In your July 2 piece on the Chemistry.com ad campaign, you wrote of Dr. Neil Patrick Warren's refusal to provide gay matches on eHarmony:

Healthy long-haul relationships look the same all over the world, and all over the demographic map. If Warren needs to see more data before he accepts that, he should go out and gather it. There's no shortage of happy gay couples to study. And the financial incentive is obviously there—so what's stopping him?

You ask of Dr. Warren, "what's stopping him?" Excuse me?! We are asked to believe that lesbian Linda Carlson really wanted to use eHarmony, but couldn't, and was so heartbroken, she filed a suit that aims, among other things, to extract "unspecified damages" from Dr. Warren. Why aren't you inquiring why Carlson didn't just Google herself up a dating site that fit her needs?

Your gay reader K.P. wrote claiming to be "outraged" that there wasn't a place for him on eHarmony. It's outrageous to me that Dr. Warren should even have to "defend" not having same-sex sections on eHarmony, seeing that, y'know, IT'S HIS MADDOG SITE, and he can do with it whatever he chooses. As someone with his own commercial stake on the internet, Mr. Stevenson (in the form of your regular column), you also ought to be outraged on principle -- unless, of course, you agree with the concept of insincere and greedy people abusing the courts to alter your content if they have a problem with it.

The very existence of Chemistry.com, which targets people who can't find what they're looking for from eHarmony, ought to be enough basis to laugh this suit out of the courthouse. Then again, this are California courts we're talking about.