And one woman is suing eHarmony.com for refusing its services to gays and lesbians.

I have a dream that one day gay couples and straight couples will join together...in really cheesy TV commercials.

Will be interested to see how the eHarmony suit pans out; keep us posted.

I heard an interview with the eHarmony guy once... I think it was on Fresh Air. At any rate, he was asked about why his site doesn't offer their services to gays and he claimed that their personality profiling and compatibility algorithms don't work with same-sex couples. Doesn't seem quite right to me.

It will be interesting, TPS, if only because she didn't realize it had been picked up by the AP. She told her lawyer a while ago that she wouldn't talk to the press (she's the E.D. of a nonprofit and she was worried it would affect her job), and now it's all over the news -- even on CNN's ticker. I read it in the Chronicle last night, called a friend, the friend called her, and now she's totally freaking out.

Inside scoop: If her board of directors gives her shit, you might see the suit go away. :(

I hope this isn't too Google-able.

There's a funny TV ad for Chemistry.com that plays off of eHarmony's "problem" with gay people.

Doesn't eHarmony also have a problem with non-Christians?

I know a Jewish gal that's registered with eHarmony and hasn't had any hassles over faith differences -- she just thinks the guys they try to match her with are lame. But then, I think she's not exactly top-shelf material herself, so...Caveat Emptor.

She filed suit against eHarmony, and didn't realize she was going to get buckets of press? Eee.

I'm with you, TPS. It was short-sighted. But then again, that's not all that surprising, given the person in question.

It's kind of mind-boggling- that's the main point of lawsuits like that, is to get publicity for whatever you're talking about. Well, we'll see what happens- I imagine there will be some groups that will be interested; perhaps they'd be interested enough to take over the case, or support it, or something.

I googled "sue eharmony lesbian" and the first item is Dan Savage's column. The story is already on everything from Reuters and USA Today to the military press and other right-leaning sites.

Your friend may not have realized the publicity potential, but you can be absolutely certain her lawyer did. Her name will be out eventually, especially once the blogosphere gets a hold of it.

Oops, nuke that. From BET: "Linda Carlson, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area, says she tried to use the Web site in February to meet a woman but could not based on her sexual orientation. When Carlson wrote to eHarmony to complain, the suit says the company refused to change its policy. So her next move was to file a suit."

Your friend may not have realized the publicity potential, but you can be absolutely certain her lawyer did.

Nail, head.

She's a friend of a friend, by the way. I have no stake in this. And yeah, she was totally dumb not to realize what she was getting into.

SmallWorldFilter. The CNN clip is of the woman's lawyer, who is my ex-husband's law partner. The clip makes it seem as though the lawyer is the one excluded from eHarmony, which amused me as he is a married semi-dorky straight white guy.

The eHarmony lawsuits all follow the very recent ruling allowing California gay and lesbian folks to sue an adoption web site on the same theory. When the adoption web site ruling came down, I knew that eHarmony would be next. Good thinking/strategy to let the adoption case go first.

CNN's airing the story via KTVU (including an interview with the lawyer) right now. So yeah, I'd say her lawyer is definitely working the press.

Oops, excuse my faux pas.

I just did a blog search on her name, and I found at least 50 relevant articles. Coupled with well over a thousand online news articles about the suit, from what I have seen in the past with similar news stories, this will receive significant attention for as long as the lawsuit is alive.

I don't see that any of the major feminist blogs have picked up on it, but that should change soon now that Savage has run his column.

Perhaps this will also uncover the truth behind the legend that eHarmony discriminates against non-christians. If it does, I imagine the story would get even bigger.

I'll bet the lawyer is working on retainer rather than on contingency too. The slimeball!

As for the suit itself, eHarmony will probably claim that compatibility between males and females is not the same as agreement on any given factor. For instance, males who give a 10 for some factor may be most compatible with females who give a 1. The same may not be true for same-sex relationships, and that would require research outside of eHarmony's business model.

IOW, eHarmony will probably win this lawsuit.

I'm not sure their whole "compatibility matrix" thing is germane, mischief. It's not their business or compatibility model that's being called into question -- it's the fact that they essentially deny their services to a certain segment of the population, which is illegal under CA law.

(And when I say 'not germane,' I mean to the suit, not to the discussion.)

Actually, they are not denying their services to gays and lesbians. Any male is welcome to seek a compatible female, and any female is welcome seek a compatible male. I am not a lawyer, obviously, and I don't know the details, so I am only speculating on abstractions, but I don't think this is a winnable battle for anyone except eHarmony.

Either eHarmony will continue as is with some excellent publicity on their exclusivity, or forced to expand their business so they can charge their inflated fees to gays and lesbians. Purely win-win.

Also, looking through the gay blogosphere, the split is about even on whether this case has merit or is frivolous.

Welp, it'll be interesting to see how it turns out, anyway.

Actually, they are not denying their services to gays and lesbians. Any male is welcome to seek a compatible female, and any female is welcome seek a compatible male.

It seems to me that this is the sex vs. sexual orientation distinction that often comes up in Title VII litigation and constitutional law questions regarding banning gay marriage. I tried to explain my understanding of this distinction more fully in this comment I made some years ago on Metafilter.

I have no idea if this will feature in the e-Harmony suit. Off the top of my head, I suspect the argument will more closely follow the Dale v. Boy Scouts decision, where (among other things) the Court upheld the BSA's right to discriminate on the basis of their right to free associative expression.

A recent ruling permitted a similar lawsuit to go forward against adoption websites. The cases against eHarmony followed.

Not sure why some are cranky here about the case -- it may win or lose, but it's not frivolous, especially not under California law. The "right to associate" is generally not applicable to large for-profit businesses.

Plaintiffs' lawyers do tend to love publicity for its own sake. At the same time, publicity is necessary for class-action lawsuits to find witnesses and additional class members. It also serves an educational purpose.

Also -- there's no way this is a "retainer" case where the individual plaintiffs are paying by the hour. This is a case where the lawyers are doing the work in the hopes of a future fee petition and perhaps some contingent amount of damages. (There are only modest damages associated with this kind of discrimination, so fees will likely be mainly recovered through a fee petition.) In a fee petition, the lawyer is generally not permitted to bill for publicity or press work.

mups, you can really send her over the edge by letting her know that the story of the lawsuit is in the news in Canada as well.