Good post, David. Beat me to it.

Putting aside Savage's cheeky take, I've read defenders of this decision elsewhere saying it's no big deal, nothing to get all riled up about. They have no concerns about how it might infringe on the constitutional right of freedom of association. They even dismiss out of hand the idea that gay online services are now vulnerable to a counter-measure — namely, straight folks demanding equal accommodation on gay dating sites. These people are fools.

The court, in its wrong-headed interpretation of the law, not only took away the freedom of eHarmony to run a niche business, but the freedom of any private enterprise from operating a niche businesses — be it JDate (for Jews looking for Jewish mates because ... well ... that can be important), to dating sites that cater to the gay niche market. At least, that is, if the decision is to be applied equally and not merely as a blunt instrument to club only Christians and the rest of the "mainstream."

This court, and many Americans, are under the erroneous impression that all forms of discrimination are wrong. Yet interpreting constitutional rights properly requires weighing any discrimination in relation to personal or (perhaps) societal harm. Purposely denying blacks access to educational opportunities does actual harm. Purposely denying blacks access to clean and convenient drinking fountains does personal and societal harm — and is, at its base, unjust.

But what about setting up a health club just for women—like Curves—so that women can feel more at ease about working out? On its face, that private business decision and strategy harms no man. But why shouldn't men sue in light of the eHarmony case — and, in the process, destroy what Curves is? What about setting up retirement communities with an age-requirement above 65? That harms no young people, but why don't we sue — thus destroying those communities.

In the world of common sense and a proper respect for our freedom of association, such discrimination is OK — or at least should be. Who knows what the future holds now? The court, plainly, is saying that any discrimination whatsoever is impermissible, regardless of harm — indeed, despite the harm it may do to eHarmony.

But, what's the constitutional right of free association worth anymore with judges given free rein to continue their crawl, bit by bit, away from justice and common sense and toward the sunny meadows of "progress." I suppose, in the new world we are going to be living in soon, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, or any niche social organization that does a lot of good and no harm to anyone must be destroyed in the name of "equality" and "fairness" and "justice."

When gay marriage is legalized from coast to coast, as I have little doubt that it will be, lawsuits will follow demanding churches that disapprove of homosexuality marry gay couples anyway. They, like eHarmony, must not be allowed to discriminate. Even churches, it will be argued, are public accommodations, and must submit like all the rest. I'd like to think the courts would draw a line somewhere in front of that, but it's hard to have faith in the light of decisions like this one.

I saw a report recently on the Today show about a dating service targeted at married people looking for an affair. eHarmony says that their service will not take married people, and will prosecute anyone who lies about this. But how can they maintain that rule in the face of this? Don't married people looking for affairs deserve the same rights as everyone else?

I realize I'm slipping into the someone over-the-top arguments that are used against gay marriage ("what if someone wants to marry a donkey!"), but they are actually valid here, because this is the direct inverse of the gay marriage argument. Instead of saying let people live how they want, this says that no one can run a business or provide a service unless it conforms to the constantly shifting ideas of "rights" held by a minority of people, and their lawyers.

Heh.

For what it's worth, I'm on eHarmony's side on this one (although I think the battle over what constitutes a "public accomodation" in the cyber age is going to be very interesting) and we know that I generally take the gay rights side of most issues. (And I think marriage -- civil marriage -- is a good and proper thing.) But I don't think this settlement means marriages to donkeys are on the horizon.