I Don't Want A Black Roommate

[RaleighDevil]

Last week, a federal court issued an opinion in a case brought against roommate.com by the San Fernando Valley Fair Housing Council. The council said that allowing people to advertise their racial, familial or sexual preferences in choosing roommates was a violation of federal and state fair housing laws. The ruling is at the link. There is another variant of this argument. Even if it is permissible to choose roommates based on race, etc., should it be legal to place those preferences on roommate.com and other such sites?

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/02/09-55272.pdf

The judges, in a 2-1 ruling, said the right to "intimate association" was one recognized by the Supreme Court. The other judge said state law could apply.

http://volokh.com/2012/02/08/does-t...ight-to-advertise-discriminatory-preferences/

However, I was surprised that the opinion didn’t address a more subtle argument, to wit: if the Fair Housing Act does apply to roommate situations, even if it would be unconstitutional for the government to punish someone for his choice of roommate it is not unconstitutional for the government to prohibit someone from advertising discriminatory preferences.

The reasoning would be that while who one chooses to live with involves intimate association rights, publicly advertising one’s discriminatory preferences in an advertisement for a roommate is not only not an “intimate” activity, it’s a very public one.

Indeed, it’s my understanding that during the Clinton Administration, HUD’s position was that it could (and would) prohibit advertising that expressed discriminatory preferences even when acting on those preferences would be constitutionally protected. (The relevant regulations allowing punishment for such behavior were eventually withdrawn because of a related controversy over what was seen as HUD’s overly vigorous interpretation of what constituted discriminatory advertising.)

It’s not clear that HUD’s position has changed. Judge Kozinski points out that HUD recently dismissed a claim against a woman who advertised for a Christian roommate on a church bulletin board based in part on the unique context of the ad, but it’s not clear that HUD would take the same position about an ad seeking a white roommate published in the Washington Post classifieds.

 

[RJKarl]

For the lawyers here- If you advertise for a roomate, aren't you a de facto landlord. This being the case wouldn't it be considered discrimination by a landlord?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Depends if you are subleasing a portion of your space that you pay 100% of, or if the roommate will be on the primary lease and paying the landlord directly along with you.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

black people are the worst

 

[BillBrasky]

penile envy can be a real problem

 

[ImTheCaptain]

seriously; also, they always beat me at basketball and freestyle rapping

 

[RaleighDevil]

For the lawyers here- If you advertise for a roomate, aren't you a de facto landlord. This being the case wouldn't it be considered discrimination by a landlord?

So, people should not be able to choose their roommates? I doubt you could get many liberals to go down that road.

 

[RJKarl]

Using the same logic should apartment owners be able to discriminate against people because of their color or religion?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Using the same logic should apartment owners be able to discriminate against people because of their color or religion?

That's not using logic at all. Renting out an apartment is completely different than personally living with someone, RJ. People are allowed to be racist assholes.

 

[RJKarl]

myweanker buddy, if you are subletting your apartment or home, you are a landlord. If the person is paying you and you can evict them, you have to follow the law.

Of course you can get around it by not advertising your discrimination.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

myweanker buddy, if you are subletting your apartment or home, you are a landlord. If the person is paying you and you can evict them, you have to follow the law.

Of course you can get around it by not advertising your discrimination.

By saying "get around it", you are stating that people are getting around a law. That's false, and you're wrong. There are no laws on roommate preference, only on advertising that preference. It's kind of hypocritical of your liberal stance to support such far reaching governmental interference on private preference and lifestyle choice. What's next, are you going to force homosexuals to accept straight roommates?

 

[RedSoxFaithful]

What's next, are you going to force homosexuals to accept straight roommates?

I'm 80% sure FOX already did this.

 

[RJKarl]

By saying "get around it", you are stating that people are getting around a law. That's false, and you're wrong. There are no laws on roommate preference, only on advertising that preference. It's kind of hypocritical of your liberal stance to support such far reaching governmental interference on private preference and lifestyle choice. What's next, are you going to force homosexuals to accept straight roommates?

In NC, you aren't going to get busted for smoking a joint in your house. If walk out and smoke it in front of a cop, you will get busted.

Did I say I supported or opposed it? All I said was what the law is.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

In NC, you aren't going to get busted for smoking a joint in your house. If walk out and smoke it in front of a cop, you will get busted.

Did I say I supported or opposed it? All I said was what the law is.

Smoking weed is illegal in public and private. The FHA meanwhile, can not extend into the home. Your "de-facto landlord" example does not fly here, because the advertiser is also a tenant, making the property their legal home, and giving them the right to be discriminatory about who they live with. The illegality of advertising their discrimination is a separate matter.

That is why you can't

Use the same logic

 

[DeaconBrews]

seriously; also, they always beat me at basketball and freestyle rapping

1 out of 2 for me!

 

[RJKarl]

Smoking weed is illegal in public and private. The FHA meanwhile, can not extend into the home. Your "de-facto landlord" example does not fly here, because the advertiser is also a tenant, making the property their legal home, and giving them the right to be discriminatory about who they live with. The illegality of advertising their discrimination is a separate matter.

You are wrong. If the person is paying you not directly to the landlord, you are his landlord.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

You are wrong. If the person is paying you not directly to the landlord, you are his landlord.

I didn't say your example was incorrect, I said it didn't fly here. You don't believe me, argue with the U.S. Appellate Court.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/02/09-55272.pdf

"It would be difficult, though not impossible, to divide a
single-family house or apartment into separate “dwellings”
for purposes of the statute. Is a “dwelling” a bedroom plus a
right to access common areas? What if roommates share a
bedroom? Could a “dwelling” be a bottom bunk and half an
armoire? It makes practical sense to interpret “dwelling” as an
independent living unit and stop the FHA at the front door.
There’s no indication that Congress intended to interfere
with personal relationships inside the home. Congress wanted
to address the problem of landlords discriminating in the sale
and rental of housing, which deprived protected classes of
housing opportunities. But a business transaction between a
tenant and landlord is quite different from an arrangement
between two people sharing the same living space."

 

[RJKarl]

That me appear to be mistaken.....

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

That me appear to be mistaken.....

 

[Liquid Karma]

Can we add real estate law to the list of things RJ acts like an expert in but in fact doesn't know shit about?