Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 07:15 PM Feb 2012

Roommate Preferences Are Sacred, Circuit Says

Roommate Preferences Are Sacred, Circuit Says

(CN) - A website that paired prospective roommates based on personal details like gender, sexual orientation and religion did not violate federal housing law, the 9th Circuit ruled Thursday.

The San Francisco-based federal appeals panel found that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) does not apply to roommates, to whom we give "full access to the space where we are most vulnerable." Rather, such relationships are governed by the right to intimate association.

"Because of a roommate's unfettered access to the home, choosing a roommate implicates significant privacy and safety considerations," Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for a three-judge panel. "The home is the center of our private lives. Roommates note our comings and goings, observe whom we bring back at night, hear what songs we sing in the shower, see us in various stages of undress and learn intimate details most of us prefer to keep private. Roommates also have access to our physical belongings and to our person. As the Supreme Court recognized, '[w]e are at our most vulnerable when we are asleep because we cannot monitor our own safety or the security of our belongings.' Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 99 (1990). Taking on a roommate means giving him full access to the space where we are most vulnerable."

The Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego sued Roommate.com, a popular online meeting place for potential housemates, over a section of the website that allowed users to seek roommates or available rooms based on specific characteristics, including sex, sexual orientation and familial status. The plaintiffs alleged that requiring users to disclose that kind of information violated both federal and California fair-housing laws.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/02/43589.htm

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Roommate Preferences Are Sacred, Circuit Says (Original Post) The Straight Story Feb 2012 OP
The court got this one right. badtoworse Feb 2012 #1
Exactly. My bf and I rent a room in the house. alphafemale Feb 2012 #2
 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
1. The court got this one right.
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 07:49 PM
Feb 2012

Sole discretion is the standard that should apply to selecting a roommate. It's hard to believe this got to the Appeals Court.

 

alphafemale

(18,497 posts)
2. Exactly. My bf and I rent a room in the house.
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 08:07 PM
Feb 2012

One of the things we both agreed we don't want is someone with small kids. That just wouldn't fit in this house.

Plus , how many days would it be before this text..."I cn't make it bk 2 get ltl Johnny off the scl bus. Cn u watch him 4 a few hrs thnx."

"No. I sdnly have plans to b away. But I have alrted CPS. They shld be by b4 dark."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Roommate Preferences Are ...