4 ms·

So they have been ordered to implement additional features into their website to make same-sex matches possible, for types of users they don't want on their sit

by elpocko 10y ago

So they have been ordered to implement additional features into their website to make same-sex matches possible, for types of users they don't want on their site in the first place? I don't think that's right.

zzalpha 10y ago
What if it was a dating website that didn't allow African Americans or Jewish people on the site? Now what if it was a physical establishment? Say, a whites-only lunch counter? Of course, some hold the position that no anti-discrimination law should be applicable to a private business. If so, at least that's ideologically consistent, though IMO historically naive. But if you allow for such laws IRL, so to speak, then extending those same laws to the online sphere is, I think, perfectly rational.
- waterphone 10y ago
  There are multiple gay-only dating sites/apps that people seem to have no problem with.
  - elpocko 10y ago
    I don't know anything about the law in question, but if it's only about protecting minorities, it creates the situation where gay-only sites are lawful, while hetero-only sites are illegal. I think that's pretty bad.
- elpocko 10y ago
  Your examples are not applicable because, as far as I understand it, they would have to implement additional features to allow for same-sex matches. There's no "no gays allowed" code on their site. Your examples are examples of active exclusion, while this is a case of missing inclusion. I don't think it's right to force them to implement this additional code. If they had active anti-homosexual code it would be a different matter though.
  - zzalpha 10y ago
    I see. So are you opposed to accessibility laws, which require businesses to spend money to adhere to additional building codes, in order to accommodate the disabled?
    - elpocko 10y ago
      If there are plenty alternatives available, and the express purpose of the building is something the disabled in question are inherently unfit for, then yes, then I'm opposed to such laws. Being homosexual is not a handicap, and they are not being excluded from society by not being able to match each other on a religious dating website.
      - elpocko 10y ago
        Oh, and it actually, honestly didn't cross my mind once that I'm bisexual myself when I made this argument. So it should not say "they" in my comment above, but rather "we". My sexuality is not that important to me, and the bisexual tendency is a rather new thing to me, so I tend for forget.
  - aethertron 10y ago
    The fact that the service was implemented such that it only matched men with women, and women with men, could be interpreted as 'active anti-homosexual code'. On the other hand, one could argue there LGBT singles weren't excluded in the first place -- the site just provided a less than satisfactory service for them. I think this situation is very comparable to face-recognition technology that fails to work properly with people with dark skin, and voice-recognition technology that functions poorly with certain accents. It's desirable that these services and technologies are equally accessible for everyone. To make this a legal obligation may effectively speed up this process. It also risks slowing development by restricting the use of incremental releases.
    - elpocko 10y ago
      I'm a programmer and in my opinion "active code", in this context, implies there is actual code expressly written to fulfill a task (i.e., to not allow homosexuals to match). While in this case, substantial parts are missing (e.g., everything that is required to allow the site to fulfill the needs of LGBT* users). Should we call something that does not even exist "active"? Edit: after thinking about it for a bit, I'm quite sure the site probably actually does have at least one clause written, somewhere, to make sure only men + women match. Simply removing them wouldn't result in good UX though :)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jameskilton 10y ago
Religions discussion aside, they broke California law. That right there is enough to warrant either two choices: they adhere to the law, or they stop serving in California.

by elpocko 10y ago

zzalpha 10y ago

What if it was a dating website that didn't allow African Americans or Jewish people on the site? Now what if it was a physical establishment? Say, a whites-only lunch counter? Of course, some hold the position that no anti-discrimination law should be applicable to a private business. If so, at least that's ideologically consistent, though IMO historically naive. But if you allow for such laws IRL, so to speak, then extending those same laws to the online sphere is, I think, perfectly rational.

waterphone 10y ago
There are multiple gay-only dating sites/apps that people seem to have no problem with.
- elpocko 10y ago
  I don't know anything about the law in question, but if it's only about protecting minorities, it creates the situation where gay-only sites are lawful, while hetero-only sites are illegal. I think that's pretty bad.
elpocko 10y ago
Your examples are not applicable because, as far as I understand it, they would have to implement additional features to allow for same-sex matches. There's no "no gays allowed" code on their site. Your examples are examples of active exclusion, while this is a case of missing inclusion. I don't think it's right to force them to implement this additional code. If they had active anti-homosexual code it would be a different matter though.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  I see. So are you opposed to accessibility laws, which require businesses to spend money to adhere to additional building codes, in order to accommodate the disabled?
  - elpocko 10y ago
    If there are plenty alternatives available, and the express purpose of the building is something the disabled in question are inherently unfit for, then yes, then I'm opposed to such laws. Being homosexual is not a handicap, and they are not being excluded from society by not being able to match each other on a religious dating website.
    - elpocko 10y ago
      Oh, and it actually, honestly didn't cross my mind once that I'm bisexual myself when I made this argument. So it should not say "they" in my comment above, but rather "we". My sexuality is not that important to me, and the bisexual tendency is a rather new thing to me, so I tend for forget.
- aethertron 10y ago
  The fact that the service was implemented such that it only matched men with women, and women with men, could be interpreted as 'active anti-homosexual code'. On the other hand, one could argue there LGBT singles weren't excluded in the first place -- the site just provided a less than satisfactory service for them. I think this situation is very comparable to face-recognition technology that fails to work properly with people with dark skin, and voice-recognition technology that functions poorly with certain accents. It's desirable that these services and technologies are equally accessible for everyone. To make this a legal obligation may effectively speed up this process. It also risks slowing development by restricting the use of incremental releases.
  - elpocko 10y ago
    I'm a programmer and in my opinion "active code", in this context, implies there is actual code expressly written to fulfill a task (i.e., to not allow homosexuals to match). While in this case, substantial parts are missing (e.g., everything that is required to allow the site to fulfill the needs of LGBT* users). Should we call something that does not even exist "active"? Edit: after thinking about it for a bit, I'm quite sure the site probably actually does have at least one clause written, somewhere, to make sure only men + women match. Simply removing them wouldn't result in good UX though :)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jameskilton 10y ago

Religions discussion aside, they broke California law. That right there is enough to warrant either two choices: they adhere to the law, or they stop serving in California.