8 Out Of 11 Judges Agree: Roommates.com Is A Very Discriminating Service. Maybe Too Discriminating...

In a decision that could have massive repercussions for Internet businesses who thrive by overcharging people for something they'll have better luck with on Craig's List, the 9th US Circuit Court has ruled that certain federal laws, specifically fair housing laws, do indeedapply to the internets:

Never mind the fact that a sitting US Federal Judge sarcastically used the word "magically" in an official decision - no, wait, mind it. It must be stated for the record that "Magical" has now been established as official legal jargon. Just in time, we might add, for arguments in favor of forcing intelligent design in American schools. But we digress.

Meanwhile, there is some concern that this ruling could create a considerable amount of confusion as to the legal status of online businesses.

It's interesting that Craig's List was recently brought to court because here precisely, is what the nefarious web based villains actually did:

And this is where we grind to a screeching halt and wonder what in hell the Judges were thinking. While it's true that Realtors cannot and should not (we're looking right at you, Korea Town) discriminate based on gender, race or sexual orientation when deciding who should be allowed to sign a lease, it seems to this third person narrator that Roommates.com isn't about straight business transactions, it's about people filling vacant slots in their own homes. And indeed, a quick visit to the site confirms it:

Those of us who've lived into an insanely cheap apartment in a really convenient part of town know how difficult it is to extricate yourself from it. If you're lucky enough to have, say, a 2 bedroom apartment in Silverlake for 850 a month, chances are you're never moving out unless you're evicted. Which means, unless you're married, you're probably going to change roommates at least once or twice. Is the search for a new roommate a business transaction, or a personality decision similar to dating? Third Person narrators such as the one writing this post would probably say it's the latter. Unfortunately, the 9th Circuit Judges disagree:

Doesn't it follow that the criteria one takes into account when selecting a nekkid bedtime pal are similar to those used to determine roommate compatibility? Why then shouldn't they be held to similar standards? How is it a violation of the fair housing act, for example, for a woman to prefer strictly female roommates?

Perhaps there are also class considerations in play here - The average judge is probably a home owner, and in all likelihood hasn't rented in years. They live with their families and for the most part, enjoy near complete living stability. Renting is alien territory to them. But as people are increasingly forced by extremely high real estate prices (and declining average income) to rent for longer and longer periods of time, the selection of who one chooses as a roommate becomes more and more a decision of who one will be spending a great deal of their lives with. While we would never support or encourage prejudice, we also would never live with bigots anyway. It would be a damn shame to move into a new apartment and discover to our horror that thanks to this ruling, your new roommate is a racist, sexist homophobe. Better to find that out before you sign the lease, no?

Final question: Craig's List (speaking of) is full of incredible steals, in great neighborhoods, that state quite explicitly they are available for female applicants only. What do LAisters think? Is this reasonable? Unfair? Do women have concerns that, perhaps, men don't, that might make roommate gender a more deeply pressing issue*? Sound off in comments.

*Spoiler: Yes.

Photo by Maproom Systems via Flikr.