Eat Fresh & Spicy: the eharmony model

(For an interesting article on the LDS Church and the fallout of proposition 8 in California, see the National Review's article: Legislating Immorality)

This week the dating website eharmony agreed to provide homosexual dating services as part of an out-of-court settlement in New Jersey. The agreement ended a three-year lawsuit filed by Eric McKinley, who accused the company of depriving him of his civil rights after it declined to match him (according to twenty-eight points of compatibility) with another man.

In addition to successfully altering eharmony's business model, McKinley also received five thousand dollars - compensation for the pain and anguish of feeling like a "second-class citizen" after discovering eharmony had no drop-down menu for 'men seeking men.'

Strike another blow for progress.

Advocates of such a decision see it as helping to end the rampant discrimination against society's last minority - homosexuals. They argue it is no more justifiable for eharmony to refuse to match-up gays than it is for a Woolworth's lunch counter to deny pouring coffee for black customers. It has de-segregated the world of online dating.

Once again the argument just won't stand up.

The case of eharmony has nothing to do with the ethnic, religious, or gender identity of its subscribers. It has everything to do with the type of services eharmony is willing (and qualified) to provide.

Consider:

Let's say an Indian person enters a Subway restaurant, orders a meatball sub, and eats it at a nearby booth. Then a Chinese person enters the same Subway, orders the same meatball sub, but is informed the restaurant won't serve him because he's Chinese. This is discrimination. The establishment refused service solely based on ethnic background.

But, what if the Chinese person enters Subway and orders Kung Pao with white rice? The employee informs him that Subway doesn't serve Chinese food, he'll have to go somewhere else.

The Chinese customer remains adamant. He wants Kung Pao, and he wants it from Subway. He feels rejected and distraught. The fact that Subway serves only Eurocentric-themed sandwiches denies his cultural heritage and makes him feel like a second class citizen. If they persist with their policy he'll have to file a lawsuit to ensure equal protection under the law.

Is this also a case of discrimination?

eHarmony is guilty of refusing to serve Kung Pao. It's purpose, its expertise, is in finding levels of compatability between women looking for men, and men looking for women. Heteroexual communication is its meatball sub. Dr. Warren, founder of the company, has said in multiple interviews that he never accounted for homosexuals in his business plan because he had no training on the dynamics of gay relationships.

(That shouldn't surprise anyone. Everyone knows all Christian conservatives are homophobes.)

eharmony's sister-site, compatibilitypartners.net, will launch sometime early next year. I'm sure the gay community will be thrilled with the quality of online dating service they'll receive. I predict it will be so popular, so effective, it may put the hundreds of existing gay-dating websites out of business.

And I'll bet Subway would make great Kung Pao, if only they weren't so prejudiced...