Akhmed Al-Fayyed (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} akhmed) wrote,@ 2006-03-29 13:32:00 |
|
I'm right - again.
Overlawyered pointed me to this stunning case, which can be summed up in a blockquote:
California has no-fault divorce, abolished its heartbalm torts, and decriminalized adultery. Therefore, there's no legal reason why a service couldn't enable adulterers, either technical or actual. eHarmony's preferences, and even its market research, must bow to California law.
Now, I think it's pretty unfortunate that California law likely prevents dating services from refusing to abet philanderers. But, as Solzhenitsyn said, in America we confuse what's legal with what's moral, and try to draw the boundaries of moral no farther than the law.
Overlawyered pointed me to this stunning case, which can be summed up in a blockquote:
A man separated from his wife but not quite divorced is suing a popular online matchmaker for refusing to help him find a date.I think eHarmony might lose, and here's why.
John Claassen, a 36-year-old lawyer from Emeryville, filed a lawsuit alleging eHarmony abridged his civil rights by refusing to match him up. He said the company, which has an "unmarried only" policy, broke California state law by discriminating against him based on his marital status.
California has no-fault divorce, abolished its heartbalm torts, and decriminalized adultery. Therefore, there's no legal reason why a service couldn't enable adulterers, either technical or actual. eHarmony's preferences, and even its market research, must bow to California law.
Now, I think it's pretty unfortunate that California law likely prevents dating services from refusing to abet philanderers. But, as Solzhenitsyn said, in America we confuse what's legal with what's moral, and try to draw the boundaries of moral no farther than the law.
