ChristianMingle Loses Lawsuit, Will Have to Accommodate Members Looking for Same-Sex Relationships

[MDM4AU 337]

Popular online dating website ChristianMingle will no longer be able to keep out people looking for same-sex relationships. A California judge ruled Thursday Spark Networks, which also operates CatholicMingle, AdventistSinglesConnection, and BlackSingles, must treat people looking for same-sex partners equally.

Read full article here:

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/christianmingle_loses_lawsuit_will_have_to_accommodate_members_looking_for_same_sex_relationships

[AUDub 11,424]

Why would a gay person even WANT to put anything on a website like that?

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Why would a gay person even WANT to put anything on a website like that?

Because they're Christian?

[AUDub 11,424]

Why would a gay person even WANT to put anything on a website like that?

Because they're Christian?

I was being facetious, Tex.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Why would a gay person even WANT to put anything on a website like that?

Because they're Christian?

True, but that would be like casting your net in the wading pool if you know what I mean... I don't see a whole lot of bites coming lol.

[homersapien 11,812]

Why would a gay person even WANT to put anything on a website like that?

Because they're Christian?

True, but that would be like casting your net in the wading pool if you know what I mean... I don't see a whole lot of bites coming lol.

Well, actually there is no reason to think there would be any fewer gays being born in the Christian community, but you are probably right considering how many remain by dating age.

Apparently, most Christians don't want em, and this site is trying to cater to them.

But since they are providing a service instead of "holding" a service, the ruling sounds about right to me.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Why would a gay person even WANT to put anything on a website like that?

Because they're Christian?

I was being facetious, Tex. :laugh:/>

Long week.

[Grumps 3,706]

What a bizarre ruling. It is going to be fun (in a sick way) to see where the Law of Unintended Consequences ends up with rulings like this. A Christian dating site is REQUIRED BY THE COURT to help arrange relationships that violate longstanding and closely held Christian values. It sure seems unconstitutional to me, but I'm certainly no constitutional scholar.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

So a site intended for people who adhere to a traditional Christian sexual ethic (one of the main reasons it was created), is now forced to facilitate matches that violate that ethic?

Nice. Maybe they should be forced to create a way for people to just hook up for casual sex too so they don't discriminate again Christians that reject that whole "no sex outside of marriage" thing.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

So a site intended for people who adhere to a traditional Christian sexual ethic (one of the main reasons it was created), is now forced to facilitate matches that violate that ethic?

Nice. Maybe they should be forced to create a way for people to just hook up for casual sex too so they don't discriminate again Christians that reject that whole "no sex outside of marriage" thing.

This seemed off somehow, so I looked for less biased sources. It was an agreed to settlement:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/06/30/christianmingle-com-opens-doors-to-gay-singles-under-settlement/

[homersapien 11,812]

What a bizarre ruling. It is going to be fun (in a sick way) to see where the Law of Unintended Consequences ends up with rulings like this. A Christian dating site is REQUIRED BY THE COURT to help arrange relationships that violate longstanding and closely held Christian values. It sure seems unconstitutional to me, but I'm certainly no constitutional scholar.

What if they operated a site marketed to white supremacists and refused people of color?

[homersapien 11,812]

So a site intended for people who adhere to a traditional Christian sexual ethic (one of the main reasons it was created), is now forced to facilitate matches that violate that ethic?

Nice. Maybe they should be forced to create a way for people to just hook up for casual sex too so they don't discriminate again Christians that reject that whole "no sex outside of marriage" thing.

What standing does that (commercial) site have to determine that homosexuality violates Christian sexual ethics?

There are plenty of Christians who don't believe that, not to mention Christian homosexuals themselves.

[homersapien 11,812]

What a bizarre ruling. It is going to be fun (in a sick way) to see where the Law of Unintended Consequences ends up with rulings like this. A Christian dating site is REQUIRED BY THE COURT to help arrange relationships that violate longstanding and closely held Christian values. It sure seems unconstitutional to me, but I'm certainly no constitutional scholar.

Actually, the defendant is a company operating a dating site they are marketing as being for Christians. They also operate one for Jews and possibly other groups.

[AUFAN78 4,060]

What a bizarre ruling. It is going to be fun (in a sick way) to see where the Law of Unintended Consequences ends up with rulings like this. A Christian dating site is REQUIRED BY THE COURT to help arrange relationships that violate longstanding and closely held Christian values. It sure seems unconstitutional to me, but I'm certainly no constitutional scholar.

Actually, the defendant is a company operating a dating site they are marketing as being for Christians. They also operate one for Jews and possibly other groups.

They operate many dating sites and as far as I can tell they are not a Christian organization. Explains a lot.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

So a site intended for people who adhere to a traditional Christian sexual ethic (one of the main reasons it was created), is now forced to facilitate matches that violate that ethic?

Nice. Maybe they should be forced to create a way for people to just hook up for casual sex too so they don't discriminate again Christians that reject that whole "no sex outside of marriage" thing.

What standing does that (commercial) site have to determine that homosexuality violates Christian sexual ethics?

There are plenty of Christians who don't believe that, not to mention Christian homosexuals themselves.

Well hell, while we're at it lets just have them dispense with the pesky Christian belief that Jesus is God? Who are they to say that's a necessary belief to call oneself Christian?

2000+ years of Christian doctrine and the Scriptures attest to same sex sexual activity being outside the bounds of the Christian sexual ethic. Same way it defines extramarital sex for heterosexuals as being outside of it. Same way it defines a married person having a mistress as outside of it. It's a purely modern invention that says otherwise.

No one is stopping someone else from setting up a dating site that caters to gay Christians, theologically liberal Christians, polyamorists or any other group with a relaxed sexual ethic. But I think it's not for the government to decide such things for a religious group.

Should they also force JewishMingle to accept non-Jews? CatholicMingle to accept Protestants?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

What a bizarre ruling. It is going to be fun (in a sick way) to see where the Law of Unintended Consequences ends up with rulings like this. A Christian dating site is REQUIRED BY THE COURT to help arrange relationships that violate longstanding and closely held Christian values. It sure seems unconstitutional to me, but I'm certainly no constitutional scholar.

What if they operated a site marketed to white supremacists and refused people of color?

What if there was a similar service only for gay people to meet other gay people to date?

Wait...

[homersapien 11,812]

So a site intended for people who adhere to a traditional Christian sexual ethic (one of the main reasons it was created), is now forced to facilitate matches that violate that ethic?

Nice. Maybe they should be forced to create a way for people to just hook up for casual sex too so they don't discriminate again Christians that reject that whole "no sex outside of marriage" thing.

What standing does that (commercial) site have to determine that homosexuality violates Christian sexual ethics?

There are plenty of Christians who don't believe that, not to mention Christian homosexuals themselves.

Well hell, while we're at it lets just have them dispense with the pesky Christian belief that Jesus is God? Who are they to say that's a necessary belief to call oneself Christian?

Not sure how that is relevant to violating anyone's civil rights.

[homersapien 11,812]

What a bizarre ruling. It is going to be fun (in a sick way) to see where the Law of Unintended Consequences ends up with rulings like this. A Christian dating site is REQUIRED BY THE COURT to help arrange relationships that violate longstanding and closely held Christian values. It sure seems unconstitutional to me, but I'm certainly no constitutional scholar.

What if they operated a site marketed to white supremacists and refused people of color?

What if there was a similar service only for gay people to meet other gay people to date?

Wait...

Well, if the company was operating such a site and prevented heterosexuals from participating, it would be a similar case.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

What a bizarre ruling. It is going to be fun (in a sick way) to see where the Law of Unintended Consequences ends up with rulings like this. A Christian dating site is REQUIRED BY THE COURT to help arrange relationships that violate longstanding and closely held Christian values. It sure seems unconstitutional to me, but I'm certainly no constitutional scholar.

What if they operated a site marketed to white supremacists and refused people of color?

What if there was a similar service only for gay people to meet other gay people to date?

Wait...

Well, if the company was operating such a site and prevented heterosexuals from participating, it would be a similar case.

Which is patently absurd. And for the record, there are dating sites that cater to same sex relationships. And there's nothing wrong with that. The existence of such a thing in no way violates the civil rights of heterosexuals.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

A lot of arguing over a non-ruling.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

So a site intended for people who adhere to a traditional Christian sexual ethic (one of the main reasons it was created), is now forced to facilitate matches that violate that ethic?

Nice. Maybe they should be forced to create a way for people to just hook up for casual sex too so they don't discriminate again Christians that reject that whole "no sex outside of marriage" thing.

What standing does that (commercial) site have to determine that homosexuality violates Christian sexual ethics?

There are plenty of Christians who don't believe that, not to mention Christian homosexuals themselves.

Well hell, while we're at it lets just have them dispense with the pesky Christian belief that Jesus is God? Who are they to say that's a necessary belief to call oneself Christian?

Not sure how that is relevant to violating anyone's civil rights.

The free exercise clause, freedom of association...are those not Constitutional rights also? Or do all rights bow to sexual rightss?

[TexasTiger 13,556]

So a site intended for people who adhere to a traditional Christian sexual ethic (one of the main reasons it was created), is now forced to facilitate matches that violate that ethic?

Nice. Maybe they should be forced to create a way for people to just hook up for casual sex too so they don't discriminate again Christians that reject that whole "no sex outside of marriage" thing.

What standing does that (commercial) site have to determine that homosexuality violates Christian sexual ethics?

There are plenty of Christians who don't believe that, not to mention Christian homosexuals themselves.

Well hell, while we're at it lets just have them dispense with the pesky Christian belief that Jesus is God? Who are they to say that's a necessary belief to call oneself Christian?

Not sure how that is relevant to violating anyone's civil rights.

The free exercise clause, freedom of association...are those not Constitutional rights also? Or do all rights bow to sexual right Side?

And it continues...

[TitanTiger 20,708]

A lot of arguing over a non-ruling.

Don't play dumb. It was a settlement coerced by a lawsuit in a state friendly to the plaintiffs. The effect is the same.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

So a site intended for people who adhere to a traditional Christian sexual ethic (one of the main reasons it was created), is now forced to facilitate matches that violate that ethic?

Nice. Maybe they should be forced to create a way for people to just hook up for casual sex too so they don't discriminate again Christians that reject that whole "no sex outside of marriage" thing.

What standing does that (commercial) site have to determine that homosexuality violates Christian sexual ethics?

There are plenty of Christians who don't believe that, not to mention Christian homosexuals themselves.

Well hell, while we're at it lets just have them dispense with the pesky Christian belief that Jesus is God? Who are they to say that's a necessary belief to call oneself Christian?

Not sure how that is relevant to violating anyone's civil rights.

The free exercise clause, freedom of association...are those not Constitutional rights also? Or do all rights bow to sexual right Side?

And it continues...

Yes it does, because a certain segment of this society cannot bear having anyone get away with any show of disapproval of the modern sexual ethic. Heaven forbid people just be left alone.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

A lot of arguing over a non-ruling.

Don't play dumb. It was a settlement coerced by a lawsuit in a state friendly to the plaintiffs. The effect is the same.

This is a business making a business decision. If this were an actual religious dating site, I can't see them losing in federal court. Don't play dumb.