Full 9th Circuit: Web site [Roommates.com] can be sued under fair-housing laws

First Amendment Center ^ | 04.04.08 | David L. Hudson Jr.

[Boblo]

So if I am looking for a room mate I should not be able to select my preferences based on race, religion, sexual preference, national origin etc etc??

This court should be impeached.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Communists hate it when normal people enter into free-market transactions without asking the government for permission. This just keeps getting worse. The ultimate goal of communists (dems) is to have the government control all financial transactions.

[Don Corleone]

The 9th Circus at it again. Impeach ‘em!

[El Gato]

One of the most pressing legal questions in the online age concerns the extent of immunity granted by federal law to Internet service providers for online content generated by third parties. Many courts have granted immunity based on Section 230(c) of the CDA, which states: “No provider … of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

This would be just like penalizing a newspaper for a similar add in the classified section. "Wanted male Roomate". I guess the First Amendment doesn't apply to the internet. Nor Freedom of Association (once protected by the Ninth Amendment). At least as far at the 9th circus is concerned

Apparently the 9th won't even allow discrimination on the basis of sex, or sexual preference, in the choice of a roommate.

[weegee]

You can no longer discriminate against a dating partner on the basis of sex, age, race, religion, hair color, body composition, or past sexual history. You can however continue to discriminate on the basis of political party support.

[El Gato]

This court should be impeached.

Then drawn and quartered with the resultant products thrown into the Pacific to feed the sharks and/or Orcas, and maybe save a few seals.

[DannyTN]

"So if I am looking for a room mate I should not be able to select my preferences based on race, religion, sexual preference, national origin etc etc??"

I agree, this is different than selling housing. This is selecting a roommate to actually live with, and discrimination should be allowed.

[meyer]

I could use a room mate. Preferably a female nymphomaniac, 18-24 years old, sizzlin’ hot, wealthy.

[DannyTN]

"So if I am looking for a room mate I should not be able to select my preferences based on race, religion, sexual preference, national origin etc etc??"

I agree, this is different than selling housing. This is selecting a roommate to actually live with, and discrimination should be allowed.

[DannyTN]

According to the ninth circuit, if a 50 year old, fat, overheated, muslim, male nymphomaniac wants to live with you, you must live with him. It’d be discriminatory not to.

[Nea Wood]

A while back I read about an older lady who wanted to rent her guest house out to a man, someone who could do repairs and odd jobs and be a handyman in return for rent. Her ad specified a Christian gentleman. The lady felt safer having a Christian man around the place. She was sued.

This is just not a free country anymore.

[JerseyHighlander]

I agree with the 9th Circus on this specific case.

rommmate.com built discriminatory practices into their business model, there was no “leave blank” or “no answer” or “other:______ “ option for the input forms for both counterparties of the room mate search.

Not only was it not neutral, it was forced discrimination.

[JerseyHighlander]

Imagine this:
The newspaper forces you to declare your roommate preferences using an online ad form, and the form makes you choose from a newspaper ad department created list of characteristics of your desired roommate.

That is not a neutral content provider, they (a for profit media company) made the list of discriminatory options, not the public at large.

[El Gato]

The newspaper forces you to declare your roommate preferences using an online ad form, and the form makes you choose from a newspaper ad department created list of characteristics of your desired roommate.

Then use a different newspaper. Problem solved.

[Malsua]

What a bunch of dopes. They seem to think that by making it illegal to “profile” roommates, everyone will be all equal and happy. Geesh. Like a Christian white girl would tolerate ganja smoking thugs because “oh well, that’s what I was matched up with, gotta live with it”. Idiots.

[AZLiberty]

Read the article, folks. The ruling is narrower than you may think, thus providing wiggle room for Roommates.com and its advertisers. The ruling says that Roommates.com may not use a Web form that requires or encourages the advertiser to post discriminatory information, but it can still supply a blank box in which the advertiser can post anything they want, including discriminatory information.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

Didn't Craigslist just get their case thrown out for the same thing? There is precedence if it did. This is the 9th circus bloviating again

[I still care]

This has been illegal for years. 20 years ago I remember I wanted to put an ad in the paper saying that my apartment was “walking distance to the temple and railroad” and was told I could not, because it was discriminatory.

So observant Jews looking for an apartment they could walk to on Holy Days would find that almost impossible to find. Very unfair, very invasive of their rights, I would think.

I also was not allowed to use the word “couple”, such as in “suitable for couple”. That was prejudiced toward married people.

So people renting apartments have to find all kinds of subterfuges in order to pick a decent person to live in their house.

[JerseyHighlander]

It’s a question of the business practices of roommate.com or the hypothetical newspaper, not about the public’s choice of which business of many to patronize with their rommmate wanted ads.