Christian Mingle ordered to accommodate gay singles

[Askold]

I'm with Hof and Eiki on this one. Braided, a separate LGBT friendly Christian dating site would be a better choice. Not only would it mean that you don't have to force the other site to take on people it would also be more likely that LGBT folks find someone to date on such a site rather than hetero-only site.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

That makes me nervous. Its their own site, just dont use it.

Or, if you offer a service, you offer it to everyone equally or not at all.

I don't see what all the fuss is, it's not each and every Christian that thinks gay people are the debbil. It's some of the ones who want to justify their own homophobia using the bits of Leviticus they don't ignore for reasons of practicality.

No big whoop.

[Søren]

It bugs me with this kind of stuff. Because when you force, if you force a dating site that caters to a religious group that discriminates against gays to accept gays, then its kinda fuckin hard to say "theres no lgbt agenda!"

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

It bugs me with this kind of stuff. Because when you force, if you force a dating site that caters to a religious group that discriminates against gays to accept gays, then its kinda fuckin hard to say "theres no lgbt agenda!"

Well you could argue that the agenda of all civil rights movements is to obtain equal treatment.

[Canadian Mojo]

That makes me nervous. Its their own site, just dont use it.

Or, if you offer a service, you offer it to everyone equally or not at all.

Honestly? I don't agree. Private companies have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose, and I don't think a court order should be able to force otherwise. It's a private business, after all. I mean, would you feel the same way if, say, some social justice activists decided to set up a dating service where straight people couldn't apply, and they sued and won the right to force this dating service to accommodate them?

Basically, what I'm saying is, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" shouldn't have an asterisk saying "except marginalized groups".

We don't serve niggers here. Acceptable or not?

[Søren]

To maintain consistency. Yes. But thats VERY general.

It also depends on target clients and reasoning for refusal of a sale. The christian site refusing to accomadate singles is because it goes against their religion. But someone saying no black people in a cafe or whatever is a bit different because the business goes across all consumers.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

It's pretty easy for a bible-believin' lad who thinks that marriage is between a man and a lady and that gays are kinda icky not to get wrong footed on the altered Christian Mingle site while choosing a potential bride to be.

Step one, read their profile. If it says "liberal Christian woman seeking woman" look elsewhere lad.

Step two, when you find a compatible match message them.

Problem solved!

[Even Then]

If homophobic Christians wanna have their own private dating site, sure, whatever. That way, they're not inflicted on the rest of us.

But I just want to see someone make a dating site that explicitly forbids Christians from signing up and see how quickly the Bible Belt starts whining about "christophobia".

[Eiki-mun]

That makes me nervous. Its their own site, just dont use it.

Or, if you offer a service, you offer it to everyone equally or not at all.

Honestly? I don't agree. Private companies have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose, and I don't think a court order should be able to force otherwise. It's a private business, after all. I mean, would you feel the same way if, say, some social justice activists decided to set up a dating service where straight people couldn't apply, and they sued and won the right to force this dating service to accommodate them?

Basically, what I'm saying is, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" shouldn't have an asterisk saying "except marginalized groups".

We don't serve niggers here. Acceptable or not?

Acceptable? Of course not. Legally actionable? Also no. You seem to think I like people who do this. I don't. I just don't think what they are doing is illegal.

[Canadian Mojo]

To maintain consistency. Yes. But thats VERY general.

It also depends on target clients and reasoning for refusal of a sale. The christian site refusing to accomadate singles is because it goes against their religion. But someone saying no black people in a cafe or whatever is a bit different because the business goes across all consumers.

So religion gets a pass. I guess we should let those all those damn muzzies come to our countries do whatever they want in the name of god too.

Acceptable? Of course not. Legally actionable? Also no. You seem to think I like people who do this. I don't. I just don't think what they are doing is illegal.

Actually, it is legally actionable. Am I right in thinking you feel it should be legal for individuals to discriminate because of the freedom of association?

[Eiki-mun]

To maintain consistency. Yes. But thats VERY general.

It also depends on target clients and reasoning for refusal of a sale. The christian site refusing to accomadate singles is because it goes against their religion. But someone saying no black people in a cafe or whatever is a bit different because the business goes across all consumers.

So religion gets a pass. I guess we should let those all those damn muzzies come to our countries do whatever they want in the name of god too.

Acceptable? Of course not. Legally actionable? Also no. You seem to think I like people who do this. I don't. I just don't think what they are doing is illegal.

Actually, it is legally actionable. Am I right in thinking you feel it should be legal for individuals to discriminate because of the freedom of association?

Yes, that sounds about accurate. This is one of the cases where market forces would do the job just fine. Clearly there's a demand for a site for gay Christians to date. Why they're still Christian if they're gay, I have no idea, but I guess they are. Rather than force a business to accept customers they clearly do not want to work with, I imagine that, left alone for a couple of years, there'd soon be a popular GayChristianMingle website or something. But yes, I believe private business discrimination should be legal, and strongly discouraged to boot. Protests, boycotts, something. They exist for a reason.

[Canadian Mojo]

Fair enough.

I don't really agree, but I don't hold that individual rights are absolute and that it is the job of governments to impose limits and manage the conflicts that arise when those rights conflict with each other.

[Random Gal]

Yes, that sounds about accurate. This is one of the cases where market forces would do the job just fine. Clearly there's a demand for a site for gay Christians to date. Why they're still Christian if they're gay, I have no idea, but I guess they are. Rather than force a business to accept customers they clearly do not want to work with, I imagine that, left alone for a couple of years, there'd soon be a popular GayChristianMingle website or something. But yes, I believe private business discrimination should be legal, and strongly discouraged to boot. Protests, boycotts, something. They exist for a reason.

I'm Christian and bisexual. I love and follow Jesus; he's a genuinely good person. The fact that I have a problem with most of his fanclub has nothing to do with that.

[Askold]

Yes, that sounds about accurate. This is one of the cases where market forces would do the job just fine. Clearly there's a demand for a site for gay Christians to date. Why they're still Christian if they're gay, I have no idea, but I guess they are. Rather than force a business to accept customers they clearly do not want to work with, I imagine that, left alone for a couple of years, there'd soon be a popular GayChristianMingle website or something. But yes, I believe private business discrimination should be legal, and strongly discouraged to boot. Protests, boycotts, something. They exist for a reason.

I'm Christian and bisexual. I love and follow Jesus; he's a genuinely good person. The fact that I have a problem with most of his fanclub has nothing to do with that.

There are several pro-LGBT Christian groups.

Just recently the Finnish arch bishop officially stated his support for same-sex marriage (which was not a surprise as over the years he has been slowly giving more and more supportive statements.)

[Eiki-mun]

Yes, that sounds about accurate. This is one of the cases where market forces would do the job just fine. Clearly there's a demand for a site for gay Christians to date. Why they're still Christian if they're gay, I have no idea, but I guess they are. Rather than force a business to accept customers they clearly do not want to work with, I imagine that, left alone for a couple of years, there'd soon be a popular GayChristianMingle website or something. But yes, I believe private business discrimination should be legal, and strongly discouraged to boot. Protests, boycotts, something. They exist for a reason.

I'm Christian and bisexual. I love and follow Jesus; he's a genuinely good person. The fact that I have a problem with most of his fanclub has nothing to do with that.

Also fair enough. I don't honestly know why I threw that out there anyway, it didn't add anything to my argument.