.

[dude99]

There is another christian singles website that is well known that is similar to the changes Christianmingle has put through. For me it does not concern me. There is no toolbar to put your sexual preference there either. Same sex attracted people who wish to find a partner of the same sex on a dating site would not focus on finding someone on that site anyway, and much more likely to spend more time on gay single sites.

 

[Circle Christ]

Didn't eHarmony go through something like this as well?

Yes. And they settled and conceded to the demands as well.

I was hoping CM would fight this. It's a private members only religious dating service. They should have the right to be exclusive.
These two homosexual men weren't looking to date Christian singles. They were looking to start trouble for a Christian business claiming discrimination. That's what the worst activists in that circle of radical intolerant LGBTQ community are vested in. There will be more stories like this.

Straight Christians need to fight back. Go to gay dating sites and demand entry for straights. Watch what happens.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Where do LGBT Christians go then? It's not like they are completely exclusive, there are some denominations among the many that make up Christianity that are ok with same sex relationships.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Where do LGBT Christians go then? It's not like they are completely exclusive, there are some denominations among the many that make up Christianity that are ok with same sex relationships.

Then those denominations can start up their own websites.

 

[pgp_protector]

They are a corporation trying to make a buck, "Christian" is just a way to get a niche market, and I bet theyes won't lose it either.

Yep, parent company Spark.net also runs Match.net, Deaf Singles, BBW Personals, Spark.com, Cupid.co.la(Hebrew site), Military Singles, and more.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Then those denominations can start up their own websites.

What denomination set up Christian Mingle, and what branch of Christianity does it represent? Or is it a secular company that simply slapped a Christian brand on it to increase it's customer base?

 

[MoonlessNight]

What denomination set up Christian Mingle, and what branch of Christianity does it represent? Or is it a secular company that simply slapped a Christian brand on it to increase it's customer base?

Should it matter? If anything if you want to play the "they aren't really Christian" card, it only makes your objection that gay Christians can't use this site to find illicit relationships all the more irrelevant, since by your logic it isn't really for Christians in the first place.

The question is whether a private dating site can restrict its client based for whatever reasons it chooses. There's no need to try to bring the government into the role of policing who is "really" Christian or not (whatever that means in the fragmented Christianity of the US).

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Should it matter? If anything if you want to play the "they aren't really Christian" card, it only makes your objection that gay Christians can't use this site to find illicit relationships all the more irrelevant, since by your logic it isn't really for Christians in the first place.

The question is whether a private dating site can restrict its client based for whatever reasons it chooses. There's no need to try to bring the government into the role of policing who is "really" Christian or not (whatever that means in the fragmented Christianity of the US).

If a dating site is public, it needs to serve the public. A simple solution would be to, as you said, have the denominations each set up their own dating site and make them private. A Catholic site could require a letter from a priest to join, affirming that the person has never married, or has obtained a church annulment and regularly attends Mass. They could also promise to not engage in physical intamacy until married, and not to use artificial birth control. Only those meeting this criteria could join, so it would be private and not have to worry about discrimination issues. Other denominations could have their own requirements. I wonder why no one goes that route.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Of a dating site is public, it needs to serve the public.

It does serve the public. It serves the public by helping men and women find compatible matches.

Recently "public accommodation" has become nothing more than "if you have a business, you must cede to any demands from homosexuals regardless of what services you offer."

A Catholic site could require a letter from a priest to join, affirming that the person has never married, or has obtained a church annulment and regularly attends Mass. They could also promise to not engage in physical intamacy until married, and not to use artificial birth control.

Wow. You really do want the government policing who is a real Catholic and who isn't.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

It does serve the public. It serves the public by helping men and women find compatible matches.

Recently "public accommodation" has become nothing more than "if you have a business, you must cede to any demands from homosexuals regardless of what services you offer."



Wow. You really do want the government policing who is a real Catholic and who isn't.

What does that have to do with the government? It's just the opposite, setting up a private group to keep government laws against discrimination at bay.

 

[MoonlessNight]

What does that have to do with the government? It's just the opposite, setting up a private group to keep government laws against discrimination at bay.

Suppose that someone brings up a lawsuit against your hypothetical hyper-Catholic dating site, demanding that it cater to same-sex relationships. Does the lawsuit succeed or not? And more importantly, what factor do you think will be used to determine whether it will succeed or not? If it is "these people can refuse to cater to same-sex relationships because they're actually following their Christian beliefs, unlike those people" then the Government is indeed determining what it means to be Catholic.

Let's actually go further with the thought experiment. You listed a long list of requirements for those involved in the site, including regularly attending mass and refusing to use artificial birth control. Suppose that the judge said "the Catholic Church requires that its members confess mortal sins before receiving communion, and the site does not require its members to do that, so it isn't really restricting its membership to faithful Catholics and therefore I'm requiring the site to cater to same-sex marriages." Or alternatively, suppose that the site had all the requirements that you listed, but not the requirement to attend mass regularly and thus the site lost the case for that reason. Would you consider those valid reasons to lose the case? If so, you've put the government in the role of determining who is really Catholic and who isn't. If not, why did you have such a long list of criteria? Shouldn't it be sufficient for the site to simply state that it is catering to Catholics and have that be that?

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Suppose that someone brings up a lawsuit against your hypothetical hyper-Catholic dating site, demanding that it cater to same-sex relationships. Does the lawsuit succeed or not? And more importantly, what factor do you think will be used to determine whether it will succeed or not? If it is "these people can refuse to cater to same-sex relationships because they're actually following their Christian beliefs, unlike those people" then the Government is indeed determining what it means to be Catholic.

Let's actually go further with the thought experiment. You listed a long list of requirements for those involved in the site, including regularly attending mass and refusing to use artificial birth control. Suppose that the judge said "the Catholic Church requires that its members confess mortal sins before receiving communion, and the site does not require its members to do that, so it isn't really restricting its membership to faithful Catholics and therefore I'm requiring the site to cater to same-sex marriages." Or alternatively, suppose that the site had all the requirements that you listed, but not the requirement to attend mass regularly and thus the site lost the case for that reason. Would you consider those valid reasons to lose the case? If so, you've put the government in the role of determining who is really Catholic and who isn't. If not, why did you have such a long list of criteria? Shouldn't it be sufficient for the site to simply state that it is catering to Catholics and have that be that?

I think it's pretty simple. If the organization is a private club that only serves members who meet a certain criteria then it's ok to operate under the parameters it defines. If however it claims to serve the general public and advertises as such, it can't discriminate against protected classes. As far as what constitutes the appropriate definition of a Catholic who would use a dating site to find only other Catholics, well, if someone wanted to set up a private Catholic dating xlub, they could set the parameters. I'm just going with what the Church teaches regarding relationships as an example. As long as the company doesn't serve the general public, the details of who thru serve aren't essential.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I think it's pretty simple. If the organization is a private club that only serves members who meet a certain criteria then it's ok to operate under the parameters it defines.

Like say, perhaps, a dating site which only serves self-identified Christians who are looking for a heterosexual relationship? Maybe even one called "Christian Mingle"?

If however it claims to serve the general public and advertises as such, it can't discriminate against protected classes. As far as what constitutes the appropriate definition of a Catholic who would use a dating site to find only other Catholics, well, if someone wanted to set up a private Catholic dating xlub, they could set the parameters.

What if those parameters are "self-identified Catholics who are looking for a heterosexual relationship"?

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Like say, perhaps, a dating site which only serves self-identified Christians who are looking for a heterosexual relationship? Maybe even one called "Christian Mingle"?



What if those parameters are "self-identified Catholics who are looking for a heterosexual relationship"?

Does Christian Mingle state that their organization is a private club open only to Catholics looking for a heterosexual relationship? If I go there to join, will I see that disclaimer?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Does Christian Mingle state that their organization is a private club open only to Catholics looking for a heterosexual relationship? If I go there to join, will I see that disclaimer?

Do you believe that such a disclaimer would have saved it from this ruling?

If so, can you quote the part of the ruling which demonstrates that the judge used the same reasoning that you are?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Do you believe that such a disclaimer would have saved it from this ruling?

If so, can you quote the part of the ruling which demonstrates that the judge used the same reasoning that you are?

There are some glaring double standards e.g., is anyone going to tell Howard University that it can't be a "black" college?

Any business should be free to withhold service to anyone it wishes, and for whatever reason it wishes.

 

[Starcrystal]

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Do you believe that such a disclaimer would have saved it from this ruling?

If so, can you quote the part of the ruling which demonstrates that the judge used the same reasoning that you are?

I think to be a private club, one has to meet certain criteria and applt, then have their application approved. That's how country clubs work. I can walk into a restaurant ooen to the public and expect service, but I can't walk into the dining room of the local country club and expect service if I'm not a member. If a dating site worked like a country club in this regard, it might be exempt from following anti discrimination laws, but if it hangs up it's shingle and welcomes all who want to spend their money, then it likely wouldn't be exempt.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

There are some glaring double standards e.g., is anyone going to tell Howard University that it can't be a "black" college?

Any business should be free to withhold service to anyone it wishes, and for whatever reason it wishes.

In your opinion, but that's not the law. I don't think Howard University refuses to admit qualified students of any race, which wouldn't make it a good example of your point.

 

[JustOneWay]

Any business should be free to withhold service to anyone it wishes, and for whatever reason it wishes.

Is that what you believe?