The judicial branch has gone too far.
People can argue that the executive branch of the U.S. government has become substantially more powerful than the other branches since George W. Bush became our president. Maybe, maybe not. But the judicial branch's state-level courts have begun to weild a far greater power.
You can claim that George Bush has stomped on your civil liberties by instituting warrantless wiretaps. That's an argument for another time, although I can tell you right now that it's not as big a power as the media would have you believe. But now the courts are forcing ambiguity on individual citizens, and it's starting in San Francisco.
In the U.S., we have the freedom of religion. We have the freedom of speech. We have the freedom of peaceful protest. But apparently we do not have the freedom to choose our roommates using sexual orientation as a criteria. I, as a conservative Christian, believe that to be of critical importance. You can call me a bigot all you want; I'm not out plastering the city with anti-homosexuality posters or holding Straight Power rallies in the streets (although they would likely be barred from happening in this modern United States).
This angst comes from a story out of (where else?) San Francisco: Reuters is reporting that a San Francisco court has ruled that Roommates.com cannot ask a registrant's sexual orientation. The argument made by the judge is that, "not only does Roommate ask these questions, Roommate makes answering the discriminatory questions a condition of doing business." Okay, maybe that's true, but they are not discriminating based on it. They are classifying a person based on the answer they give to help those seeking roommates weed out orientations they may not be comfortable with. Roommates.com is not denying gays or lesbians, and therefore cannot be subject to a discrimination lawsuit.
Here's the real kicker: the people who may or may not "discriminate" against others based on this information are the roommate seekers. A roommate relationship is not a business relationship. I have every right to disallow someone from living under my roof based on any criteria I choose, and I'll be damned if this overtly liberal government we're forced to live under right now is going to tell me different. And if you give a damn about your civil liberties, then you should be up in arms too. Because this is a much further reaching issue than Bush's warrantless wiretaps — but, while that one spends day after day in the spotlight, this one won't get more than 24 hours' worth of headlines. I guarantee it.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:51 am
ITA, I would want to know that about someone who lived in my house. Next you wont be allowed to ask a potential roommate if they use illicit drugs or are a convicted child molester! I’m not saying I would deny someone because of sexual preference but I think you should have the right to ask whatever you want.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I meant to reply to this awhile ago, but haven’t gotten the chance. Anyway, without commenting on the merits of the decision, I don’t think you really need to worry too much about this one. The Ninth Circuit (or Ninth Circus as many legal commentators call it) is by far the most overruled federal court of appeals in the U.S. This was the same court that held that requiring students to hear “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. (Incidentally, that decision was reversed 9-0 by the Supreme Court on other grounds.) So take comfort that the decision might not last too long.
If that doesn’t help ease your concern, Mike, you should know that this decision only applies to the states within the Ninth Circuit (CA, NV, OR, WA, ID, MT, AZ, AK, and HI). You currently reside in the Fourth Circuit, which has quickly become the most conservative federal appellate court, even more conservative than the Fifth Circuit which covers TX, LA, and MS. There is little to no chance that the Ninth Circuit decision will be adopted in your neck of the woods.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Well, Jeff, you being the Legal Eagle of my readers, what is your opinion of the decision, and of my argument against it (i.e., classification does not equal discrimination, and therefore does not exist in this case if all that is occurring is the simple application of a classification to an accepted user)?
May 15th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I refuse to form an opinion on any case based on a newspaper article and I haven’t been able to track down the court’s opinion. I have yet to see a story where an appellate court’s decision has been accurately portrayed and I trust that this article continues that not so proud tradition. Perhaps the most notable example occurred in 1974 when the New York Times reported that the U.S. Supreme Court held the death penalty to be unconstitutional per se. How did that one turn out?
Anyway, I would say the far more interesting question, both legally and in terms of actual effect on the average individual, is the issue of whether and to what extent businesses can be held accountable for website content. The courts have been struggling to answer that question — particularly as it relates to jurisdictional issues — but the outcome of that battle will have a significant effect on privacy rights down the road.