"suing Victoria's Secret because they don't sell jockstraps"

A great line from a good essay by Janet LaRue on a sad outcome: the attack of an activist, the acquiescence of the courts, and eventually e-Harmony "caving" to the coercion and providing services for homosexual clients.

New Jersey resident Eric McKinley, 46, a self-described homosexual, decided to sign up for the California-based eHarmony.com online dating service in 2005. He says he couldn’t get past the first screen, “because the pull-down menus had categories only for a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man.”

So naturally the aggrieved McKinley ignored the plethora of “gay” on-line dating Web sites and filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (NJDCR).

The claim makes as much legal sense as if McKinley had sued Victoria’s Secret because it doesn’t sell jockstraps. But after three years of litigation, the Christian-owned dating service caved, announcing on Nov. 20 that it would establish a same-sex dating service early next year. In the face of intimidation litigation, eHarmony chose to settle, rather than defend its rights under the U.S. Constitution or cease doing business in New Jersey.

The surrender followed a finding by the NJDCR of probable cause to believe that McKinley was unlawfully discriminated against because eHarmony didn’t provide same-sex matches....

In addition to paying New Jersey $50,000 and McKinley $5,000, eHarmony will provide same-sex relationship matching services called “Compatible Partners” by March 31, 2009, and give the first 10,000 same-sex registrants a free six-month subscription....

Apparently the certainty of losing is more compatible than the possibility of winning. Contrary to some media, eHarmony wasn’t "forced" or "compelled" to comply with McKinley’s demands; eHarmony surrendered to his demands....

Since married people are expressly prohibited from using or registering to use eHarmony’s singles service and the (LAD) prohibits discrimination based on marital status, how long will it be before some budding adulterer sues because eHarmony doesn’t facilitate that swinging option? Will it expand its new “Compatible Partners” to include ménage á trois types, spouse swappers, sadomasochists, cross-dressers and transgenders?...

On its Web site, eHarmony says that “the most important areas of life – like values, character” matter to the success of long-term relationships. But its surrender to intimidation litigation says loudly that its corporate bottom line matters more.

Worse yet is the demoralizing effect that eHarmony’s capitulation is likely to have on those defending similar suits – and the emboldening effect on the bullies who file them.

LaRue also covers a number of similar examples of litigation.