BryanS Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO - A roommate-finding site cannot require users to disclose their sexual orientation, a U.S. appeals court ruled on 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.To inquire electronically about sexual orientation would not be different from asking people in person or by telephone if they were black or Jewish before conducting business, the panel said in an 8-3 ruling that partly overturns a lower federal court decision.The Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego filed suit against the Web site, claiming it violated the Fair Housing Act and various state laws.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23944537/Actually... I think they should be allowed to ask and people should TELL. Because... the last thing you want is to live with someone who has an issue with it. You're just asking for trouble - by not asking, and telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolie Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 No.If you have a strong preference to not have a gay (or straight) room mate, you can simply get an apartment of your own. If you have this kind of preference, fine, but you should expect to pay more for the privilege. Requiring disclosure violates privacy and rights in the real world. If it's an optional part you can volunteer or "decline to state", fine, no one would have a problem with that. But to make yes-or-no disclosure a requirement for participating in the service is over the line.My question is roommates.com merely like a craigslist for people to find housing arrangements completely on their own, or do they actually participate in the process? I'm imagining the criteria would be more strict in the second case. e.g., if I post on the open internet "white male roommate wanted," is that protected as free speech? where does it cross the line into discrimination in providing a service like housing that has established equality laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Actually... I think they should be allowed to ask and people should TELL. Because... the last thing you want is to live with someone who has an issue with it. You're just asking for trouble - by not asking, and telling.i'm with you....why make life more miserable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Would it violate the law to ask what a person's gender is? Surely that'd be a critical thing for a roommate service to know, but you'd think that it'd be treated the same as sexual orientation for legal purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Would it violate the law to ask what a person's gender is? Surely that'd be a critical thing for a roommate service to know, but you'd think that it'd be treated the same as sexual orientation for legal purposes.DING! DING! DING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Not sure how I am feeling about this one. I am not sure someone should be compelled to list their orientation on something like this, but for practical purposes, wouldn't it potentially protect straights and gays?Maybe most people in either camp wouldn't care, but there are still a good percentage of straight people that would have issues with living with a gay roommate (men more than women) and straight people that might feel the same about having a straight roommate.I dunno ... I wouldn't care (straight, gay or bi) as long as the person paid their rent on time, didn't party all the time, and wasn't a bigger slob than me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Was it mandatory to include sexual orientation, or was it optional? I can see how some people searching for roommates wouldn't mind clicking boxes for both "gay" and "doesn't matter/not disclosed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I pity the fool who needs a Roomate Service.Gay and Straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 The question should be "would you have a problem having a gay roommate". I don't think it's a crime to ask if someone is intolerant, then others could stay away at their own choice. Now you might say, who would admit that, but the couple of friends I have who feel that way would be damn sure to write Yes in capital letters, their phobia knows no shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 ...Now you might say, who would admit that, but the couple of friends I have who feel that way would be damn sure to write Yes in capital letters, their phobia knows no shame.I think it's stupid to assume phobias are in play when dealing with roomie preferences.Wanting to live with someone similar to yourself reduces potential conflict... it has nothing to do with being afraid of ____ (gays, asians, women, jews, tokers, atheists, republicans ) in general.Though i do agree with Midtown... and if you're someone that actually has so few friends that you have to stoop to a roomie service.. a) Thats sad. B ) Maybe you can't be too picky over the above mentioned characteristics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I'm sure there are situations that would require a roommate service. Moving to a new city, all your friends are married or already have roommates. I personally don't think I would use one b/c I wouldn't want to live with someone I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I'm sure there are situations that would require a roommate service. Moving to a new city, all your friends are married or already have roommates. I personally don't think I would use one b/c I wouldn't want to live with someone I don't know.Live alone in an efficiency.Only thing worse than moving to a strange city where you know nobody... would be to move to a strange city where you know nobody and live with someone you really know nothing about .... and now have the right to know even less about thanks to this court case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Phobia, Schmobia. It's no different than a female asking for a female roommate instead of a male. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I think it's stupid to assume phobias are in play when dealing with roomie preferences.Wanting to live with someone similar to yourself reduces potential conflict... it has nothing to do with being afraid of ____ (gays, asians, women, jews, tokers, atheists, republicans ) in general.Intolerance of homosexuals is also known as homophobia, that is what I was referencing. Maybe you don't agree with the term, but it has more to do with intolerance than fear, and it definitely comes into play when you are talking about 2 people living together. It's not about being scared if that's how you took it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Intolerance of homosexuals is also known as homophobia, that is what I was referencing. Maybe you don't agree with the term, but it has more to do with intolerance than fear, and it definitely comes into play when you are talking about 2 people living together. It's not about being scared if that's how you took it.You originally said "their phobia knows no shame"... which I assume you mean... shame on your friends for letting their homophobia dictate not wanting a gay roomate.I've never agreed with that term because the definition of phobia is that of fear, not intolerance.Regardless.. The difference between you and me is you think people should be tolerant of all qualities/lifestyles when picking a potential roomie and I say it is perfectly fine to be intolerant of (gays, asians, women, jews, tokers, atheists, republicans, whatever ) when picking a roomate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 Phobia, Schmobia. It's no different than a female asking for a female roommate instead of a male.Bingo. And I say, why stop at just asking about sexual orientation? I think you should disclose everything: your income, how neat (or not) you are, your height, age, weight, race, general appearance, personal hygiene habits, everything. Get it all out. While none of these factors should be used as discriminators in a work or public environment - living with someone is a private matter. If anything, I need to make sure that my roommate is fatter and uglier than I am in order to keep my self esteem up (from having to use a roommate selection service...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Regardless.. The difference between you and me is you think people should be tolerant of all qualities/lifestyles when picking a potential roomie and I say it is perfectly fine to be intolerant of (gays, asians, women, jews, tokers, atheists, republicans, whatever ) when picking a roomate.I didn't say anyone should be tolerant or intolerant either way, I said I think people should be honest when they pick a roommate, not tolerant. I'm not about to tell my anti-gay friends they need a gay roommate to better themselves, that is idiotic. That's why I said put the question on there so people know what the deal is when they are browsing. Be what you are, just be up front so you don't land in a situation that is going to cause trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I'm not about to tell my anti-gay friends they need a gay roommate to better themselves, that is idiotic.I thought that was essentially what you were saying when you criticized their phobia.My apologies then.Bingo. And I say, why stop at just asking about sexual orientation? I think you should disclose everything: your income, how neat (or not) you are, your height, age, weight, race, general appearance, personal hygiene habits, everything. Get it all out. While none of these factors should be used as discriminators in a work or public environment - living with someone is a private matter....Sarcasm aside.. you're right. There is no equal-opportunity requirement when it comes to personal relationships.You sift through all the above and more when dating... you sure as heck can do it (to a lesser or greater degree) when sifting through potential roomates as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 It would be a bookkeeping nightmare if college men could check "I prefer a lesbian roommate" on their residence hall applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I'm gay and would prefer a gay roommate if I were looking for one. Orientation is not an unreasonable question when looking for a roommate. Besides why would I want to live with someone who belches, passes gas and scratches their package all of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I don't think it should be mandatory, but definitely optional. I wouldn't mind saying I am gay... I wouldn't want to live w/ someone who was uncomfortable w/ that or just plain hated gay people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 It seems like, whether gay, straight, or whatever, everybody seems to be able to agree that this is just a really stupid decision on the part of the courts.RedScare, any comment? Is there some method to the madness in play here that isn't apparent to laymen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 It seems like, whether gay, straight, or whatever, everybody seems to be able to agree that this is just a really stupid decision on the part of the courts.RedScare, any comment? Is there some method to the madness in play here that isn't apparent to laymen?I would like to hear the RedScare answer... I was thinking more myself about this...roommates.com, the company, cannot discriminate based on race, gender, and let's through sexual orientation in there. So if you want to work for them, they cannot (or should not) discriminate, based on those factors. Fine.roommates.com, provides a "public" service, right? So, you can't be forced to answer certain questions (apparently about your race, religion, etc. - and now, by the court's reasoning, sexual orientation.)...problem is... roommates.com provides a "public" service that bridges "personal/private" relationships... that is the gray area; hence, the court case....the more interesting question, and believe there is legal action pending, is eharmony.com. They don't ask about sexual orientation, nor do they allow you to select men seeking men, women seeking women. So they are not asking - but are being sued. roommates.com is asking - and are also being sued. Let's sue everybody....the commonality in both of these lawsuits, to me, revolves around these web sites providing a "public service." Depending on the case, you are discriminating either by asking (roommates.com) or not asking/not providing service (eharmony.com).In any event, such disclosure should be optional. If I had my way, gay people would turn purple for one full week, every year, all at the same time. And you wouldn't have the choice; there would be no "hiding" - it would just happen. Even that brazen, masculine, doesn't-like-gay-people person in the office... purple. Suddenly, we'd see a lot more gay people in this world. And I think it would raise awareness, and we'd live in a better place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 If the website can't ask about sexual orientation, then they shouldn't be allowed to ask, what color they are, what their religious preference is, how many drinks they have during the week.Someone on here hit it on the head though, just make it an option to answer or not, not mandatory. Usually 9 out of 10 straight folks will have no problem hitting the breeder button, while most folks that would decline the option simply don't want to be "outted" that way, but in affect HAVE "outted" themselves anyways by NOT answering , CATCH 22! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 All of you are making really good points. It is not an easy issue to digest and I think the courts actually had a hard job on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Ok, here's my take. Being gay doesn't affect somebody's work ethics, it doesn't dictate who they are as a person, it's not a disease, and anybody who tries to disenfranchise one's rights are morally corrupt themselves. Who am I to say somebody can't be married? Who am I to say they can't be happy? I'm a devout christian. But who am I really? There are some in this country who cry seperation of church and state. Well by golly let it be. Seperation of church and state. It's the church who marries us in the first place right? Why not let it be up to the church to decide if they want to marry you or not instead of the darn government! They're too busy sleeping around themselves to worry about what I'm doing. Anybody? I can think of plenty of other things in this world that are far worse than being gay. As far as the replying whether or not your gay on a match.com, I think it's important, but I'm split. I don't think it should be mandatory, but it should be on there. If your gay looking for a gay roomate, then go to gay.com. Problem solved. Let it be known that if a person is interested in rooming with you and the box ain't checked, that they should be prepared just in case. After all, it could be a safety concern if the person is really homophobic or a bible thumper. It could make for a rather uncomfortable situation for both. However, with it not being on there and your roomate finds out, I think it could go a long way into enlightening the hetero world that being GLBT isn't the worst thing in the world. It would probably help change the views of a lot of other people out there. By the way, it's GLBT week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 My first thought on this topic...without reading the article...was that the courts should not be prohibiting people from seeking information when deciding something as personal as a roommate. After all, knowledge is power, and, while practicing discrimination in the workplace, or in lending, etc., may be a problem, outlawing discrimination in the privacy of one's home is an infringement on a bigot's right to be a bigot (regardless of our views of bigotry).However, after reading the article, it appears the website REQUIRED one to announce their orientation. This is different. Just as one has the right to hold bigoted views, one also has the right to keep his or her sexual orientation private. It is not a crime, or even dangerous to be gay. If one wishes not to answer the question, they should have that right. Potential roommates have the right not to contact those who decline to answer the question. The harm is nil. On the other hand, the harm to one forced to reveal sexual orientation could be great in a country that continues to allow or even promote discrimination against gays.I am unaware of any prohibition on potential roommates asking the question of sexual orientation after they meet, or in email correspondence. The only prohibition is on the website forcing you to answer the question. Because a roommate is being invited to share my personal space, as opposed to renting him an apartment with its own door, I should be able to ask if he is gay, a dope fiend, a fundie, or even a staunch conservative. If I were renting my garage apartment, perhaps only the dope fiend and financial staus question might be appropriate. But, in my living room, a much wider array of subjects might be broached.So, I find the court's ruling to prohibit the mandatory answer requirement to be proper, but to extend it to the roommates themselves less so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 By the way, it's GLBT week!Is it really? How'd that slip past me this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Well by golly let it be. Seperation of church and state. It's the church who marries us in the first place right? Why not let it be up to the church to decide if they want to marry you or not instead of theBecause you can go down to the courthouse and have a JP marry you also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Because you can go down to the courthouse and have a JP marry you also. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.