California Court Rules Dating Sites Must Allow LGBT Searches

  • Thread starter Thread starter jonesy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jonesy

Guest
I just read this article and am furious.:mad: When will the takeover of this group in our world end? So all of us must accept this lifestyle and allow LGBT to run rampant over all our beliefs? What about the rights we have to NOT accept this behavior which is contrary to God’s law and natural law? It’s not bad enough that they practice this unnatural, evil lifestyle, but they seem to be constantly rubbing our noses in it. Disgusting and disgraceful.

ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=13892
 
What happened to “religious freedom” :eek:

I cannot stand these double standards
 
Lea101 said:
What happened to “religious freedom” :eek:

I cannot stand these double standards
Click to expand...
I agree, but the main reason they walk all over christianity, is because we let them, and/or they recognize most Christians will not respond in any drastic ways, in the end, most will just whine a little bit and then settle, do you honestly think Muslims or any other religious group would put up with such things and just give in…heck no.

Ive said before, in our times today, there are limits to ones beliefs, We may be christian, but only to a certain extent, if something could result in secular problems, inconvenience, or threaten job, family, etc, most are not willing to go that far for their beliefs.
 
A core problem is that “discrimination” has become a dirty word, although we do it all the time when deciding what to eat and in many decisions we make in a day.
If a word like “restricting” is used, it might be more palatable and less liable to be challenged. Taken to its logical conclusion, the site should accept ANY kind of pairing like hook ups.
Again, no one would have bothered a Moslem site or even a gay one to change their criteria.
True, Christians have been too accommodating and that is why we are taken advantage of.
 
It is very difficult to have honest and much needed discussions about religious accommodation vs non discrimination when the religious side continues to misrepresent the facts.

The court did not make a ruling, they approved a settlement. That drastically changes the discussion morally and legally.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
It is very difficult to have honest and much needed discussions about religious accommodation vs non discrimination when the religious side continues to misrepresent the facts.

The court did not make a ruling, they approved a settlement. That drastically changes the discussion morally and legally.
Click to expand...
Wow, even worse! What happened to the “land of the free”?
 
zamyrabyrd said:
Wow, even worse! What happened to the “land of the free”?
Click to expand...
Not quite sure what you mean. You do know what a court settlement is correct? It was freely entered into by SPARK. The court did not force this on them, they freely chose to settle the case and pay the two men and open their sites up to LBGT. They could have fought it but chose not to.

Honestly as much as I’m for equality I’m kind of perplexed they didn’t go to trial with it however as I can see some good arguments as to why they could restrict what kind of searches their service provides.
 
zamyrabyrd said:
A core problem is that “discrimination” has become a dirty word, although we do it all the time when deciding what to eat and in many decisions we make in a day.
If a word like “restricting” is used, it might be more palatable and less liable to be challenged. Taken to its logical conclusion, the site should accept ANY kind of pairing like hook ups.
Again, no one would have bothered a Moslem site or even a gay one to change their criteria.
True, Christians have been too accommodating and that is why we are taken advantage of.
Click to expand...
The problem is the courts are ruling on this. It’s not Christians. There are gay exclusive dating and hook-up sites out there now.

Ed
 
Padres1969 said:
Not quite sure what you mean. You do know what a court settlement is correct? It was freely entered into by SPARK. The court did not force this on them, they freely chose to settle the case and pay the two men and open their sites up to LBGT. They could have fought it but chose not to.

Honestly as much as I’m for equality I’m kind of perplexed they didn’t go to trial with it however as I can see some good arguments as to why they could restrict what kind of searches their service provides.
Click to expand...
Lawyers cost money and we don’t know these people, so we cannot say for certain why they did what they did. My company has been involved in legal actions. It’s very easy to get into the thousands and thousands.

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Lawyers cost money and we don’t know these people, so we cannot say for certain why they did what they did. My company has been involved in legal actions. It’s very easy to get into the thousands and thousands.

Ed
Click to expand...
True we don’t know why they settled, but their “freedom” was in no way impinged. They chose to settle of their own free will.
 
Padres1969 said:
Not quite sure what you mean. You do know what a court settlement is correct? It was freely entered into by SPARK. The court did not force this on them, they freely chose to settle the case and pay the two men and open their sites up to LBGT. They could have fought it but chose not to.

Honestly as much as I’m for equality I’m kind of perplexed they didn’t go to trial with it however as I can see some good arguments as to why they could restrict what kind of searches their service provides.
Click to expand...
Settlement did not come cheap:
“Spark will also have to pay $9,000 each to Aaron Werner and Richard Wright, the two gay men who sued the company, as well as $450,000 in attorneys’ fees, as part of the settlement.”
In two years, they have to change over. Maybe they were afraid of worse penalties and all the humongous litigation.
 
Padres1969 said:
True we don’t know why they settled, but their “freedom” was in no way impinged. They chose to settle of their own free will.
Click to expand...
Oh right, they also have the freedom to go to jail if they don’t pay up.
 
zamyrabyrd said:
Settlement did not come cheap:
“Spark will also have to pay $9,000 each to Aaron Werner and Richard Wright, the two gay men who sued the company, as well as $450,000 in attorneys’ fees, as part of the settlement.”
In two years, they have to change over. Maybe they were afraid of worse penalties and all the humongous litigation.
Click to expand...
I don’t know anybody who has $450 much less $450,000 for attorneys’ fees. And litigation is a grueling process.

Ed
 
Padres1969 said:
It was freely entered into by SPARK. The court did not force this on them, they freely chose to settle the case and pay the two men and open their sites up to LBGT. They could have fought it but chose not to.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, “freely” chose to settle after wracking up over $500K in legal bills.

Many, many lawsuits are settled when the defendant cannot afford to continue defending themselves.

I would not call that “freely” doing anything.
 
1ke said:
Oh yes, “freely” chose to settle after wracking up over $500K in legal bills.

Many, many lawsuits are settled when the defendant cannot afford to continue defending themselves.

I would not call that “freely” doing anything.
Click to expand...
True, the cost can be exorbitant, but that doesn’t mean their freedom was curtailed or their rights violated. If they felt strongly about their position they could have fought on and won (including attorney’s fees). They chose not to. Is it a perfect system, no, but it’s the system we’ve had for almost 240 years.
 
mikekle said:
I agree, but the main reason they walk all over christianity, is because we let them, and/or they recognize most Christians will not respond in any drastic ways, in the end, most will just whine a little bit and then settle, do you honestly think Muslims or any other religious group would put up with such things and just give in…heck no.

Ive said before, in our times today, there are limits to ones beliefs, We may be christian, but only to a certain extent, if something could result in secular problems, inconvenience, or threaten job, family, etc, most are not willing to go that far for their beliefs.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we should be one of those religions that fight back though. What sets us apart is that we are mostly a peaceful bunch. People don’t do this to Muslims because they are scared, not because they respect them!

And I feel like the West does not take Christianity seriously because it’s the most common religion and they think it’s not discrimination, if it makes sense. Or because Christians in the west do not act like the others. Most self proclaimed Christians are sleeping around, supporting immorality etc. Like you have Kanye West praising God and then act like…well Kanye. You have Justin Bieber worshipping God and then sleeping with a bunch of women and so on. (I’m not saying they are horrible Christians, but obviously they aren’t doing it right lol) While Muslims you see are often devout in their faith. So Christianity is seen as a secular-ish religion, so to them, it’s okay to “bend the rules” because we are already doing it anyway

So when a Christian stands up against stuff like this, it just looks like the person is discriminating gays, unlike a Muslim because of the fact that Muslims seem so into their religion and different from the rest. Because people don’t have a clear idea about Christianity. (And the fear factor that extremists will kill them)

I don’t know how the US government works, but it sucks.
Over here you can get charged for insulting Christianity or any other religion. People here are not forced to go against our beliefs because we are a tiny country and our government is scared of any racial or religious tension (which is why gay marriage is still not legal here) so maybe I’m privileged 🙂
 
zamyrabyrd said:
Settlement did not come cheap:
“Spark will also have to pay $9,000 each to Aaron Werner and Richard Wright, the two gay men who sued the company, as well as $450,000 in attorneys’ fees, as part of the settlement.”
In two years, they have to change over. Maybe they were afraid of worse penalties and all the humongous litigation.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but in the end it’s not a huge hit for a $35 million dollar company and it might actually help them turn their slumping stock price around.
 
1ke said:
Oh yes, “freely” chose to settle after wracking up over $500K in legal bills.

Many, many lawsuits are settled when the defendant cannot afford to continue defending themselves.

I would not call that “freely” doing anything.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Some cases end when one party runs out of money.

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top