EHarmony Not only for Str-8 People

[Bikini Mod]

Based on my experience with litigation (came from long line of self-employds) I am thinking that based on that bullshit settlement the only reason that E-harmony did finally yield is because it just wasn't financially smart for them to continue to fight the suit.

Ms Snackycakes, unless you agreed to represent E-harmony pro-bono (which I am thinkin you would LOL) you would not have had the option to *not settle*. You would be an employee of E-harmony and it would be your job to do what THEY TELL you to do, as long as their directives are legal. The best that you could do, as an attorney, is to refuse to represent the client further, in essence to "fire" your client - which is well within your rights to do and I am thinkin that is what you meant.

Either way, unless someone has been sued by just ONE relentless dumbass who either has pockets that are waaaaay too deep or a large organization willing to do the suing pro bono. Guess what? Regardless of how frivolous the litigation they can keep coming at you again and again and again. Unless you have the money (regardless of how UNFAIR and UNJUST IT IS) you either sit down, STFU, pony up and pay or move to another country. Regardless of what ya'll have been raised to believe this is THE REAL definition of "Truth, Justice and The American Way."

BTW - I think the law suit is total bullshit. If the guy wanted to e-meet other like-minded partners then why THE HELL didn't he just go to one of the many gobs of sites where he could have done *just* that?

 

[mrplunkey]

Everyone's house is accessible to the public as well... If what I said is true, I would honestly take that to the highest court in the land and wouldn't stop my battle until I win.

I believe private dwellings don't get hit with the requirements public places have.

First of all, I think this is yet another example of our out-of-control tort system. But it will never change, largely because it's a money-making scheme for lawyers.

But here's how someone could argue against e-harmony. It's a social networking site, right? I'd argue it's no different than a Starbucks on a Saturday night or a public gym on "singles night". Basically it's a publicly-accessible place for people to meet and greet each other. Well if I owned a Starbucks and noticed that several gay people started showing-up on my social night, I don't think I could legally throw them out, could I?

E-harmony's only chance would be to declare themselves some kind of private club that is members-only subject to approval, but I think even that runs into problems. Golf courses and strip clubs tried to do something like that to be exclusionary and I don't know how well its working.

 

[snacky cake]

Based on my experience with litigation (came from long line of self-employds) I am thinking that based on that bullshit settlement the only reason that E-harmony did finally yield is because it just wasn't financially smart for them to continue to fight the suit.

Ms Snackycakes, unless you agreed to represent E-harmony pro-bono (which I am thinkin you would LOL) you would not have had the option to *not settle*. You would be an employee of E-harmony and it would be your job to do what THEY TELL you to do, as long as their directives are legal. The best that you could do, as an attorney, is to refuse to represent the client further, in essence to "fire" your client - which is well within your rights to do and I am thinkin that is what you meant.

Either way, unless someone has been sued by just ONE relentless dumbass who either has pockets that are waaaaay too deep or a large organization willing to do the suing pro bono. Guess what? Regardless of how frivolous the litigation they can keep coming at you again and again and again. Unless you have the money (regardless of how UNFAIR and UNJUST IT IS) you either sit down, STFU, pony up and pay or move to another country. Regardless of what ya'll have been raised to believe this is THE REAL definition of "Truth, Justice and The American Way."

BTW - I think the law suit is total bullshit. If the guy wanted to e-meet other like-minded partners then why THE HELL didn't he just go to one of the many gobs of sites where he could have done *just* that?

I'm certian that is why they settled. Plus, the judge may have awarded even more to the man than they settled for. For example, they could have made them put the gay ads on their primary site.

What I meant is that I would not have advised to settle that one. I think legal precedence is on their side. I would probably would have advised my client to play the religion card, but I would have to look into that further. I think it would have been a very successful strategy for staving off these people.

 

[snacky cake]

I believe private dwellings don't get hit with the requirements public places have.

First of all, I think this is yet another example of our out-of-control tort system. But it will never change, largely because it's a money-making scheme for lawyers.

But here's how someone could argue against e-harmony. It's a social networking site, right? I'd argue it's no different than a Starbucks on a Saturday night or a public gym on "singles night". Basically it's a publicly-accessible place for people to meet and greet each other. Well if I owned a Starbucks and noticed that several gay people started showing-up on my social night, I don't think I could legally throw them out, could I?

E-harmony's only chance would be to declare themselves some kind of private club that is members-only subject to approval, but I think even that runs into problems. Golf courses and strip clubs tried to do something like that to be exclusionary and I don't know how well its working.

I would argue that it isnt a public place. It is a private business. When you sign up they do deny certain applications etc. (I don't like it, but don't see how it isn't their right to do so)

Now a truly public place must allow equal access. We had so much trouble with this in law school because we had LOTS of really far out radical groups wanting to take up our school courtroom to get their message out. So, the school had to basically not let anyone speak or they had to deal with the influx of a million different groups demaning equal time.

 

[Stefka]

Lol @ bikinimom lecturing snackycakes on her ethical obligations to her clients.

 

[Cardinal Slin]

That's exactly what I would argue as well. Private website is a private business. Memberships can be sold and that would make it private, no?

 

[mrplunkey]

Either way, unless someone has been sued by just ONE relentless dumbass who either has pockets that are waaaaay too deep or a large organization willing to do the suing pro bono. Guess what? Regardless of how frivolous the litigation they can keep coming at you again and again and again. Unless you have the money (regardless of how UNFAIR and UNJUST IT IS) you either sit down, STFU, pony up and pay or move to another country. Regardless of what ya'll have been raised to believe this is THE REAL definition of "Truth, Justice and The American Way."

I'm watching this happen in the spinal implant business as we speak. Pedicle screws -- basically a bone screw with a swiveling head -- sell for $1,200 to $4,600 each (you need four of them). It's very simple stuff, and there are a few major suppliers and 95 little guys out there. Well if you're going to sell something that generates $4,000-$10,000 per procedure in profit, you've got to keep the little guys out. So what they do is just file one lawsuit after another. It's working like a charm too. We only do trauma implants, so we're just spectators to this train wreck. But it's funny listening to people complain about health insurance costs when IP attorneys are helping jack-up the cost of some relatively simple metal screws to 100x or more of their fair market cost.

 

[snacky cake]

I know. Dang...lol.

As an aside, when I was still in law school i clerked for a firm that defended some sexual harassment suits. One of the cases I jumped up and down and threw a FIT when they settled it. I wanted us to litigate it. The woman really WAS treated like shit by the men at this company. They were assholes, but it was all people equal or inferior to her. She NEVER said anything to anyone in managment and condceded that managment didn't know.

This was not the first sexual harassment settlement she had obtained, so one would think she would know that it isn't something the company is allowing if you don't every tell them about it.

Anyway, she got a big payday because they were worried that the jury would hear all the nasty things the employees did to her and demand that the COMPANY pay her for her troubles.

 

[mrplunkey]

Here's about $5,000+ worth of screws. They are roughly an inch long.

 

[mrplunkey]

That's exactly what I would argue as well. Private website is a private business. Memberships can be sold and that would make it private, no?

I think it's like a private club. If you establish a criteria that is defensible you can then provide a membership and restrict access based on membership. Don't all-white golf clubs pull it off by having members vote on prospective new members?