No Non-Believers Need Apply
While perusing some local classified ads, I came across an entry for people seeking a fourth roommate for their house. Despite the federally-mandated disclaimer that, "Stating a discriminatory preference in a housing post is illegal," the ad stated one very clear discriminatory preference -- the potential roommate must have voted for Barack Obama.
Now, I certainly take no personal exception to this sort of preference, so long as it's consistent with property rights and freedom of association. But for the folks who support "anti-discrimination laws" -- and I'm guessing that includes most Obama supporters -- I wonder how one can justify state prohibition of some discriminatory preferences but not others.
One might say there's a difference between "discriminatory preferences" based on choice and those based on natural condition, such as skin color or race, and clearly it's wrong to discriminate based on the latter. But federal mandates cover many characteristics that are the product of individual choice, including religion and whether one has children. How can it be illegal to discriminate based on religion but not on political affiliation? For many people, they are one in the same.
Obviously, people hold and rely upon "discriminatory preferences" when selecting roommates. The law only truly prohibits stating certain preferences out loud. It's comical that this particular group of housemates chose to advertise a pro-Obama preference. I wonder, however, how much laughing there would be if people started advertising anti-Obama preferences for roommates.
Comments (26)
Renegade Division
I am going to post a classified in the local newspaper saying "Wanted a White(no Blacks-Asians-Hispanics) roommate who must have voted for Obama"
Published: June 19, 2009 2:32 PM
BlacKats
Double negatives give me headaches... especially on a late Friday afternoon.
Maybe someone in the dwelling is allergic to Republicans?
I thought roommates could be selective but that landlords could not (except for pets, smoking, etc).
Published: June 19, 2009 3:02 PM
Richie
Indeed, an anti-Obama ad would have been racist.
Published: June 19, 2009 3:24 PM
Richie
...or I should say would be racist.
Published: June 19, 2009 3:26 PM
Gaurav Ahuja
It isn't wrong to discriminate based on natural condition. Some people are born with inherently bad traits that very few people want. Some people are physically disabled, mentally handicapped, dirty, ugly, fat etc. And even when a woman has a child that is not always because of a choice(i.e. rape).
Published: June 19, 2009 3:47 PM
jc butte
I see no irony. These are people, most of whom don't personally steal as individuals but root like hell for just about every aspect of it when it's performed by a collective.
Published: June 19, 2009 4:22 PM
Bruce Koerber
Wanted: A reader of economic literature, preferably one who is gifted in mathematics but who knows that empiricism is not the appropriate methodology for the social sciences. Must be a lover of peace, liberty, and prosperity: no ego-driven interventionists need apply.
Published: June 19, 2009 4:49 PM
PMix
An overlooked part of this whole situation is how the government anti-discrimination regulations just make a housing search more difficult for everyone. Clearly the roommates will not be accepting of a person who did not vote for Obama and thus that person would be wasting their time in looking into living with the current roommates. Not allowing them to advertise this preference just causes a waste of time all around.
Published: June 19, 2009 5:02 PM
Peter White
S.M.Oliva, please explain this: How could it possibly be "wrong" to discriminate on the basis of race? Sure, in our statist society it's illegal. It's condemned by the "right and proper" set. But how is it wrong? In order to be wrong, an act would have to violate the rights of another person. What right does any person have to rent an apartment in another person's house? If such rights exist, must there not also be an obligation on the part of house owners to rent to anyone who asks? And where does this obligation come from?
And if there's an obligation to rent, why wouldn't there also be an obligation to sell? And can't this principle be extended indefinitely? Do I have an obligation to shine another person's shoes? Wash his car? Clean out his ear wax? Praise him for his good taste in neckties?
Please explain.
Thanks
Published: June 19, 2009 5:03 PM
S.M. Oliva
"How could it possibly be 'wrong' to discriminate on the basis of race?"
It's not. I was presenting -- and refuting -- a possible objection, hence the "One might say..." preface. My apologies if that was not clear.
Published: June 19, 2009 5:26 PM
scineram
I see an obvious solution. The applicant should just lie.
Published: June 19, 2009 6:30 PM
Craig Newton Norris Jr
I think jc butte's has the right idea. They are looking for someone else who agrees with everything Obama is doing or saying as truth. The roommates aren't looking for any truth other than "you must agree with me" so that we can live in harmony. They do not want their demi-god/saviour to be questioned.
Published: June 19, 2009 7:15 PM
Ben
Roommate wanted: Must be female, blond, and have loose morals. No flat-chested women need apply.
Published: June 19, 2009 8:57 PM
prettyskin
Discrimination is only a problem when you are on the receiving end. At one point or stage in life, we are all receivers.
Published: June 20, 2009 8:55 AM
Deefburger
Without "discrimination" you can't tell the difference.
Published: June 20, 2009 11:22 AM
2nd
What makes them think the potential room-mate will tell the truth ? He might as well lie and say he voted for Obama.
OR
This pro-Obama stuff is really racist discrimination in disguise. Given that most blacks voted for Obama, it might very well be a twisted way of saying Non-Blacks Not Wanted.
Because if he voted for Obama, chances are he's black and if he did not vote for Obama, well chances are he's white.
So, the pro-Obama requirement might very well be racial discrimination in disguise.
Published: June 20, 2009 1:28 PM
Russ
Arrgghhh... my POS firewall box locked up again and ate my last post. Oh well, this time I will skip the math and just give the results.
@2nd:
In absolute numbers, over 2.5 times more whites voted for Obama than blacks. So, if the intent of the advertisement was to get a black roommate, chances are the advertiser will not get what he/she wanted.
Published: June 20, 2009 5:17 PM
Rich
Above, the non-initiation of force principal is used to argue that racial discrimination is not "wrong" or immoral. I would argue that there is more to moral behavior than the ZAP. That said, I don't think that the immorality of racial discrimination should be answered with force.
The ZAP is a great test as to whether something should be illegal. The law, however, is not the be-all and end-all of morality.
Published: June 21, 2009 10:27 AM
Tim
It's kind of hypocritical of us to criticize Obama supporters for only associating with ones of their own kind, when people here sadly, more often than not, tend to lash out at anyone whose comment presents a different opinion (I expect a reply within a few hours accusing me of being a statist, positivist, collectivist fuckwit for pointing this out). It's human nature to desire association with only the ones who agree with them, just as the desire for everyone to agree with them.
Published: June 21, 2009 10:37 AM
Magnus
It's kind of hypocritical of us to criticize Obama supporters for only associating with ones of their own kind ...
I guess you missed the part of the original post where the author said, "I certainly take no personal exception to this sort of preference, so long as it's consistent with property rights and freedom of association."
I don't think anyone here has suggested that Obama supporters should not be allowed to "associate with their own kind," as you put it.
Published: June 21, 2009 11:09 AM
azcIII
The tendency toward "tribal" preferences is an inherent aspect of human nature, just as it is in nearly all animal species.
Flip this situation over and consider the opposing view: What if this person rented a room to a hard-core Libertarian? That wouldn't be a successful or harmonious pairing at all, for either party. Private property means they can welcome whoever they wish.
Published: June 21, 2009 6:09 PM
Kelton Baker
In answer to a previous question raised by a comment, yes, U.S. federal housing discrimination laws do not apply to sharing the same personal living space situation such as a roommate situation. You are free to be just as discriminating as the newspaper chooses to allow you to publish and more.
(I claim expert opinion on this only because I once studied this subject for a real estate license, please seek real legal advice if you need legal guidance, legal disclaimer, disclaimer, etc. etc. . .)
Published: June 22, 2009 7:10 AM
Anne
Personally, if I saw that ad, first I'd laugh incredulously, then, Obama-voter or not, I'd say "no way in hell.." Not much point in secret ballot otherwise. (Actually, I'm Irish, so it'd be none of my business, and I'd be disqualified for not having voted at all, alas)
A couple of commentators felt that either it;
a) the INVERSE would have been wrong, because it a "should have voted McCain, etc" would have been racist, thus playing the intelligence of the average American voter down hugely. That is like saying that all people vote on the basis of colour alone, damn the policies.
or b) that they might have been looking for a Black person only, on the grounds that only Blacks voted Obama (and presumably the White vote was split between everyone else). Hillary Clinton should have won, really...since -every- woman should have voted for her...the black women would have been in a sticky spot there!
And presumably the Asians gave this election a miss.
(I am hoping the original "looking for a black person" comment was joking, but it seemed to be taken seriously later on!)
Why is it wrong to discriminate on the basis of colour when it comes to renting an apartment..? After all, no one person has the right to rent one specific apartment; it is at the discrimination of the renter. Because the current mode of thinking says so? Because we are ashamed of our history? Because discrimination is only "that sort" when it has a definate impact on someone?
So..why does the current mode say it's wrong? And why are we ashamed of history? And who says that refusing to rent an apartment on basis of colour or the exercise of a hard-won right to vote freely does not have an impact? It's about respect for every other person as a person. And although the disrespect shown by that refusal and exclusion based on one aspect of another person may hurt that person. as long as it is not endemic and repeatedly-faced, that person will find somewhere else, in a friendlier, healther and more respectful environment, and can laugh at the foolishness and narrow-mindedness of the people they avoided. Overall, in the odd case like this, it hurts the people that commit the casual act of meanness more, and is disrespectful to whichever cause they espouse, simply by naming it as their motive. The anti-Black/White house makes their own people look bad, the anti-non-Obama-voters make Obama's party look bad. Obama's the President of the US, not just the bits of it that agree with him.
Last addendum; So what if they did rent to a Libratarianist? I am more than my colour, my tribe, my religion, my voting preference. Stick up a sign on the door saying "Respect my beliefs, I'll respect yours and we can get along fine", and you'll be further ahead.
Published: June 22, 2009 7:33 AM
Stephen Grossman
Would they accept a Marxist?
Published: June 22, 2009 12:42 PM
Russ
Anne wrote:
"Stick up a sign on the door saying "Respect my beliefs, I'll respect yours and we can get along fine", and you'll be further ahead."
Change that to "Respect my right to have my beliefs, I'll respect your right to have your beliefs..." and I would agree. I can't respect the belief that socialism is a good thing; sorry, but I think that belief is idiotic. I can respect one's right to have idiotic beliefs, though.
Published: June 22, 2009 2:49 PM
MTV
MTV is proud to announce Real World XVII!
This time, the Real World House will include not only Obama Supporters, but McCain-Palinites too! MTV has a strict policy of not discriminating.
This season will prove to be the most sensational and outrageous yet, and we'll all feel better about the world when the Republicans finally learn to open their hearts and accept Obama, as they should.
Published: June 22, 2009 5:16 PM