Everything Southern Humboldt and more
Not satisfied with what looks like a very hawkish national security team nominated yesterday, some right wingers are kvetching about seven appointments to his transition team who are openly homosexual. He’s “keeping his promises” to the “homosexual pressure groups.”
Scared yet?
Well did you know that eharmony, the largest online dating now (gasp!) serving homosexuals!
Meanwhile, in more mundane news, the year-long recession has been confirmed. Of course, it’s all Obama’s fault.
 | moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | That Other Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Cookie on March against Monsanto this… |
 | bolithio on March against Monsanto this… |
| Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Mitch on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Mitch on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| That Other Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
| Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
| moviedad on March against Monsanto this… |
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 2, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Fred Mangels
You wrote, “Well did you know that eharmony, the largest online dating now (gasp!) serving homosexuals!”.
Need I point out that this was a result of a lawsuit filed against eharmony. This is exactly the kind of thing I was speaking of earlier on, before the election, where I felt the church people’s fears of being forced to marry homosexuals was a legitimate one.
Certainly Prop 8 specified churches would be left alone. Still, as I said before, there are enough in- your- face types in the homo community that someone could have brought a separate suit against a church for not performing a same- sex marriage. This eharmony suit wasn’t the first such suit.
I agree with Eric that success of such a lawsuit is unlikely, but it’s just this sort of thing that has people- in churches and otherwise- rightfully scared. That eharmony was forced under threat of lawsuit to accept listings from homosexuals is something everybody, including the gaylez community, should be ashamed of.
December 2, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Gay in harmony
Churches are mostly exempt from anti-discrimination laws. But there is no First Amendment guaranteed right to practice a dating service.
December 2, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Rose
Eric, come on. This is ridiculous.
December 2, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Eric Kirk
I agree Rose. It’s very ridiculous that anyone would obsess over the sexual preferences of members of Obama’s transition team. But these people have influence.
December 2, 2008 at 3:55 pm
anon
influence over what?extreme ignorance?
December 2, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Fred Mangels
“Churches are mostly exempt from anti-discrimination laws.”.
“Mostly” exempt makes my point.
There are any number of anti- discrimination lawsuits that make my point. I say that only from things I remember anecdotally, like some gal that sued a men’s club to join the club. Or, the one I heard (was it down by Santa Rosa?) of a gal that sued to join the guy’s football team.
At some point in time, we have to start looking at Freedom of Association, as a Right.
As an aside, Churches should be FULLY exempt from anti- discrimination laws. Gay in Harmony only reinforces my point with that remark.
December 2, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Eric Kirk
Fred, a Church is only subject to anti-discrimination laws for non-religious practices. Marriage being inherently a religious offering, it’s not on the table. But they are subject to hiring discrimination laws except insofar as for instance they can require that priests be Catholic. But you don’t get to float above the law just because you’re a church. The law has to actually interfere with a religious practice to invoke the protection.
December 2, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Rose
It’s kinda like women fought to be allowed into “Men Only” clubs and places – but think nothing of Curves which is Women Only. Why! Men should sue! No, they shouldn’t. And Gays shouldn’t've sued EHarmony. No. Wait, Straights should sue the Gay Only places. You know, this is crazy.
December 2, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Eric Kirk
Rose, you can discriminate in hiring policies if sex or whatever the identity is a “bona fide occupational qualification” and generally speaking you can discriminate according to sexual preference so long as you have a rational basis for the discrimination which is central to your purpose.
Examples are the hiring of Chinese people as waiters/waitresses for Chinese restaurants. The hiring of white actors to play the part of George Washington. The hiring of fat guys to play the part of Santa.
If the discriminated class is not race, sex, religion, or nationality based, you need only show a rational basis for the discrimination. Each of those groups except sex are “suspect classes” meaning that you need a compelling interest rather than merely a rational basis. Sex is a “quasi-suspect” class and there’s some sort of intermediate standard for that discrimination – I don’t remember exactly, it doesn’t come up often in my practice.
I don’t know the particulars of the eharmony lawsuit, but private organizations have much more leeway than government agencies or private agencies which receive public money. I’ll try to dig up the story, but it may be that they just didn’t want the publicity. Either way, had I been single and looking to use those services, I would not have used them had I known they discriminated on the basis of sexual preference. At this point in history, there may be many more like me. So eharmony’s choice may have been economic.
December 2, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Carson Park Ranger
“It’s kinda like women fought to be allowed into “Men Only” clubs and places – but think nothing of Curves which is Women Only.”
I was unaware that the gals in “Curves” were smoking cigars and making deals.
December 2, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Not A Native
I wonder if Obama will try to change the military don’t ask don’t tell policy.
Its been awhile, but as far as I know, being gay can be a factor for denying a security clearance. If so, that would limit Obama’s selection of gays to his cabinet.
BTW, the TS published this link to images of ballots. The November ones aren’t there yet but when they are you can find out how Clendenen voters or Fennell voters went on prop. 8 and Obama/McCain.