Posted on 04/03/2008 7:07:08 PM PDT by RDTF
Well why not? These services also ask about race, skin color, religion, that all should go as being discriminatory too.
Funny but if you eliminate all discrimination you also eliminate choice (which is the totalitarian dream, then everyone can only do the correct, appropriate thing).
since when was mating habbits federally protected?
that is local.
Good point!
and there’s Jdate...
How dare you discriminate against the fat, the ugly or the bald? / sarc
Or advertise as a devout Muslim who believes all homosexuals must be killed. I wonder how the ninth circus would handle that.
Court Rules Web Site Liable
azconservative ^ | 18 May 2007 | John Semmens
Posted on 05/20/2007 5:54:43 PM PDT by John Semmens
A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that a roommate-matching Web site may be held liable for what users say about their preferences. The ruling was in response to a complaint raised by two California fair housing groups that brought the case against Roommate.com, saying the Web site violates the Fair Housing Act by allowing users to specify roommate preferences based on sex, race, religion and sexual orientation.
“The law is clear,” wrote Judge Arnold Bube for the court. “Individuals may not discriminate in their selection of a roommate. Just because you might not feel comfortable or safe living with a person of the opposite sex or a person with a different sexual preference doesn’t negate that person’s right to live with you. Communicating your discriminatory preferences by any means is strictly prohibited. Any medium that abets the communication of your discriminatory preferences is also liable under the law.”
“In an ideal world, housing arrangements would be handled by an impartial government agency,” Bube suggested. “People would be assigned appropriate living quarters and room mates like they are in the Army or prison. Prejudice and discrimination would play no part. We’d cure the urban sprawl that is caused by people determined to live in their own separate single-family home.”
Bube said his views may sound radical now, “but once the amnesty bill passes congress we’re going to have to come up with some means of accommodating the influx of Mexicans that will surely follow.”
In related news, the Massachusetts legislature is taking up a bill that would bar in-state businesses from using height or weight as factors governing personnel decisions. Firms with a disproportionate under-representation of the short and fat would be subject to sanction by state authorities. If the bill passes it is expected to condemn the once proud Boston Celtics basketball team to perpetual last place in the NBA standings.
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Bube said his views may sound radical now, “but once the amnesty bill passes congress we’re going to have to come up with some means of accommodating the influx of Mexicans that will surely follow.”
This reads like Scrappleface. Surely this isn't real? This judge basically wants to have everyone living in refugee-camp barracks.
I think I'll stick to my detached, single-family (my family) home, with no roommates.
If I were to rent out a room in my house I sure as h*ll have the right to ask any question I want, since they would be living with me.
The way I read it is that the users can voluntarily not answer their sexual orientation. I am surprised that Alex Kozinski wrote the majority opinion—I thought he was one of the top conservative jurists in the country. I see why it is any of the Court’s business what a particular website requires of its users. If a potential subscriber to Roommates.com does not want to disclose their sexual orientation—there are plenty of other avenues in order to search (ie Craigslist)
The Commie 9th Jerkit is at is again!
The Republicans appointed the majority of the left leaning on the US Supreme Court also. Go figure.
“I think I’ll stick to my detached, single-family (my family) home, with no roommates.”
It’s this kind of selfishness that Obama will “change” once He becomes president.
Here come the clowns
/s
True, it was a GOP appointed SCOTUS that ruled on RvW.
Whenever I hear an absurb ruling, I usually find a Carter or Clinton appointee.
Keep in mind though, on the current SCOTUS, Ruthy is the most extreme lefty, and for that we have to thank Bubba.
Hey, we have a dog, okay?
/sarc
Reuters didn’t quite get it right. The court didn’t rule on whether Roomates could or couldn’t solicit the information. They ruled that if they solicited the information, and IF ads containing the information were found to be in violation of the fair housing act, they couldn’t hide behind the claim that they were just a web-site and not responsible for the content provided by others. The question of whether it is or is not a violation of the act will be decided by the lower court on remand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.