New at Reason

January 23, 2007

Katherine Mangu-Ward asks if Alex Kozinski wants to prevent people from asking the sexual preferences of prospective roommates.

Comments

|1.23.07 @ 12:56PM|#

I don't get how this is housing discrimination. Nobody is refusing to rent a residence to a person, they are merely being picky about who they want to invite into their (1) already-existing housing arrangment or (2) prospective (non-existent) housing arrangment.

|1.23.07 @ 1:16PM|#

I'm probably one of those who fall under the Mrs. Murphy Rule. I own a house and rent out 2 of the rooms to people. I've used both Roommates.com and Craigslist.com to post when I had a room available for rent.

And I will admit, some of what I put can be considered discrimintor because I am looking for a particular type of person that will fit in the household. The reason being is that I'm not just renting a room to someone, but I will be living with this personal and have almost a daily contract with me.

Maybe it's just me, but with the rooms I have to rent I would like to have some say to whom I rent to without the fear of lawsuit hanging over my head. And I do hope that the court throws out this lawsuit because if they don't it will effect how I rent my rooms out in the future or if I even do it.

|1.23.07 @ 1:24PM|#

If I am renting a room and state that no Jesus freaks allowed, I'll be discriminating.
Discriminate - see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discriminate. Definition 2 applies.

|1.23.07 @ 1:29PM|#

This reminds me of a certain anecdote about a "young professionals"-oriented listserv to which I belong, which contains some apartment listings. One woman looking to share her apartment stated that she preferred another woman or a gay man to share the apartment, which set off a storm of (over-the-top PC) criticism. The editors of the listserv, gravely concerned, then solicited the opinions of the listserv member on how they should handle cases like this in the future.

What struck me about stories like this is how so many take PC ideology to the point of utter absurdity, and act like a woman who prefers to share her private personal space with another woman (or whatever) like the second coming of Jim Crow.

|1.23.07 @ 1:35PM|#

So, is it illegal to advertise that you will only share an apartment with a single white female, or is it illegal or immoral to merely think that way?

|1.23.07 @ 1:39PM|#

I understand the idea public accomodation, but how is my home a public accomodation? People have a right to free association. If they don't want to live with gay people or straight people or messy people, that is their right. This is nannystatism at its worst. There was a story a few years ago about an elderly woman who was sued by the Feds for housing descrimination for running an adertisement for her garage appartment looking for a "Christian man". The whole thing is bullshit.

|1.23.07 @ 1:47PM|#

This is one reason why some of the best apartments are never advertised.

fyodor|1.23.07 @ 1:49PM|#

This is all verrrrrry interesting to me. Having lived with roommates over the past 30 years, I always assumed the fair housing laws did not apply to choosing roommates. I had never heard of the Mrs. Murphy exception until now, and I'm dismayed to learn (if Mangu-Ward is right) that it only applies to owners of the housing in question. Why the same logic would not apply to people looking to share a lease for a common living space is beyond me. I also didn't realize that advertising certain preferences for tenants would be illegal in a newspaper, but I guess that explains why we never see those preferences expressed there!

I wish Mangu-Ward had explained on what basis the lawsuit in question is supposedly based. Sounds most like they're challenging the applicability of the Communications Decency Act since they're going after the information provider rather than the individual "discriminators". But why this would overturn parts of the Mrs. Murphy exception (and which parts?) I don't understand.

FWIW, I think people and businesses should be able to rent to whomever they like, whatever I think of their decision process, because one has a right to do with one's property whatever one chooses that doesn't violate others' rights, and no one has a right to live in someone else's house. But even if our country has laws that violate property rights, it should at least have the decency to allow people to choose who to share their living space with and to allow websites to allow people to say whatever they like. (Yep, I'm for lots of choice and allowing!)

Sam Franklin|1.23.07 @ 1:51PM|#

I wonder how much of a trade off (as a practical matter) there is between the amount of landlord freedom to discriminate and the amount of subsidized housing that will be provided by the government.

It is possible that less landlord freedom also means fewer subsidized housing units.

|1.23.07 @ 1:52PM|#

If the Ninth Circuit has it's way, it won't be long until it's against the law to deny sex to anyone that requests it from you.

|1.23.07 @ 2:01PM|#

From the Mangu-Ward piece: Federal laws governing discrimination in housing, publishing, Internet privacy, and freedom of speech have all landed in a big jumble at Judge Kozinski's feet. Here's hoping he lives up to the accolades he received in Reason's pages, as 'one of the most libertarian judges in the country.'"

If Kozinski's good-faith judgment is that the law requires a non-libertarian decision, then it's not really up to him to depart from that. It's Congress' job (and ours, indirectly) to change the law, or the Supreme Court's job to rule that the law is unconstitutional.

I suppose if the law isn't crystal clear, then Kozinski could take the Posner route of enacting his own policy preferences. But that way madness lies.

|1.23.07 @ 2:03PM|#

"FWIW, I think people and businesses should be able to rent to whomever they like, whatever I think of their decision process, because one has a right to do with one's property whatever one chooses that doesn't violate others' rights,"

I agree with that in principle, but you can't deny the reality that there were entire sections of cities in this country north and south that were off limits to minorities because the jackasses who owned the properties wouldn't rent to them and the real estate agents wouldn't show them houses for sale. Something had to be done about that. The problem is that we have gone from members of the Dallas Cowboys filing a federal law suit so they could live in North Dallas, to suing single women for not wanting to share a room with a straight single man. It is just nuts.

|1.23.07 @ 2:07PM|#

"but you can't deny the reality that there were entire sections of cities in this country north and south that were off limits to minorities because the jackasses who owned the properties wouldn't rent to them and the real estate agents wouldn't show them houses for sale."

So what would compel someone to live there?

|1.23.07 @ 2:22PM|#

The problem is that we have gone from members of the Dallas Cowboys filing a federal law suit so they could live in North Dallas, to suing single women for not wanting to share a room with a straight single man. It is just nuts.

No it isn't. You either believe that housing is "public accomidation" and that discrimination should be illegal, or you don't believe that housing is "public accomidation" and it should be legal to discriminate against whoever you want.

You can't support discrimination laws, and then want to ignore them because it is a heterosexual male being discriminated against. If the ad was posted by a heterosexual male, who said "No fags please.", people would be outraged and calling for him to be jailed. Politically correct people want the government to step in to stop percieved discrimination, but they still want to discriminate themselves with a wink and a nod.

You statement can be summed up as this:

"We have gone from the government stopping dicrimination that I disaprove of, to the government stopping discrimination I approve of!" Oh, the horror!

ed|1.23.07 @ 2:23PM|#

Opinion + personal preferences + freedom of association = "discrimination."

|1.23.07 @ 2:32PM|#

Rex,

Housing can be both a public accomodation and a private one. If I am a developer in the business of selling houses or renting apartments, it is a public accomodation and I should not be allowed to descriminate. If I am a private individual renting out my garage, it should be my own business.

|1.23.07 @ 2:35PM|#

Also Rex, there is a question of degree here. If you can show me where a group of people be it homosexuals or straight men or wickens or whoever are being harmed by housing descrimination to the same extent black people were being harmed in the 1950s and 1960s, then maybe we do need a law to do something about it. But, I doubt that is the case.

Rhywun|1.23.07 @ 2:38PM|#

You can't support discrimination laws, and then want to ignore them because it is a heterosexual male being discriminated against.

You can if you admit that not everything in the world can be reduced to simple either/or dogmatism.

|1.23.07 @ 2:47PM|#

I suppose it's up to me to make the crucial point that Debra Messing is hot.

thrall|1.23.07 @ 2:48PM|#

If I ever own a house and rent a room to someone I know I will NOT discriminate based on sex, looks, or sexual preference. I will however not allow anyone who is not atheist or agnostic. If it's my house, I can pick the person I want to rent to, can't I?

No jesus freaks in my house.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.23.07 @ 2:51PM|#

I suppose it's up to me to make the crucial point that Debra Messing is hot.

She's got the same body as kermit the frog.

ed|1.23.07 @ 2:51PM|#

Today I discriminated against McDonalds by bringing my own breakfast to work. Tonight I'm going to discriminate against NBC by watching C-SPAN, or maybe nothing at all! Tomorrow I plan to discriminate against Exxon-Mobil by filling up my tank at Dave's Generic Gas station. Tomorrow night I'm quite certain I'll avoid the gay bars while I'm not listening to hip hop. This makes me a very, very bad man.

|1.23.07 @ 3:01PM|#

"I will however not allow anyone who is not atheist or agnostic. If it's my house, I can pick the person I want to rent to, can't I?

No jesus freaks in my house."

Of course it is. Rent to whomever you want provided that you don't bitch when your neighbor will only rent to Christians. It is when you are in the business of owning and renting apartments or your entire town becomes "no theists allowed" that it becomes a problem.

|1.23.07 @ 3:40PM|#

"It is when you are in the business of owning and renting apartments or your entire town becomes "no theists allowed" that it becomes a problem."

Why is that a problem? If the entire town is atheist, why in the world would you want to live there if you're a theist?

|1.23.07 @ 3:42PM|#

"Why is that a problem? If the entire town is atheist, why in the world would you want to live there if you're a theist?"

I don't know, maybe your job is there. Maybe you are just under the delusion that it is a free country and you should be able to live anywhere you like. By that same token, why the hell did all of those upity Negros want to live over with the white folks anyway?

Jacob|1.23.07 @ 5:08PM|#

The link " freewheeling appellate arguments" goes to a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21zernike.html?em&ex=1169614800&en=b104feb86f0b5781&ei=5087%0A) that has nothing to do with Kozinski.

|1.23.07 @ 5:57PM|#

This is ridiculous.

Discrimmination happens all the time in deciding whom you rent your house to and it should. I have had lots of roommates in the past (in the last 6 years I have lived 6 different apartments) and I have strongly discrimminated in my choice of roommates.

I discrimminate based on their ability to pay the rent.

I discrimminate based on how messy they are.

I discrimminate based on how much they cook, I prefer roommates who get takeout as that reduces dishes.

I discrimminate based on the quality of a person's Audio/Visual equipment he/she is willing to share.

I discrimminate based on the quality of a person's car, to bum rides.

Etc...

And I fully think that you should be able to discrimminate on whatever else you want. Hell if you are racist, and you can't stand living with minorities, why should the law force you?

It is also really easy to get around this. Just don't put it in writing. Interview a bunch of guys for the place, and only take the one who fits your criteria and don't leave a paper trail. You can't tell me this doesn't happen all the time.

I once lived with a woman who would only take Columbia grad students for her spare bedroom. Is that wrong?

|1.23.07 @ 6:06PM|#

Hey, no making fun of Deborah Messing. Refreshing to see a woman on tv with a bustline of less than DDD. Makes her seem like an actual woman to me.

|1.23.07 @ 6:12PM|#

So are local governments exempt when they enact laws that REQUIRE Housing discrimination?

|1.23.07 @ 6:42PM|#

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now that it is proved that stupid laws govern the sale and lease of real estate lets all get together and blame The Realtors.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Hormone Cow|1.23.07 @ 8:41PM|#

As I understood the Fair Housing Act, a person is allowed to discriminate against who they choose as a roommate, but they are not allowed to publish the fact that they intend to discriminate in the ad.

I think the issue here is that this is only allowed for owners of property, and not for people who are seeking roommates who are not the owners of the property. In which case...do the anti-discrimination policies of the fair housing act apply at all?

Jennifer|1.23.07 @ 11:54PM|#

a person is allowed to discriminate against who they choose as a roommate, but they are not allowed to publish the fact that they intend to discriminate in the ad.

Which hurts the very people it's supposed to protect. If I am looking for a place to live (in a roommate situation), and I have absolutely no chance of being chosen to live in apartment A because the current residents dislike redheads, I'd rather know in advance than waste my time driving out to see the apartment.

Guy Montag|1.24.07 @ 4:26AM|#

Why am I not surprised that there are people on this thread who want to force me to accept anybody they like to sleep in my home?

|1.24.07 @ 6:29AM|#

Walter Olson's Overlawyered website has a short summary of cases dealing with roommates and discrimination. I was remembering the infamous "lesbian roomate" case involving a local ordinance of the People's Autonomous Oblast of Madison that was a cause celebre about 10 years ago, and dang it, Walter mentions it.

Even those who are in favor of regulating "public accommodations" can recognize threhold levels. Certain labor laws don't kick in if a business has fewer than X employees, or don't cover family members working in a family business. Sometimes that's because the legislators think it's good policy not to burden small enterprises, or that it would be a bitch to police them all. Other times our solons realize - or are advised - that writing laws so intrusive might attract legal challenges they might lose. Maybe a little of that prudence is needed here.

Kevin