"Tolerance is not enough" Update

You're an evangelical Christian with ties to Focus on the Family. You establish a dating service (online, as it happens, but that's hardly essential) with the goal of matching people according to marriage-compatibility rather hookup-hotness.

Even your business is not safe from the gay-rights busybodies. You must conform. EHarmony is being sued for not providing a homosexual service.

The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.
Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a "men seeking men" or "women seeking women" option.

There's some slippery language in there. Miss Carlson was not denied access to eHarmony because she is gay. EHarmony simply doesn't provide the service she wants, which is her problem and doesn't give her the right to demand a different service. You might as well go to a Porsche dealer and demand a Subaru Outback; to a rec football league and demand to play softball. Indeed there's one chunk of material that sets off my bovine-scatology meter:

According to the lawsuit, Carlson, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area, tried to use the site's dating services in February 2007. When she was denied access, she wrote to eHarmony saying that its anti-gay policy was discriminatory under California law but the company refused to change it.

I wonder what "tried to use the site's dating service ... [but] was denied access" means -- exactly. I smell an activist looking for a cause. Just right now, I went to eHarmony to see if I could use their service, which involves filling out forms to determine personality and interests, and get matches. And despite my SSA, which is of a degree that the thought of sex with a woman is an active turnoff, I could answer the entire questionnaire truthfully.¹ Only 2 questions among the 200 or so could be seen as problems for person like myself: "I greatly appreciate the physical beauty of the opposite sex" and "I like to look at people of the opposite sex." But in both cases, I just answered "very uninterested" (or something to that effect ... I forget exactly how the choices were worded), which could just as easily have meant I was past the age of interest in sex and wanted a Josephite match, for companionship.

EHarmony makes the sensible point that same-sex unions are different and they cannot offer the service.

"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages," it said in a statement.
"Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted," eHarmony added.

Of course, the causemongering shyster lawyer says upfront that this lawsuit is entirely about social engineering and "making a statement.

Carlson's lawyer Todd Schneider said the lawsuit was "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love."

Rocky Mountain oysters. Yes, people have a right and desire to meet others and fall in love -- but y'know, nobody is prevented from doing that now. And God also created bars, clubs, discos, workplaces, the street, Craig's List and gay.com. You have a right to meet others, but not the right to use someone else's facility to help you. No ... this lawsuit is purely a spiteful effort to force a business to provide a service and punish them for not doing so in the past. Stamping out diversity, and making every dating service provide the same range of services.

This is what the gay-rights movement of today is all about and why it should be absolutely resisted and discredited at every opportunity. It's not about social tolerance or having the right to be let alone in their private lives (even the homophobic CM, at least, treasures that and would not want to return to the bad-old pre-Stonewall days).

When a homosex advocate says he has no intention of persecuting or punishing people who morally object to homosexuality, or making you approve of his behavior, he is either lying or being disingenuous. "Gay rights" today is all about forcing other people to conform their private behavior to what homosexuals think it ought to be and what will benefit them. In other words, it has become the authoritarian.
--------------------------------------------------
¹ Actually, I did get dissed. I got the following message, which they say they give out frequently:

eHarmony is based upon a complex matching system developed through extensive research with married couples. One of the requirements for successful matching is that participants fall within certain defined profiles. If we find that we will not be able to match a user using these profiles, we feel it is only fair to inform them early in the process.
We are so convinced of the importance of creating compatible matches to help people establish happy, lasting relationships that we sometimes choose not to provide service rather than risk an uncertain match.
Unfortunately, we are not able to make our profiles work for you. Our matching model could not accurately predict with whom you would be best matched. This occurs for about 20% of potential users, so 1 in 5 people simply will not benefit from our service. We hope that you understand, and we regret our inability to provide service for you at this time.

So the chicks of Washington didn't even get their hopes falsely raised. But I knew any dating service would have trouble matching me based on my moods -- depression and frequent melancholia, swinging into bouts of recklessness.