feeling of being biased against by the groups that would sue the website. Now the proverbial shit would probably hit the fan if a young black male wanted to join an elderly indian only dating website, but I am not sure there is any interest in that.

Maybe there shouldn't be protected classes?

iclfan2 wrote: Maybe there shouldn't be protected classes?

So you would be ok with people being discriminated against soley because of their gender, race, religion, country of origin, age, etc?

iclfan2 wrote: Maybe there shouldn't be protected classes?

In other words, you're ok with discrimination?

Or do you really mean that a persons sexuality shouldn't fall under any sort of protection?

cbus4life wrote:

iclfan2 wrote: Maybe there shouldn't be protected classes?

In other words, you're ok with discrimination?

Or do you really mean that a persons sexuality shouldn't fall under any sort of protection?

I think if all classes aren't protected none should be. So you're telling me a Black dude can have a business and hire 0 whites and it is ok. But if a white guy hires 0 blacks it is bad. And that a website that has a service for straight people HAS to let "the gheys" in, but a website for "the gheys" doesn't have to let straight people in? It is all bullshit. Let private businesses hire and cater to whoever the hell they want. If anything I see why black SHOULD have been a protected class, not anymore though. But I certainly don't see why being gay should be.

Edit to add: it may be good for hiring practices, ie not discriminate against women, old, races, etc. But just because you don't hire one of each doesn't mean you are discriminatory. But the lawsuits, quotas, rooney rules, and the like are getting absurd.

iclfan2 wrote:
I think if all classes aren't protected none should be. So you're telling me a Black dude can have a business and hire 0 whites and it is ok. But if a white guy hires 0 blacks it is bad.

It's not OK nor is it legal. "Protected class" is a misnomer, what is protected is the characteristic (race, sex, etc.). It's equally illegal to deny a white person equal rights as it is a black person under the law. The exception is age, where only those over a given age tend to be protected by law.