Here’s the rub for me – I don’t think the government should be in the business of telling me who I can rent my rooms to. It’s one thing if I own an apartment complex, or have other rental property, to tell me I can’t discriminate (though I don’t agree with that either on a gut level) but to tell me I can’t discriminate when I’m bringing somebody into my own home (or apartment, or whatever) is wrong. But that’s what the law is. If I only want a roommate who is a homosexual Guatamalen(sp?) male between the ages of 23 and 34 in their second or third year of law school, I should be able to discriminate against everybody who doesn’t meet that criteria.
That being said, since roommates.com hooks people up with roommates, they need as much information as possible and sexual orientation is a piece of information that some people seeking roommates might be concerned about. The law needs to be changed so this ruling can go away.
This just provides more affirmation of my policy of never living with somebody. Sheesh.
The question is not discriminatory and requiring an answer is not discriminatory based on sexual preference. Refusing service for failure to answer is perfectly valid. Refusing service based on the answer could be problematic. Perhaps Roommates should have 3 categories – queer, straight and refused to answer.
Re-read the ruling. The court says a web site open to the public can’t prohibit services based on answers to questions that involve, here, sexual orientation, and by extrapolation, any protected Title 7 category like race, religion, etc.
Hardly ground breaking, particularly liberal, or nanny-like.
It in fact affirms immunities already granted that it customers volunteer personal information, there is protection from libel, slander or false advertising. So, simply ask the question, don’t mandate. The result will be that people looking for roommates will want to provide that information in order to better match with a room. Now that’s capitalism at it’s most elemental.
As an example, look at personal ads: SWJM seeks GHF couple for Passover tacos. That’s covered and protected all day in every corner of the USA, Kansas perhaps excluded.
This used to be a free country. It is indeed “nanny like” for the govt to interfere with the right of the people to associate with whom they wish, and avoid whom they wish wo avoid. If the ruling was in accord with the law, then the law is an @ss.
Look at the title of the article; it doesn’t say “Al must live with homosexuals.” The ruling doesn’t require you to share an apartment with anyone you don’t want to. It addresses the legality of a website requiring someone to reveal sexual orientation before agreeing to do business with that person. Try filtering out your emotions before you post.
If the site can’t ask the question and require an answer, it can’t tell Al if his potential roommate is a sodomite or not. Why is it discriminatory to ask the question and require an answer? If the person says I’m a sodomite and the site then refuses to do business with him, that’s discriminatory. But to simply require an answer so they can provide complete information so Al can make an informed decision is not.
So sorry to get emotional while discussing yet another example of freedom going down the tubes so as not to make sodomists feel bad.
My point is this: in a free country, the govt doesn’t force people to associate with people they would rather have nothing to do with. Please explain whether in your view this ruling,
A) enhances freedom
B) restricts freedom, or
C) has no impact on our ability to plan our lives
D) is perfectly in accordance with the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments.
Exactly, thanks Ned. Isn’t it odd that the 1st Amendment supposedly protects the vilest pornography on web sites, while at the same time forbiding the free flow of information on a web site. I’m sure this is what James Madison had in mind.
While I normally somehow find myself at loggerheads with Al, this time I’m kind of with him.
While I understand where the court is coming from with their ruling, roommates.com did not discontinue conducting business with people for answering the question one way or the other, they simply required an answer. Any discrimination would come from those advertising with/through roommates.com. What the website was doing was providing an affirmitive tool for its users. Simply requiring an answer to a question does not in itself constitute discrimination. You can equate the sexuality question with any other – gender for example. They can require that questions about gender be answered because some people are looking for a specific gender in a roommate; well, some people are looking for a specific sexual orientation.
I do believe in discriminating, because we have to. I don’t want a fighter pilot with bad vision. I don’t want a beat cop in a wheelchair (Family Guy’s Joe aside). I don’t want a female urologist (at least not at this point in my life). There are times when factors interfere with our desire to be “equal-opportunity”, and when it comes to sharing housing with someone, comfort is one of those factors.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Here’s the rub for me – I don’t think the government should be in the business of telling me who I can rent my rooms to. It’s one thing if I own an apartment complex, or have other rental property, to tell me I can’t discriminate (though I don’t agree with that either on a gut level) but to tell me I can’t discriminate when I’m bringing somebody into my own home (or apartment, or whatever) is wrong. But that’s what the law is. If I only want a roommate who is a homosexual Guatamalen(sp?) male between the ages of 23 and 34 in their second or third year of law school, I should be able to discriminate against everybody who doesn’t meet that criteria.
That being said, since roommates.com hooks people up with roommates, they need as much information as possible and sexual orientation is a piece of information that some people seeking roommates might be concerned about. The law needs to be changed so this ruling can go away.
This just provides more affirmation of my policy of never living with somebody. Sheesh.
The question is not discriminatory and requiring an answer is not discriminatory based on sexual preference. Refusing service for failure to answer is perfectly valid. Refusing service based on the answer could be problematic. Perhaps Roommates should have 3 categories – queer, straight and refused to answer.
Re-read the ruling. The court says a web site open to the public can’t prohibit services based on answers to questions that involve, here, sexual orientation, and by extrapolation, any protected Title 7 category like race, religion, etc.
Hardly ground breaking, particularly liberal, or nanny-like.
It in fact affirms immunities already granted that it customers volunteer personal information, there is protection from libel, slander or false advertising. So, simply ask the question, don’t mandate. The result will be that people looking for roommates will want to provide that information in order to better match with a room. Now that’s capitalism at it’s most elemental.
As an example, look at personal ads: SWJM seeks GHF couple for Passover tacos. That’s covered and protected all day in every corner of the USA, Kansas perhaps excluded.
The 9th actually got this one right.
This used to be a free country. It is indeed “nanny like” for the govt to interfere with the right of the people to associate with whom they wish, and avoid whom they wish wo avoid. If the ruling was in accord with the law, then the law is an @ss.
Look at the title of the article; it doesn’t say “Al must live with homosexuals.” The ruling doesn’t require you to share an apartment with anyone you don’t want to. It addresses the legality of a website requiring someone to reveal sexual orientation before agreeing to do business with that person. Try filtering out your emotions before you post.
If the site can’t ask the question and require an answer, it can’t tell Al if his potential roommate is a sodomite or not. Why is it discriminatory to ask the question and require an answer? If the person says I’m a sodomite and the site then refuses to do business with him, that’s discriminatory. But to simply require an answer so they can provide complete information so Al can make an informed decision is not.
So sorry to get emotional while discussing yet another example of freedom going down the tubes so as not to make sodomists feel bad.
My point is this: in a free country, the govt doesn’t force people to associate with people they would rather have nothing to do with. Please explain whether in your view this ruling,
A) enhances freedom
B) restricts freedom, or
C) has no impact on our ability to plan our lives
D) is perfectly in accordance with the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments.
Exactly, thanks Ned. Isn’t it odd that the 1st Amendment supposedly protects the vilest pornography on web sites, while at the same time forbiding the free flow of information on a web site. I’m sure this is what James Madison had in mind.
While I normally somehow find myself at loggerheads with Al, this time I’m kind of with him.
While I understand where the court is coming from with their ruling, roommates.com did not discontinue conducting business with people for answering the question one way or the other, they simply required an answer. Any discrimination would come from those advertising with/through roommates.com. What the website was doing was providing an affirmitive tool for its users. Simply requiring an answer to a question does not in itself constitute discrimination. You can equate the sexuality question with any other – gender for example. They can require that questions about gender be answered because some people are looking for a specific gender in a roommate; well, some people are looking for a specific sexual orientation.
I do believe in discriminating, because we have to. I don’t want a fighter pilot with bad vision. I don’t want a beat cop in a wheelchair (Family Guy’s Joe aside). I don’t want a female urologist (at least not at this point in my life). There are times when factors interfere with our desire to be “equal-opportunity”, and when it comes to sharing housing with someone, comfort is one of those factors.
This decision shows how our laws and judges are perverted devoid of wisdom and brains.