Federal Court: Website may not require 'Straight or gay?'

[PageOneQ]

Source: PageOneQ/Reuters

A roommate-finding site cannot require users to disclose their sexual orientation, a U.S. appeals court ruled Thursday, in the latest skirmish over whether anti-discrimination rules apply to the Web.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Roommates.com, which obliges users to list their sexual orientation, was different than Internet sites where people can volunteer or withhold personal information.

Read more: http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Federal_Court_Website_may_not_require_Straight_or_0404.html

[Ordr]

1. I'm obviously not for discrimination...

but why does the government have the right to tell a private business that they can't do this?

[nichomachus]

2. Because one of the roles of government is to regulate business

[Ordr]

3. I'm aware that the government regulates business.

I just think it's ridiculous that they're doing so in this case. If the consumers reject this policy, they should be the ones to determine whether they support the company monetarily. If they do not, then the company will either fail or change as a result.

[Peregrine]

5. There are federal laws against discrimination in housing

When you rent, you come under state and local laws concerning housing. When you advertise to rent in publications (the Web) that cross state lines you fall under federal laws concerning housing.

So you think it would be okay to require the listing of race?

[Ordr]

6. I believe that it should be dealt with on the state level, then.

And under the jurisdiction of the state where either the company is incorporated or the state where the property is located. The federal government, in my opinion of course, should not be deciding this type of thing.

[Tempest]

8. Should the federal government also get out of enforcing laws protecting minorities?

That's what you're advocating.

From reading your posts in other threads, you don't appear to be at the right web site.

[Ordr]

9. I believe in the same fundamental rights that you (hopefully) do.

I just think there are different ways to go about it. :)

[Tempest]

13. You obviously have never lived in the south

If those states had there way, Blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus.

[Ordr]

14. That would be an unconstitutional state law if it were in place.

[Tempest]

15. IF a state law was in place

Mississippi or Alabama may not have a law if it were left up to them.

Look at how many years went by before they started following the federal anti-discrimination laws.

[gratuitous]

11. So if I live in a state . . .

So, if I live in a state where fair housing laws are meaningful and have teeth, and my job requires me to move somewhere else, and the fair housing laws are worth less than the paper they're printed on, I should just be happy to check my right to quiet domicile at the state line because the federal government shouldn't be enforcing my rights, and I shouldn't get too comfortable in any event because the magic of the marketplace will eventually work it all out.

Nope, sorry. Doesn't pass muster with me. I can't choose to stop living until it's all sorted out by the markets or a flash of enlightenment bursts over the state capitol.

[Ordr]

12. The housing laws should be fair and constitutional, regardless of the state.

The government does not need to intervene on what would already be constitutionally-sound housing laws. If the laws were discriminatory, they wouldn't be constitutional in the first place.

[gratuitous]

17. But who will enforce those laws?

Oddly enough, when the government doesn't enforce the laws, there's a funny paucity of enforcement for those laws. It sounds like you're advocating a Libertarian Shangri-La which exists just the other side of Erehwon.

[mainegreen]

4. Great.

It's a terrible thing to require disclosure of.

[Lance_Boyle]

7. the site can't ask, but people who use the site can

I don't believe there is any obligation to actually room with any person the site finds/recommends for you. So take the findings/recommendations, and screen further if you wish. I don't see a problem with that. :shrug:

[HockeyMom]

10. How about "gay friendly"?

We have seen ads which say that. That doesn't necessarily ask what your orientation is, just that you are "tolerant". My daughter is gay and when she went looking for an apartment share, she specifically sought out ads which said that.

I know from experience of looking to rent an apartment with my daughter, we ran into a number of problems as soon as the potential landlord came face to face with her, even though she was going to be living with her MOTHER. I didn't believe her at first that this would happen, especially only 30 miles form NYC, but it did.

Sorry, if I went off topic a bit.

[readmoreoften]

16. LGBT friendly is an OK question. It's the standard Craigslist code for I'm queer.

But you can't say "I want a gay roommate" or "I want a straight roommate." You can also say "I'm not into gays, no offense" which is also a comment that I haven't personally seen taken down. Side note: 420 friendly means the person smokes pot or, rather, is 'pot-smoker friendly.' (I wish the people my roommate subletted to in NYC has noted that we did not post 420 friendly in our ad...and there was a reason for that.)