There is no right/wrong here, Tinder is a business, not a public square or a public service, you choose willingly to use their service so they can charge whatever they want, nobody is forcing you to use it.

Just like in a night club or country club, the house is free to set whichever memebership rules it wants, if you don't like them you are free to go somewhere else.

Unlike the jobs market, the dating market and its (discriminatory) dynamics is not something the government could regulate.

> There is no right/wrong here

Discrimination law strongly disagrees with you.

I believe this specific theory was tried, and rejected, by that lawyer who shot the husband and son of that federal judge.

http://www.roydenhollander.com/main/ladiesnightdc/LN_OrigCmp...

If it was employment, would you hold them to the same standard? They too are businesses after all; by your logic, they get to pay you more or less depending on factors like gender, age, etc.

You're applying this corporate-libertarian ideal to this situation but only a small change to your statement undermines it.

How do you feel about universities being more strict towards particular ethnicities?

So basically, if they get woke, they go broke.

So, it is not okay to discriminate by age at a public square?

But, why would Tinder control a public square?

So are you fine with a service that charges black people more? Or a private company that decides not to hire gays? They're both not public squares or services, right?

Not op, but I'll counter with the question: how do you feel about public universities discriminating based on race and sex, which they do

No op either, but negatively, too. Why on earth would think that that make it all ok?

Because publicly funded universities hold different ethnicities to different standards which favor particular underrepresented groups simply due to their group identity rather than to a consistent, objective standards.

I asked because the response to that question helps me understand w the point of view one is coming from

They're not suggesting that another injustice might not exist in higher education, more that it has nothing to do with the hypothetical of a dating app charging more based on race.

Just because there's publicly funded precedent, doesn't mean it's not something that should be tackled and fixed.

This practice only works if companies keep paying male workers more, since essentially this is getting males to pay for those services keeping the lights on. The beneficiaries probably won’t complain since they pay less, but charging guys more is an inherently sexist practice which only makes sense continuing in a world with sexist salary and compensation practices.

> This practice only works if companies keep paying male workers more

Huh? That is completely unrelated to why this is done.