Does the Right to Choose a Roommate Include a Right to Advertise Discriminatory Preferences?

      David Bernstein introduces a dilemma brought about after a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court, in California, due to the court case of Fair Housing Council V. Roommate.com. In his article (Does the Right to Choose a Roommate Include a Right to Advertise Discriminatory Preferences?).  They found that the law does not apply to advertising for a roommate.  This law is the Fair Housing Act (1968) which prohibits "discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of dwellings based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin" (US Dept of Housing).  This law was amended in 1988 to be more inclusive and is further expanded upon.  Back to the point, this ruling found that in the selection of roommates it is acceptable to discriminate and post preferences about political, racial, and sexual orientations.  Bernstein and I as well, agree with the ruling made by the Judge.  

     The ruling attempts to be fair but has to account for both the Fair Housing Act and the rights of the First Amendment.  More specifically the "freedom of speech" right guaranteed in this Amendment.  Although the posting of specifications for a roommate is a type of discrimination, I do not believe it is discrimination targeted towards any one sex, race, or political group/individual.  It is too broad of a service and many people look for different things in the people they would like as roommates.  Which would mean that every race, sex, and political group/individual is being discriminated against on this web site.  

     Because it is so broad of a discrimination or all inclusive, I would instead refer to it as personal preferences and not discrimination.  Every person is allowed to pick and choose what they prefer in another person, whether as a roommate or as a significant other, this is not unconstitutional.  An example of personal preferences; can be seen on dating websites.  It is my belief that roommate.com is almost exactly the same as a dating site.  They are both web pages that state what one is looking for in another person.  I think there is no viable reason that this case was taken to court over what they thought to be discrimination.  And although I understand the other point of view and how it could possibly be seen as a violation of the Fair Housing Act, I do not believe the advertisements are or were meant to be prejudice or discriminatory in any way to any one particular group/individual.  This is a very well put together article and Bernstein  does a good job of stating the facts and defending his views as well as providing details for better understanding of the other side of the argument, and how it can seem unjust.  I however maintain that it is not preventing anyone from fair housing.