Dating site ChristianMingle forced to feature gays
A suit by two gay men resulted in the finding that the site violated California’s anti-discrimination law.
Click here for reuse options!The law, known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act, requires any business to offer ‘full and equal accommodations’ to anyone of any sexual orientation.
Judge Jane Johnson ruled that Spark Network will have two years to change their search and profile features to accommodate same-sex matching.
The ruling is a leap forward for members of the LGBT community, who also consider themselves to be people of faith.
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
80 responses to Dating site ChristianMingle forced to feature gays
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
amersham1046 July 3rd, 2016 at 21:41
This could get very interesting
katkelly57 July 3rd, 2016 at 21:58
Sock it to ’em reeeeaaaaal good!
Their TV ad says it’s a place to meet “good” people….what a crock of crapola…good bigots/racists.
Ron Theison July 3rd, 2016 at 22:36
So why do gays want to go there? It makes no sense, other than a desire to force certain groups to do what they do not want to do.
katkelly57 July 4th, 2016 at 00:26
I have neither the time, desire nor the crayons to explain it to you.
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 00:26
laughing.
katkelly57 July 4th, 2016 at 00:35
Good!
I was laughing at the one that expected an answer to a question, that just about everyone with a compassionate heart knows the answer to.
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 00:27
how many gays have knocked on your door forcing you into having sex with another male? if you don’t want to bang another guy, just don’t do it.
bpollen July 4th, 2016 at 00:57
There are a LOT of people who profess to be Christian who are ALSO gay.
What the hell gives you the right to tell them they are wrong?
Ron Theison July 3rd, 2016 at 22:33
This is how the gay radicals operate, they can only get their way by force. What ever happened to live and let live. I mean really, aren’t there any gay dating sites out there?
Robert M. Snyder July 3rd, 2016 at 23:25
Here’s one that appears to be exclusively for LGBT folks:
https://www.onescene.com/
Wouldn’t this also violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act?
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 00:24
one considers themselves a “christian” site, the other doesn’t. gays can be Christians too and some are also “christians.” it’s not very Christian of a Christian site to exclude other Christians. unless that is, it’s the “christian” thing to do.
Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2016 at 00:36
Christianity is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether onescene.com is violating the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
According to the article:
“The law, known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act, requires any business to offer ‘full and equal accommodations’ to anyone of any sexual orientation.”
That means you can’t have a site that only serves LGBT people. You have to provide full and equal accommodations to straight people as well.
bpollen July 4th, 2016 at 00:51
Go ahead and run an ad. It’s your business who you sleep with.
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 04:48
i don’t think sheep can use a computer.
bpollen July 4th, 2016 at 05:16
That’s just what they want ewe to believe!
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 16:24
hahahahaha
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 00:51
all you have to do is log on and click you’re a straight guy. if you don’t find a straight girl, then maybe none have signed up. but, why would you go on a gay site if you hate gays so much anyway.
bpollen July 4th, 2016 at 01:05
Kinda like why Granny told Jethro not to fish in the cement pond – there ain’t no fish there.
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 01:17
ROTFLMFAO!
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 21:01
Ever seen the TV presentation of Bruce J. Friedman’s “Steambath”?
It was great and starred Bill Bixby and Valerie Perrine (being on PBS, it was ok to show her boobs).
There was a great line from an Archie Bunker-type who declared “…of course we all know there ain’t no homo ghurkas” – and the two gay fellas exchange a hilarious look…..
Hirightnow July 4th, 2016 at 21:07
You can (so I’m told,coughcough)find it on Pirate Bay, but only clips on YouTube.
Great play.
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 21:27
You’re the first person I’ve come across since the Carter administration who saw it.
I’ve been trying to recall the name of the guy who played God.
For those who didn’t see it, a group of newly-dead people are in a steambath that is purgatory. God is a Puerto Rican steambath attendant. Bill Bixby challenges him to prove he’s God so he reaches in his pocket and fans out a bunch of playing cards and says, “Pick a card, any card….”
AND we got to see Valerie Perrine’s boobs.
Back then I had a little Sony 12 inch portable TV with a bigass battery to watch on in my room. Hoop antenna for UHF. I remember seeing “Steambath;” then we moved and after making friends in the new town, telling them you could see Valerie Perrine topless on regular TV and they didn’t believe me till we watched this baby cuz it came around again on PBS….
Hirightnow July 4th, 2016 at 21:37
I don’t care HOW many times they say the F word on cable these days, while only barely blanking out the “u”, television in the 70s was more progressive than it is now.
Hirightnow July 4th, 2016 at 21:42
Oh, and “God” was Josè Perez.
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 21:51
Oh man, thanks. he wa fantastic.
I can still see his entrance, pushing that cart.
And back then, I didn’t like Bill Bixby.
I was digging pretty deep to pull that one.
That guy said that line about there not being any gay ghurkas – was that funny or what?
The whole thing was good, I’m straining to recall any more.
Valerie Perrine dropping that towel and Bill Bixby’s eyes getting big…..
Hirightnow July 4th, 2016 at 22:02
Heh.
Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2016 at 01:05
You’re deflecting. The issue is that the Unruh law must be applied equally to all dating websites. If it applies to straight websites, then it applies equally to LGBT websites.
Onescene.com’s homepage says “Meet Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender people in your area.”. It does not mention “straight” people. A straight person visiting that website would feel excluded.
If it’s okay for onescene.com to do that, then it should be okay for another website to say “Meet straight people in your area.”.
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 01:17
do you even know what you meant by suggesting that i’m deflecting?
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 20:57
…………………….opinions would be different if it was a Muslim site…
PlumDumpling July 4th, 2016 at 04:37
Probably.
OldLefty July 4th, 2016 at 07:58
One Scene is the international Gay and Lesbian Social Network. Free Gay and Lesbian Dating site.
It’s not a business, so, no.
Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2016 at 09:42
I beg to differ. OneScene offers a premium membership for which it charges money. It is described under their Terms of Service:
https://www.onescene.com/terms_of_service/
Key sentences:
“Premium membership is a monthly/quarterly/bi-yearly/yearly subscription charged between: £5.95-£49.95 / $10.95-$84.95 / €7.95-€64.95 depending on promotions and availability.”
“Premium membership is a subscription service which will debit your payment-card every month until you cancel the subscription (you can cancel your subscription via the ‘Account’ section).”
“This service is operated by Datingnode.com – a dating platform technology provider operated by Rocketware Limited.”
Here’s the website for Rocketware:
https://www.rocketware.co.uk/
Key sentence:
“Rocketware is a young company that builds and runs online and mobile products and services. We are based in Leeds, West Yorkshire. Our main product is Datingnode, a contemporary mobile optimised dating platform that powers numerous popular and market leading dating brands.”
From this it is clear that onescene.com is a commercial enterprise (i.e “a business”). The only thing in question is whether the state of California, or any other state, has legal jurisdiction over how Rocketware conducts business with customers located in the US.
OldLefty July 4th, 2016 at 11:54
That’s the UK not the US in general or California, specifically.
Meanwhile, if you wanted to prove that they were in violation of the law, you would have to show that they will not accept the premium membership of non gay and lesbians in California, or any of the states that have the same law.
Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2016 at 12:16
No. That is not what the article says. Quoting the article again:
“The law, known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act, requires any business to offer ‘full and equal accommodations’ to anyone of any sexual orientation.”
The key phrase here is “full and equal accommodations”. The home page of Onescene.com says “Meet Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender people in your area.”
That is clearly NOT full and equal accommodations to anyone of any sexual orientation.
If Onescene.com were operating in California, they would be in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. This act clearly prohibits businesses that cater to gay, lesbian, or LGBT communities. Because when you cater to one community, you are not providing “full and equal accommodation” to other communities.
To put it another way, if you think it is okay to have websites that cater to LGBT, then you have to also permit sites that cater to the straight community. Unless you’re a hypocrite.
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 20:56
Uh oh.
He’s calling for consistency.
You gone and done it now……………………….
Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2016 at 21:32
What can I say? I’m a software developer. A big part of my job involves looking at what appear to be lots of special cases and finding a simple rule that covers all of them. When I read words like “gay”, “lesbian”, “bi”, and “straight”, I see them as four possible values of a single variable. If the variable is called X, I want to know what is the rule that we need to apply to X. Once you decide on the rule, it doesn’t matter what value of X you plug into the equation. If you have a good rule, then all values of X are treated consistently.
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 21:39
In logic, either p implies q or it doesn’t.
I had a fun exchange with someone here the other day. I forget who.
Anyway, the guy posted an opinion I agreed with, so I said so. But the guy is geared to disagreeing with me so he got mad and said we disagree. Then he accused me of being illogical.
I responded by merely quoting the posts, and my post read something like:
“Other user: “You disagree with me.”
Burqa: “I agree with you.”
Other user: “You need to apply reason, logic and reading comprehension””
Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2016 at 22:14
On a lot of social issues, I could live with any of the positions advocated. For example, I could live with a law that allows companies to design their dating websites to serve one specific sexual orientation. I could also live with a law that requires all companies to design their dating websites to serve people of all sexual orientations equally. Either situation seems workable to me, as long as no company has a monopoly. But when any law is applied unequally, that violates my sense of fairness. I find that hard to live with.
So if the Unruh Act is construed to mean that Christian Mingle must facilitate same-sex dating to the same degree that it facilitates opposite-sex dating, then all other websites should be held to the same standard. This would include Muslim and Jewish dating sites operating in CA, and it would also forbid sites that cater to the LGBT community that operate in CA.
If someone doesn’t like it when a law is applied to their particular group, then the appropriate solution is not to carve out an exception within the law, but to rethink the core principles on which the law was constructed and rewrite the law in a way that accomplishes your goals while also treating everyone equally. And if you can’t find a way to do that, then there is something inherently unfair about your goals.
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 22:25
Yeah, you gotta have lots and lots of options.
The whole thing is tricky as can be.
For example, I would be fine with websites that discriminated like that, but would not care for allowing coffee shops to discriminate, even though there are lots of coffee shops.
It would be better if we didn’t have so many people trying to make a name for themselves by getting offended and trying to bust up something that guys want to do, like have a barbershop where it’s just the fellas hanging out.
I think where all this is goping is going to be harmful for women.
I don’t see how women’s sports teams at the amateur or professional level will survive.
I think schools will end up going to unisex teams and discrimination at the professional level will be eliminated. Millions of women will be unable to compete in sports or make a living doing so because in golf, basketball, tennis, soccer, etc. very few will be able to make the cut.
Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2016 at 10:27
“Millions of women will be unable to compete in sports…”
I get your point, but let’s not kid ourselves. Millions of women are already unable to compete in sports. Participate? Yes. Compete? No. Why? Because there are tremendous physical differences among women, so it’s really only a small minority of women that can compete effectively in most sports.
The same is true of men’s sports. The 100-meter dash is a sporting event in which only people of West African descent can compete effectively.
According to a 2008 article in Slate:
“Runners of West African descent—which includes Jamaicans as well as most African-Americans—seem to be built for speed: In 2004, they held all but five of the 500 best times in the 100-meter dash. (East Africans, such as Kenyans and Ethiopians, rule the long-distance field.)”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/08/jamaican_me_speedy.html
If the goal is to allow all kinds of people to compete effectively, then we would need to hold separate contests not only for males and females, but also for people of different genetic heritage. And since many (most?) people have mixed heritage, the whole system would quickly become unworkable.
I would point out that in sports like wrestling and boxing, people compete within weight classes. I wonder what would happen if we eliminated gender distinctions, but introduced weight classes, in sports like running. For sports like basketball, perhaps height classes would be appropriate. But would anyone show up to watch the shortest athletes play basketball, or to watch bulkier athletes running slow 100-meter dashes?
Carla Akins July 4th, 2016 at 16:40
Sparks Networks are incorporated in California making the Unruh Act applicable. Rocketware is not.
Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2016 at 18:28
Correct. And the Unruh Act will prevent Rocketware, or any other company, from ever operating an LGBT dating website in California.
Anyone who truly believes in the principle of “full and equal accommodations to anyone of any sexual orientation” should voluntarily abstain from using onescene.com or any other dating website that does not treat all sexual orientations equally.
Carla Akins July 4th, 2016 at 19:05
Perhaps, but that’s not how I read it. Regardless, if they discriminate they should alter their form as well.
Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2016 at 19:29
So you don’t think anyone should be permitted to create a dating website that only serves gays or lesbians, but excludes straight people?
My personal opinion is that they *should* be permitted as long as they don’t have a monopoly. I am fine with gay dating websites such as gaydar.com that serve only gays. And I am fine with Christian Mingle serving only straights. As long as they don’t have a monopoly, then people are free to take their business where it is appreciated.
By the same token, I am fine with colleges that admit only women or only men, as long as they don’t have a monopoly in a specific region. If your community college is the only one within a 100 mile radius, then they have a virtual monopoly and they should treat both genders equally.
I don’t want the government interfering with sites like gaydar.com. If they want to have a site that caters only to gay men, how does that hurt straight people? And if Christian Mingle wants to cater only to straight people, how does that hurt gays or lesbians? The Unruh Act effectively prevents these websites from differentiating themselves and specializing. It forces all of them to accommodate everyone, which leads to redundancy.
Christian Mingle’s exclusivity actually *helps* sites like gaydar.com because it allows them to serve a market niche that is not served by Christian Mingle. If all dating websites, including the smaller ones, have to serve everyone, then the larger sites with deeper pockets will capture the lion’s share of the market, and sites like gaydar will fold.
As a small business owner who serves a niche market, I can tell you that product differentiation is the key to small business success. When small businesses are forced by law to provide exactly the same services as larger businesses, the small businesses will lose.
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 19:45
“…Christian Mingle serving only straights…” you’re suggesting that there aren’t any gay christians. Christians should be inclusive of everyone. Christians should discriminate against anyone. if one isn’t a christian, then they won’t go to that site. plain and simple. if it’s a gay site, straights won’t go there. if it’s a straight site, gays won’t go there.
Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2016 at 20:15
“Christians should be inclusive of everyone.”
My brother-in-law was excluded from his Christian church because he and my sister divorced, and his church regarded that as a sin. From a legal standpoint, a church can exclude or segregate people for any reason. For example, a mosque can require females to worship in a different part of the building than the men. Roman Catholics prohibit females from becoming priests. This is all perfectly legal in the US.
“if it’s a gay site, straights won’t go there. if it’s a straight site, gays won’t go there.”
It sounds like you agree that the Unruh Act should not be applied to dating websites, such as gaydar.com and Christian Mingle, that only cater to people of one particular orientation. Is that right?
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 20:40
then they are phony “christians” and your brother-in-law is much better off without them.
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 22:01
psssst! ….. edit feature!
Better off without the phony ones or better off without the not phony ones?
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 22:19
psssst! i caught that as soon as i hit the post button and edited it immediately, so zip it.
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 22:29
so his brother would be better off without the phony Christians or without the genuine ones? Looks like thae latter, to me.
I was thinking you may wish to delete the word “not”, so it would read:
“then they are phony “christians” and your brother-in-law is much better off without them.”
(just trying to help, that’s all)
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 22:39
really burqa?
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 23:02
we-ell, kinda….
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 23:12
…
burqa July 5th, 2016 at 19:35
You got me giggling out loud now.
It’s all in fun – I hope you know that and also know that in fact I like you a lot.
I bet if we met at a cafe or a bar – somewhere casual – and just shot the breeze and swapped a few stories it would be a very good time and some time later we’d meet again for more pleasurable conversation……..I bet you feel the same way……
whatthe46 July 5th, 2016 at 20:08
i do. that’s why i did that. LOL. it’s love hate sometimes. in the end, we’ll be fine.
Carla Akins July 4th, 2016 at 20:25
I don’t think businesses that are open to the public should be able to discriminate on a protected class, period. In CA, OE and several other states, this includes the LGBT community. Anything you do for one person you should be able to offer another (all things being equal)
I don’t think niche offerings like gay dating websites are harmed by also allowing straights. For one, I can’t imagine many folks are interested in paying for a service that isn’t in their interest, but not allowing them to join is too much like refusing blacks service.
There is definitely a difference for Christian Mingle, the intent of the site was to match Christians. What they had done was just allow those “customers” that CM felt were Christians.
Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2016 at 21:37
What’s your opinion of colleges like Hillary’s alma mater, Wellesley, that only accept undergrads of one particular sex?
Carla Akins July 5th, 2016 at 04:37
College’s are not a retail entity with a business license, open to the public. That said, any school accepting Title IV money should not be allowed to discriminate. These days virtually every school receives Title IV.
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 20:53
OldLefty, there’s no one here whose opinion I respect more than yours.
How do you think this Unruh thing applies to the LPGA, WNBA, or professional tennis?
OldLefty July 4th, 2016 at 20:55
Oh, man, what a compliment AND a burden!
You mean being exclusive to gender?
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 21:15
Yes.
And I meant the compliment.
I have felt that way since I arrived in 2007. You are often the most well-informed on a topic. You present a reasonable, logical and fact-based opinion. You don’t follow the herd but are very thoughtful. I wish I was more like you.
Now, to the topic. Those are businesses. They discriminate on the basis of sex.
As far as I know, Unruh is about business and would not affect college athletics, which I am also concerned with. My personal opinion is that our society could do just fine with some discrimination because I know how women benefit from athletics and also how they would be pushed out if schools and professions were forced to go unisex.
I think that is where we are headed. Schools will just have one tennis team, one basketball team, one golf team, etc., open to boys and girls, women and men. I think a lot of women will be deprived of opportunities they have today to not just participate in sports but to make a living.
OldLefty July 5th, 2016 at 13:05
Thank you, It’s mutual. (I never got back to my computer last night)
I agree and these leagues don’t draft players like other businesses….advertise the position, look at applications, etc, it’s almost by invitation only.
I think schools will always be exempt, because they can always just start a new “club”.
There is always intramural for the boy who can’t make the boy’s team.
I doubt anyone could prove standing.
burqa July 5th, 2016 at 20:14
I wish I could frame that compliment.
Public schools get state funding. These teams, amateur and professional segregate on the basis of sex.
Just for sake of argument, under recent interpretation of Title IX it seems to me that intramural teams might be seen as ‘separate but equal.’ In a country as large as ours we have plenty of people who would be fine with making a name for themselves by being a jerk. These people like upsetting applecarts and getting ‘offended’ at things like the Miss Black America pageant or a barbershop that caters to men.
You and I have heard a lot from those sorts on the Right complaining about affirmative action over the years.
I think we need to relax and have allowances in some cases, rather than insist everything include everyone when there are many alternatives. I think that may be a key – having not just one or a few, but many alternatives.
Like with this dating site in the OP. I could go either way. On one hand, it’s a public accommodation and shouldn’t discriminate. On the other hand, there are many alternatives, so maybe it would be better to just leave them alone.
Professional sports are a business that discriminate on the basis of sex.
I wonder if the WNBA or LPGA or professional women’s tennis would be legal under Unruh. None of the competing athletes are male.
Being an old lefty myself, I remember the hoo-ha in the early-to-mid 70s when Dr. Renee Richards got a sex change operation and wanted to compete on the women’s pro tour. The only place one could see it discussed was late night on David Susskind. I can’t remember how it all shook out and whether Richards was allowed to play or not.
I’d hate to see women’s professional sports forced to allow men to compete or for schools to have to go to having just one tennis, golf, soccer, basketball team because someone won a discrimination lawsuit.
I think the way many now interpret Title IX and the 1964 CRA threatens to bring that about.
I’m basically just throwing out some things for consideration. One thing I really like about you is your thoughtfulness. There’s a depth there I wish was not so uncommon.
I’m glad you’re still around.
When I first got here, this was a site where there was a lot of very good debate and discussion that I would like to see return. I think you’re the only regular user who was here before me.
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 00:26
you are exactly how Radical Idiots operate. posts ignorant and stupid ass comments, shoving your hatred down everyones throat. you’re purely disgusting.
bpollen July 4th, 2016 at 00:46
You seem to misunderstand things a lot. This was a legal decision. Force was not involved. If you can’t abide by the relevant laws AND run your business, get the hell out of the business… don’t whine that you are expected to follow the same laws everybody else does.
And I bet that gay dating sites would have no problem if Christians wanted to “experiment.”
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 00:49
i fricken loved that last line.
Ron Theison July 4th, 2016 at 12:34
It was “force”, by the power of the state no less, and it was initiated by gay radicals who want to push the envelope in every part of life here in America.
bpollen July 4th, 2016 at 15:43
No, it wasn’t force. Unless EVERY law is force, it’s not force.
If you can’t follow the rules of the game, you got no business in the game. There isn’t some special prima donna category who are free from laws because they don’t like them. Whiners aren’t absolved of their responsibilities.
If you have principles and these laws violate your principles, you have two choices – comply, or defy and take the consequences. There ain’t no third “I’m special” choice.
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 20:43
Those gays are shoving their junk right down your throat, eh?
fahvel July 4th, 2016 at 09:58
every word you type is a gem, a pure gem of a very small uncomplicated mind.
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 20:41
Yeah, those commie radicals have the nerve to believe a business can’t discriminate!
I bet you miss the days when a business could keep those nee-groes out, don’t you?
Because it was a racial discrimination case that led to the decision that set the precedent that a public accommodation has to serve everyone.
Sure, there are penty of gay websites out there. It just so happens that these chaps are interested in Christian gays. There’s lots of Christian gays.
I don’t go to church much any more, but I had a gay fella sitting right behind me when I did. Great guy, nice as could be, a real gentleman and a man who was generous with his time and money when it came to helping out the less fortunate in the community…..
labman57 July 3rd, 2016 at 22:42
I guess they’re gonna have to tweak their online compatibility questionairre:
How badly to you despise f*ggots?
1). A little
2). A lot
3). A whole lot
4). Stone the heathens!
80HD July 4th, 2016 at 01:20
The whole “Christian” thing aside, does that mean there can be no “straight only” dating site?
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 16:14
this is about religion, if you will. if there’s no way to meet gays on this site, it’s suggestive that there are no gay christians.
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 20:35
It’s about business.
The Constitution forbids the government from imposing religious beliefs on people. A state law that forces a religious organizatrion to adopt state-sponsored religious beliefs would most likely be shot down by the Supreme Court.
A business, being a public accommodation, has to be accessible to everyone.
whatthe46 July 4th, 2016 at 20:41
i can’t hear you.
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 20:46
huh?
Did you call me?
I’ll be there in a minute, I’m doing something right now…..
Chip01 July 4th, 2016 at 07:28
Just some clarity… Thus has NOTHING to do with Christianity.
Christian Mingle is a website, operated by a company out of Bevery Hill CA. The same company also host a version Jewish Mingle type site.
You, if you wanted, could buy stock in this company… It’s exchanged on the NYSE.
No ones religion is impacted by equality in general… And in this case, there is no religion
burqa July 4th, 2016 at 20:45
Hmmmm……………………………………………….do they have a WNBA team in California?
OldLefty July 6th, 2016 at 19:07
Last night, I responded to you and it would not allow me to post it.
So far it seems to involve just customers.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/men-rights-unruh-act-women-discrimination
But while I agree about women’s sports, I think ultimately it works itself out.
Often the plaintiff has to show that they are wronged in some way.
David Susskind! Wow. THERE’S a blast from the past!
Those WERE the good old days when Alan started the site.