Court Rules Web Site Liable

azconservative ^ | 18 May 2007 | John Semmens

[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

[JLS]

Another reversal awaiting the 9th. In most if not all federal housing laws their is a threshhold number of units one has to rent.

If this idiot judge really said, “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.” It really should be a warning to all those around here who see no difference between the two major political parties.

[tet68]

AZC bump.

[dynachrome]

” Firms with a disproportionate under-representation of the short and fat”
LOL

Short and fat dynachrome approves.

[Quix]

Globalist idiots.

[dynachrome]

p.s. I think the Colorado one is funnier. Of course, having Bill Ritter as guvnor ain’t so funny!

[festus]

Well it may not be the judge thats out of line here.

It might just well be that the law is just really badly worded and doesn’t allow for roomate selection in a manner that most would view ok.

[rockrr]

“In an ideal world, housing arrangements would be handled by an impartial government agency...”

John, have you noticed how easily you slip into the Dhimmi perspective? Almost like second nature. I'd keep an eye on that if I were you...;'}

[Revel]

This has to be like an Onion piece right?

[supercat]

This has to be like an Onion piece right?

Why would you think that? The Onion publishes nonsense stories about things people would never realistically want to do. Stuff like "George Bush meets mispronounces name of Martian ambassador".

The site azconservative.com, by contrast, generally writes stories about people doing things they probably would do if they could get away with them. Their stores manage to fool a lot more people than Onion stories (though the Harry Potter story in the Onion was pretty good).

[freekitty]

In other words, we can’t have the great unwashed masses actually talking with each other. We have to keep them apart. They may find out what we say are lies.

[Notwithstanding]

This is an ill-fated, ham-handed, and hilarious (if it weren’t real) attempt to end-run a re-definition of gender discrimiation so as to now include discirmination based on “sexual orientation”.

It may be that CA law does apply to both, but fed law does NOT.

And it seems that state laws that hinder internet commerce, which is interstate commerce, would be invalidated to the extent they do effect interstate commerce, as they would if such laws disallowed people in NJ from using the website to advertise for a straight roommate in NJ.

Likewise, the supreme court will not support outlawing a woman’s ability to avoid having a man as a roommate.

[airborne]

Oh, I thought you meant a real court.

It's just the flamers in 'Frisco.

8^p