Comments on: Roommates.com Subject to Fair Housing Law http://whatlawyersdo.com/2008/12/11/roommatescom/ A Trial Lawyer Tracking Events that Affect the Legal Rights of Individuals and Consumers Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:53:35 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Michael http://whatlawyersdo.com/2008/12/11/roommatescom/#comment-124 Michael Mon, 11 May 2009 20:29:41 +0000 http://whatlawyersdo.com/?p=636#comment-124 You can't give a lecture about how it's 'wrong and bigoted' to "discriminate" in terms of co-habitantation, and then say it's OK for women to only want females just because you think so, no matter how strong an argument you present. Everyone has a reason for their preferences, the same way you do concerning women. What makes your opinion/preference more valid than anyone elses?? If someone can't be free to decide for themselves who they are comfortable eating breakfast across the table from *in their own home*, then the rights of homeowners are being trampled far worse than those you suggest are being "discriminated" against. You can’t give a lecture about how it’s ‘wrong and bigoted’ to “discriminate” in terms of co-habitantation, and then say it’s OK for women to only want females just because you think so, no matter how strong an argument you present. Everyone has a reason for their preferences, the same way you do concerning women. What makes your opinion/preference more valid than anyone elses?? If someone can’t be free to decide for themselves who they are comfortable eating breakfast across the table from *in their own home*, then the rights of homeowners are being trampled far worse than those you suggest are being “discriminated” against.

]]> By: Sal http://whatlawyersdo.com/2008/12/11/roommatescom/#comment-89 Sal Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:11:07 +0000 http://whatlawyersdo.com/?p=636#comment-89 "One caveat I would add, though, is that I think it is okay for women to only want a female roommate. I don’t know if that is something contested by the fair housing advocates in this case, but I believe that safety and privacy concerns trump any fair housing argument in that discrete situation." Sorry, you can't pick and choose. No gender discrimination means just that. “One caveat I would add, though, is that I think it is okay for women to only want a female roommate. I don’t know if that is something contested by the fair housing advocates in this case, but I believe that safety and privacy concerns trump any fair housing argument in that discrete situation.”

Sorry, you can’t pick and choose. No gender discrimination means just that.

]]> By: Jordan http://whatlawyersdo.com/2008/12/11/roommatescom/#comment-40 Jordan Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:13:47 +0000 http://whatlawyersdo.com/?p=636#comment-40 As much as I agree with the need for anti-discriminatory housing laws, I wonder if the application is a bit over-reaching. This goes beyond renting an apartment or home to a minority. When someone is looking for a roommate, they are seeking to co-habitate. Co-habitation is a lot more personal, and the argument can be made that the law, as applied to roommate searches, is invading the privacy of people's homes. It is similar to your statement at the end of the post that it makes sense to allow females to discriminate and choose other females. People, at home, should be allowed to find co-habitators without restriction. Frankly, it seems ridiculous that someone who may have (unjustified) bigoted views would have to sift through applicants with whom he/she would never cohabitate. Another question is whether a site like Roommates.com could just move their server out of the United States, similar to what online betting sites have done. If they were to move outside of the US, they would still be accessible to US users but potentially be out of reach of the Fair Housing Act. It will be very interesting to see the effect of decisions like this on websites that can move outside of US borders but still reach US customers. This may be a small example, but as more laws are applied to web-based businesses based in the US, it may very well encourage web-based companies to leave the physical US. As much as I agree with the need for anti-discriminatory housing laws, I wonder if the application is a bit over-reaching. This goes beyond renting an apartment or home to a minority. When someone is looking for a roommate, they are seeking to co-habitate. Co-habitation is a lot more personal, and the argument can be made that the law, as applied to roommate searches, is invading the privacy of people’s homes. It is similar to your statement at the end of the post that it makes sense to allow females to discriminate and choose other females. People, at home, should be allowed to find co-habitators without restriction. Frankly, it seems ridiculous that someone who may have (unjustified) bigoted views would have to sift through applicants with whom he/she would never cohabitate.

Another question is whether a site like Roommates.com could just move their server out of the United States, similar to what online betting sites have done. If they were to move outside of the US, they would still be accessible to US users but potentially be out of reach of the Fair Housing Act.

It will be very interesting to see the effect of decisions like this on websites that can move outside of US borders but still reach US customers. This may be a small example, but as more laws are applied to web-based businesses based in the US, it may very well encourage web-based companies to leave the physical US.

]]>