Ross Kaminsky, who blogs at Rossputin.com, very effectively defends the dating site eHarmony.com against those who want to use government to force it to cater also to gays.
Heterosexual me says, as Ross says, that I am neither Christian nor of the opinion that homosexuality is immoral. But — also like Ross — I value freedom. No private company should be compelled to cater to any group or groups that it chooses to avoid. eHarmony has every moral right — and should have every legal right — to choose its clients and customers as it wishes.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 23 comments }
Would you make the same argument if the organization was choosing to exclude a racial minority?
Yes, any serious libertarian would. Incidentally, I'm Arab. And if they said, "No ragheads allowed," that would be their right. I wouldn't like it, but I shouldn't be able to force them to let me on.
As the guy who wrote the piece Don is talking about, I don't forget that there are plenty of places who might not serve Jews (like me). I wouldn't like it, and I would certainly take it as an insult, but I don't think government has any right to keep people from feeling insulted by other people. Again, I emphasize that I do not believe governments, private services paid for by governments (such as if a city outsourced its public transportation), or monopolies should have the same right to discriminate.
Not only would interfere with their freedom, there may also be differences in homosexuals' preferences amongst partners. This is of course hypothetical. The site is designed to par a man and woman, I would venture a guess that pairing the same sex would have additional costs of research and then technological programing. If I believe the commercials for e-Harmony, the research is based on heterosexual relationships and by government fiat then they would force someone to do work that they may not want to do.
If eHarmony does actually discriminate against gays, as opposed to its statement that it is technically incapable of successfully matchmaking them currently, then a new firm should seize this niche and capitalize on the gay market. It will force eHarmony to either drop its moral position or invest more heavily in its gay matchmaking research. As annoying and unfortunate as this discrimination is, it ultimately highlights a market opportunity that will now gain more attention.
There are dating sites that exclude by race and religion.
Those links are fantastic, Will. They demonstrate the point excellently. It's not that eHarmony is exclusive, it's just exclusive for straights.
It is okay for non-white, non-straight to exclude anyone. For example, Black Singles is a black thing. We just wouldn't understand.
What about the possible negative externalities that result from allowing a business to discriminate against a racial minority?
If a restaurant opened up that did not allow a minority, for example, some possible negative externalities might include:
Tourists boycotting the town until the restaurant is closed down (which hurts other businesses)
A hostile environment for any racial minority that lives in that town
Dan,
Chemistry.com has been advertising on TV recently in an effort to market themselves against eHarmony using this issue. Althought I wouldn't use either site, some of the ads are somewhat funny. It just goes to show though that before the case can even make it to court, the market has corrected the problem.
Stephen, if anti-discrimination laws ever made sense, they made sense because people were geographically situated. Discrimination against blacks in a restaurant in a particular town is bad because it creates the hostile environment you talk about.
On the internet, this justification doesn't make sense. The blacks-only, left-handed bisexual dating site is a google search and a click away.
How far does one go with this argument? Is it ok to fire someone or refuse to hire someone because the employer doesn't like that person's looks, religion or politics? Isn't there some line that shouldn't be crossed when it comes to discrimination?
Once, as a guest-host on Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Williams made the comment that if a restaurant hated blacks so much that they would pass up profit and ban blacks, that he would rather know their true feelings than to have government force such a business to let him in and unknowingly be served food by people that hate him. I can't find any fault in that logic.
Dr. Sowell has pointed out many times that segregation in the South was mandated by law, which underscores why Mr. Kaminsky's exceptions make perfect sense.
Mr. Graf,
Have you ever noticed that businesses owned by Koreans typically hire Koreans, and that the same holds true for every ethnicity? Law or no law, people figure a way to hire people they are comfortable with.
The line that shouldn't be crossed is that it's my property and if you don't like my rules you are not compelled to work there, or patronize my business.
Should the NBA be required to hire more Whites and Asians to play basketball? Or, the NHL be required to hire more Blacks and Asians to play hockey?
In what sense is eHarmony discriminating against gays any more than a department store that decides against carrying, say, luggage discriminating against travelers?
There is a slippery slope problem here. Why stop at castigating eHarmony for not offering gay dating? They don't offer a line of luxury perfumes. Is this not discriminating against luxury perfume lovers? They don't offer discounts for welfare recipients. Is this not discriminating against the poor?
Applied consistently, a rule that says every business must take care not to offend any minority in society could not offer anything.
David Graf
No, provided the discrimination creates opportunities for some other provider to exploit, which rules out discrimination (in server, not employment) by public monopolies like police. Where there is competition, there is no problem. Gay dating sites are undoubtedly pleased by eHarmony's decision not to enter that market. The market is still being served. Except when there is monopoly, what problem is solved by a law that forces blanket coverage?
Gary Becker showed discrimination is not generally profitable, so you would not expect widespread discrimination without laws anyway.
The constraints that you seem to think might be a good idea become ridiculous when applied consistently. Should any firm not employing a mix of employees that reflects the racial composition of society be prosecuted? By gender? By religion? By sexual orientation? By hair colour?
Sorry: "(in server, not employment)" should be "(in providing service, not employment)"
The fact that this is a web business seems the interesting portion.
In a physical business discrimination is humiliating. And the rejected customer may have no reasonable access to alternative services.
That was certainly true for blacks in many parts of the South, and sometimes in the North.
But on the WWW almost anything is offered at any time. Your location means nothing when you search – well, don't try certain things from China – so it is hard to see how much harm when eHarmony limits their service.
Of course, whether harm is hard to quantify certainly doesn't dault lawyers or economists. This may be a very important case.
If the suit is won it would appear that search engines can't be allowed to block any material or site, no matter how gross, either. Pornography and hate speech anyone?
Whoa, I was with you until someone mentioned the NHL.
Everyone knows that Asians and blacks can't play the noble game of hockey, unless of course they're Canadians of black or Asian extraction in which case they can.
Americans of Chinese or black extraction, if from a southern state, cannot.
Here in Canada we are working on a constitutional amendment to ban such un-people from even making the attempt.
I am not racist, I am a weather-ist, and a hockey-ist, and some things are just plain wrong.
Did I mention, that the constitutional ban will also exclude southern white hockey trash such as Jimmah Carter, most of his family and anyone who is associated with the peanut trade? The beer swilling brother, he's OK.
If the Anaheim Ducks win it will be proof positive that our hockey-vasion and conquest of California is complete.
We're seeing a few Mexicans up here. I think we'll put skates on a few and really crush you guys.
Everyone lighten up already.
LMAO @ BlacquesJacquesShellacques :p
I think it would be very thoughtful of business owning bigots to display their prejudice before I enter their extablishment. That would facilitate my choice to take my business elsewhere.
You gotta understand – minorities CANNOT be racist because they don't have the power to enforce their racism. Sheesh!!
(I am reminded of an incident probably 15 years ago – a writer at a student newspaper published a blatantly racist editorial about how whites were a superior race, that the black populace was dragging society down, whites had to shoulder the burden, etc. He was immediately called on the carpet by the school administration.
It was then he confessed he had not written the piece at all; he had copied word for word a sermon by a Black Muslim/Nation of Islam imam. All the student had done was to reverse the words "white" and "black" wherever they appeared in the original.
The school thereupon revised their definition of racism per the above, to absolve blacks of any possibility of racist behavior or expression.)
I would like to add one bit of information to the above discussion. In an essay he contributed to the 2005 book "The Origins of Law and Economics: Essays by the Founding Fathers," Gary Becker (whom no one would ever mistake for a leftist) makes the following observation with respect to the ecomonics of discrimination:
"When the majority is very large compared to the minority — in the United States whites are nine times as numerous as and have much more human and physical capital per capita than blacks — market discrimination by the majority hardly lowers its incomes, but may greatly reduce the incomes of the minority. However, when minority members are a sizable fraction of the total, discrimination by members of the minority injures them as well." (p. 137)
Thus, Becker acknowledges the possibility that, in the U.S., competition alone might never have imposed enough costs on businesses to lead them to integrate without government interference. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that blacks might never have developed an equally valuable parallel economy, although who knows how long that might have taken.
I think it's a given that in this day and age, the vast majority of people see racism as a bad. It's a seemingly irrational preference. As such we can expect businesses that are racist to suffer severe consequenses.
Assume that Restaurant X doesn't allow black people, but doesn't advertise this. Now as I sit consuming my succulent steak, I see a black man refused service by the host. Now, I intend to finish my steak, pay my bill, and then suggest to everyone that they should avoid the place because they won't serve blacks.
The vast majority of people would respond to this incentive and would more than likely be willing to boycott the business, which, aside from any local Klan members that support it, will see it's patronage plummet.
Seems fair to me….