Jude 2

Posted: **November 19th, 2008, 8:39 am**

From another thread:

soulsearcher wrote:
Pastor Gary wrote:I am concerned with the camel's nose in the tent argument.

In my lifetime I have watched as...
• The gay-rights advocates begged for nothing more than to be left alone to live their lives in peace.
• They progressed to asking for tolerance and understanding.
• The moved from asking for tolerance to demanding acceptance and respect.
• Acceptance proved to be insufficient, and they moved forward to demanding total equality.
• Along with that equality, they moved to demanding legal protections.
• Given legal protections, they started to demand that their lifestyle and relationships be treated as the same as, and morally equivalent to heterosexual, traditional marriage.

But, of course, there's no gay agenda. Of course not.

Nailed it, bro.

To avoid the long and costly trial that would have resulted, e Harmony has been FORCED to agree to set up a new match website for same-sex match-ups.

Since the founder has been a part of our marriage ministry @ our church, I know for a FACT that this goes AGAINST his beliefs and desires.

Check out K-Love Radio for a link to one source for the story. The news feed apparently came from the AP, but I haven't had time to track it down today. (I have 2 mid terms tonite and am feverishly studying.)

Anyway, the "compromise" is totally "unacceptable", I am sure. At least, those were his words 2 years ago when we discussed the possibility in our seminar.

What WILL you do when you are forced to allow same-sex couples participate in your church service or be shut down, or at least lose your tax exempt status??

What will you do when your are threatened with being arrested for "hate crimes" when you preach/teach that homosexuality is a sin??

Don't tell me it won't happen. It is going to happen in the very near future and we need to prepare our minds and our backbone for the response that God expects from us.

Personally, I would NOT be a party to what Mr. Howard has agreed to do. I would sooner shut down my business than to cave into their pressure and agree to this settlement.

But, maybe I have too simple of an outlook. ??????????????????

I'm sure there are other ideas and opinions out there.

I think we need to start talking about it more and more and preparing ourselves and our people for the days that are to come.

Obviously, the same things will soon be happening concerning Muslims, Jews, and other religions if we attempt to witness to them and bring them to Christ.

IMHO, "HATE CRIMES" are going to be the new and biggest task for the legal system in the very near future.

Posted: **November 19th, 2008, 8:48 am**

That is extremely disturbing.

Posted: **November 19th, 2008, 9:19 am**

dbserv wrote:What WILL you do when you are forced to allow same-sex couples participate in your church service or be shut down, or at least lose your tax exempt status??

Well we can always preach a fiery, cut to the bone & marrow repentance message, lay hands on them in prayer and cast spirits out, and be so full of the power of The Holy Ghost that His presence is literally present so that they cannot and will not remain in your services. (Oh wait...that could happen now...if we all were desperate enough for HIM now like we probably will be in the future.) Of course, this would probably get you arrested.

Other than that Render unto Caesar his taxes....and probably eventually shut down the building and move to home gatherings.

What will you do when your are threatened with being arrested for "hate crimes" when you preach/teach that homosexuality is a sin??

Be arrested. Prisoners need to hear about the gospel too. We'll have the inside track on a big harvest field

Don't tell me it won't happen. It is going to happen in the very near future and we need to prepare our minds and our backbone for the response that God expects from us.

Quicker than we may realize.

Personally, I would NOT be a party to what Mr. Howard has agreed to do. I would sooner shut down my business than to cave into their pressure and agree to this settlement.

I agree. We must follow the commands of God first. If keeping the business running would be to invite a devastating law suit or an unacceptable compromise, then I would have to close the business. But what about all the people he has helped? They will be better served seeing a person actually standing for the truth. I would have to trust God to provide for my future income.

I think we need to start talking about it more and more and preparing ourselves and our people for the days that are to come.

Obviously, the same things will soon be happening concerning Muslims, Jews, and other religions if we attempt to witness to them and bring them to Christ.

IMHO, "HATE CRIMES" are going to be the new and biggest task for the legal system in the very near future.

More than we know and realize.

We will have to be like Esther:
Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that Esther: thou shalt escape in the king's house, more than all the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this? Esther 4:13-14

Posted: **November 19th, 2008, 10:44 am**

The AP article:

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- Online dating service eHarmony said Wednesday it will launch a new Web site that caters to same-sex singles as part of a discrimination settlement with New Jersey's Civil Rights Division.
The settlement is the result of a complaint New Jersey resident Eric McKinley filed against the online matchmaker in 2005.
McKinley, 46, said he was shocked when he tried to sign up for the dating site but couldn't get past the first screen because there was no option for men seeking men.
"It's very frustrating and it's very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can't," he said. "And the only reason I can't is because I'm a gay man. That's very hurtful."
Neither the company nor its founder, Neil Clark Warren, acknowledged any liability.
Under the settlement, eHarmony will pay the New Jersey $50,000 to cover administrative costs and will pay McKinley $5,000.
McKinley called the settlement "fabulous" and said he was happy with the outcome. He said he's considering signing up for the new site once it launches.
The Pasadena, Calif.-based company said it plans to launch its new service, called Compatible Partners, on March 31.
The site will be free for the first 10,000 users who register within a year of its launch. After that, pricing for the new site will be equal to that for eHarmony.
"With the launch of the Compatible Partners site, our policy is to welcome all single individuals who are genuinely seeking long-term relationships," said Antone Johnson, eHarmony's vice president of legal affairs.
Theodore B. Olson, an attorney for eHarmony, said that even though the company believed McKinley's complaint was "an unfair characterization of our business," it choose to settle because of the unpredictable nature of litigation.
"eHarmony looks forward to moving beyond this legal dispute, which has been a burden for the company, and continuing to advance its business model of serving individuals by helping them find successful, long-term relationships," Olson said.
The popular online matchmaker has been sued before for discrimination.
Last year, a Northern California woman sued the online dating service. She also alleged discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
A California man sued eHarmony in 2005 for refusing to help him find a date. The company said there was one good reason for that: He was still married. That case was dropped on the eve of trial.
In 2005, a San Francisco man filed a similar complaint to McKinley's, but the state determined no discrimination laws were violated

This was a business decision, not a moral one. Anyone can judge the powers that be of eHarmony all they want, but they made a calculated decision here. I don't second guess the likes of Teddy Olsen on this kind of thing, for sure. You know who he is and he's a superb attorney, has served as Solicitor General for the Bush White House, his wife was killed on the 9/11 plane that hit the Pentagon, etc. Conservative guy, for sure. So, if he decided they'd be better off as a business to settle like this, then I believe they're better off. I'm a little bewildered by it to the extent that they'd already won a similar case in California, but, hey, it's Jersey, Obama's the new prez and the times they are a-changin'.

This thread does highlight one reason why I think we're better off with a government that is completely out of the marriage business. Others disagree and with good reasons, but the end of the road in this thing is the very type of thing that RaceRunner points out, at least that's my .02.

eHarmony is a corporation, with shareholders, investments. You don't just close up shop on shareholders. They own the business, not you. Even if you're the majority shareholder, if you close it down you better be prepared to buy them out at fair market value. I doubt that was an option. Warren can't just close up shop on this thing. To try that would ruin the company, ruin him, and it is just bigger than him at this point.

Posted: **November 19th, 2008, 1:59 pm**

This was a business decision, not a moral one................

eHarmony is a corporation, with shareholders, investments. You don't just close up shop on shareholders. They own the business, not you. Even if you're the majority shareholder, if you close it down you better be prepared to buy them out at fair market value. I doubt that was an option. Warren can't just close up shop on this thing. To try that would ruin the company ruin him, and it is just bigger than him at this point.

Hmmmm. Christians never have choices? They must just ride along, helpless, hapless and hopeless with the tide of public opinion and the forces that come against them? The Bible can't be used to plan our future careers? or get us out of the messes we find ourselves in due to poor career choices or problems we didn't foresee?

Christians are not to live compartmentalized lives. Business decisions are always moral decisions. Even the world has been forced to invent "Ethics" classes based on what God first ordained...morality.

Even CEO's of corporations can choose to retire and leave the comany to those who wish to run it the way the government sees fit. $$ does strange things to people.

Christians ALWAYS have choices and God has promised to make a way of escape if we choose Him.

Posted: **November 19th, 2008, 2:33 pm**

how many homosexuals will be united under this settlement :shock:

Posted: **November 20th, 2008, 8:55 am**

one love wrote:how many homosexuals will be united under this settlement

I don't know and can only pray for the numbers to be very small

However, since the first 10,000 members get in FREE and with e-Harmony's success rate amongst heterosexuals, it seems to be an efficient tool for satan to work his deceit in a lot of hearts and lives. :evil:

Posted: **November 20th, 2008, 9:45 am**

RaceRunner wrote:
This was a business decision, not a moral one................

eHarmony is a corporation, with shareholders, investments. You don't just close up shop on shareholders. They own the business, not you. Even if you're the majority shareholder, if you close it down you better be prepared to buy them out at fair market value. I doubt that was an option. Warren can't just close up shop on this thing. To try that would ruin the company ruin him, and it is just bigger than him at this point.

Hmmmm. Christians never have choices? They must just ride along, helpless, hapless and hopeless with the tide of public opinion and the forces that come against them? The Bible can't be used to plan our future careers? or get us out of the messes we find ourselves in due to poor career choices or problems we didn't foresee?

Christians are not to live compartmentalized lives. Business decisions are always moral decisions. Even the world has been forced to invent "Ethics" classes based on what God first ordained...morality.

Even CEO's of corporations can choose to retire and leave the comany to those who wish to run it the way the government sees fit. $$ does strange things to people.

Christians ALWAYS have choices and God has promised to make a way of escape if we choose Him.

Let me clarify, please, because obviously I didn't make it clear. Corporations' first duty is to their shareholders. The corporation is a legal person. It has no soul, no spirit, no conscience, but it has a personality, and that personality is the shareholders. It is totally in "id" mode --- its one purpose is to pay dividends on shares and to make its shares more valuable to shareholders. If a corporation decides that its financial standing is improved by taking one action vs. another, it acts correctly if it acts within the law. If it jeopardizes its very existence by putting its ability to operate and make money for shareholders at unreasonable risk and into almost certain loss (as would be the case if it lost this litigation and refused to obey court orders or went to trial in the face of substantial risks of losing when settling would be cheaper), then it acts wrongly. That's the only ethic that governs. That's it. There is no moral principle.
The corporation, in this case, if it acts in such a way as to invite an injunction against its operation, is committing suicide in a sense. It is running the business into a wall, killing its value and killing the shareholders' investments and expectations of return.

Alright, so you're Neil Clark Warren. You are, say, chairman of the board of directors of this thing and/or large shareholder. You've got some power to decide, but not alone. You can't just singly state, "This is what we'll do." Then, you're throwing the corporation under the bus, with all the shareholders' money, and saying, "Let it burn, consequences be hanged." Well, try that, and you'll see not only a court order shutting down eHarmony or ordering them to open it up to homosexuals, but you'll also see protracted litigation by shareholders in a derivative action that will also drive down the value of the company and its shares and its dividends. Everyone loses. Legally, Warren couldn't rest on his morals and do this.

Here's what he CAN do --- sell his shares and get out. Leave this thing he created to others to do with it what they will. He CAN do that. He could fight, but again, I think Ted Olson is probably in the best position to give that advice as to what the likely outcomes are. And, obviously, the powers that be at eHarmony have decided that fight isn't worth the cost to the shareholders! That's what they're supposed to do. If the issue is the moral dilemma of where to invest, granted, you're right. But, that wasn't my point at all.

Posted: **November 20th, 2008, 10:02 am**

dolfan wrote:If a corporation decides that its financial standing is improved by taking one action vs. another, it acts correctly if it acts within the law. If it jeopardizes its very existence by putting its ability to operate and make money for shareholders at unreasonable risk and into almost certain loss (as would be the case if it lost this litigation and refused to obey court orders or went to trial in the face of substantial risks of losing when settling would be cheaper), then it acts wrongly. That's the only ethic that governs. That's it. There is no moral principle.
The corporation, in this case, if it acts in such a way as to i

Tim, while that was a very lawyerly answer, it is IMHO wrong. Why, then, do so many companies push GREEN products, even products that are less popular and less profitable than the less-environmentally-friendly competition?

Why did major suppliers divest themselves of holding in South Africa over apartheid, or cease to sell blood diamonds?

Why do some companies hold to an American-made-only policy when it would be far more profitable to their stockholders to just buy and use Chinese-made stuff?

Those are all moral/ethical choices made by corporations that do not necessarily benefit the stockholders.

I worked for a company that provided internet services to resort hotels, and had some (at that time) unique technological solutions to offer. We had dinner with some guys from a company who presented an opportunity for us to align with them and represent them in the Hawaii market. The business plan was solid and the numbers impressive. The "product" however involved the delivery and billing of in-room porn over the IP network. The deal would have generated more cash-flow in one weekend than we grossed in a month, and would have kicked us to new levels we only dreamed of. In my car on the way home my cell rang. It was the CEO of my company. He asked "Well, what do YOU think?"

I replied that I had no interest in being a porn-purveyor no matter how profitable. He thanked me and said that sealed the NO DEAL for him, as that was his nagging concern. It was not the decision in the best financial interest of the company at that time, but it was the RIGHT decision, the MORAL and ETHICAL decision.

Posted: **November 20th, 2008, 10:38 am**

Pastor Gary wrote:
Tim, while that was a very lawyerly answer, it is IMHO wrong. Why, then, do so many companies push GREEN products, even products that are less popular and less profitable than the less-environmentally-friendly competition?

That's not the same as putting the company out of business, which is the threat to eHarmony, here. Corporations always make decisions that prove to be less profitable than other options, often purposely. The green gamble is that, over time, it will be the only model or the dominant model out there. So, there is a growth strategy at work. If the shareholders, however, insisted on producing and selling DDT, they wouldn't have a company very long. That's more akin to the position eHarmony is finding itself in New Jersey.

If the law required your former IT company to provide services to black-owned small businesses, for example, but your boss was an avowed Christadelphian, and the company had shareholders (say it was a C-corp), his first duty would've been to protect them from the likely alternative of ruin from either being shut down by the court or the disqualification from, say, being able to garner government contracts. My point is simply that eHarmony didn't make this decision in a vacuum. There's a real, substantial threat to its business if they don't do this. I believe that's the case in this NJ matter, even in light of the 2005 California case that they actually won. I doubt seriously that Ted Olson would advise Neil Clark Warren and his people that eHarmony must do this on any other basis. He is not free to simply decide to say no, and he's calculated the costs (as is his duty) to shareholders of going forward with resistance. If that ultimately proves to be unhealthy to his company (and it could, in theory, with the spectre of being 'pro-homosexual' getting hung on them), and homosexuals don't spend enough to make the new site profitable enough to offset losses, so be it. The duty is not to guarantee against loss, but to avoid certain disaster. They've judged this to be a certain disaster, and I think (given who is at the helm of this thing and who the lawyer is) it is probably a correct judgment.

Posted: **November 20th, 2008, 11:36 am**

I was a customer of eHarmony for seven years. (I'm too difficult to match, apparently.) After I quit I kept getting their newsletter. From the content of the newsletters it is clear to me that eHarmony has already sold out. They presume evolution and animal mating values and behaviors. Every picture is of a drop-dead gorgeous person. Their advice articles presume premarital sex. The company sold its Christian sole long ago, and it does not surprise me at all that it would opt for a settlement that accommodated homosexual dating. I wouldn't be surprised if the objection behind closed doors was that they don't have enough data about homosexual relationships to do their compatibility matching to company standards.

Posted: **November 20th, 2008, 11:44 am**

Tim Elston wrote:They presume evolution and animal mating values and behaviors. Every picture is of a drop-dead gorgeous person.

Are we to assume from that statement that you reject the concept that men are, first and foremost, attracted and stimulated by appearance and visual aesthetics?

I, for one, believe that to be TRUE. I love my wife for all her fine inner qualities, but I might not have discovered those inner qualities if I had not found her incredibly cute first. Call me shallow, but... just saying... :shock:

Posted: **November 20th, 2008, 12:02 pm**

Pastor Gary wrote:Are we to assume from that statement that you reject the concept that men are, first and foremost, attracted and stimulated by appearance and visual aesthetics?

I, for one, believe that to be TRUE. I love my wife for all her fine inner qualities, but I might not have discovered those inner qualities if I had not found her incredibly cute first. Call me shallow, but... just saying...

I believe it to be true, too. Physical attraction is paramount in mate selection for all sorts of animals, humans not excluded. No matter the spiritualization, when it comes right down to it, it's about physicality, corporeality, monitariality. That's animals for you. I'm one, and so is everyone else. That's why some people have an advantage over others. It stinks, but that's the way it is.

eHarmony started out with a strong message that looks should be secondary. Personally, I got downright tired of talking to women that eHarmony had never let me see, and then have to hurt the woman because visual attraction is too much of a hardwired value to ignore. eHarmony has changed. They have caved to reality. Idealism and spiritualization don't cut it.

Jude 2

It is happening all over!!!

It is happening all over!!!

Re: It is happening all over!!!

Lawyerly

Re: Lawyerly

Visual

Re: Visual