The 9th Circuit at least has found that roommate postings aren't subject to the Fair Housing Act like landlords are.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/02/09-55272.pdf
I had read articles about this ruling when researching my other posts, but couldn't find the actual ruling to read myself, which is why I hadn't referred to it or discussed it previously. Thank you for both finding and posting it. I sure hope that their ruling stands the test of time, and potentially the SCOTUS if it ever reaches that point. Because, I totally agree with them.
Specifically, here's what I feel are the benchmarks of their opinion:
(printed page number 981 / PDF document page number 7)
ANALYSIS, I, § [4], ¶ 1-3 - The FHA defines “dwelling” as “any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families.” Id. § 3602(b). A dwelling is thus a living unit designed or intended for occupancy by a family, meaning that it ordinarily has the elements generally associated with a family residence: sleeping spaces, bathroom and kitchen facilities, and common areas, such as living rooms, dens and hallways.
It would be difficult, though not impossible, to divide a single-family house or apartment into separate “dwellings” for purposes of the statute. Is a “dwelling” a bedroom plus a right to access common areas? What if roommates share a bedroom? Could a “dwelling” be a bottom bunk and half an armoire? It makes practical sense to interpret “dwelling” as an independent living unit and stop the FHA at the front door.
There’s no indication that Congress intended to interfere with personal relationships inside the home. ...
(printed page number 982 / PDF page number 8)
ANALYSIS, II, § [5], ¶ 1 - The Supreme Court has recognized that “the freedom to enter into and carry on certain intimate or private relationships is a fundamental element of liberty protected by the Bill of Rights.” Bd. of Dirs. of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 545 (1987). “[C]hoices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships must be secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme.” Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 617-18 (1984). Courts have extended the right of intimate association to marriage, child bearing, child rearing and cohabitation with relatives. Id. While the right protects only “highly personal relationships,” IDK, Inc. v. Clark Cnty., 836 F.2d 1185, 1193 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Roberts, 468 U.S. at 618), the right isn’t restricted exclusively to family, Bd. of Dirs. of Rotary Int’l, 481 U.S. at 545.
The right to association also implies a right not to associate. (emphasis added by Beaudreaux) Roberts, 428 U.S. at 623.
(printed page number 983-984 / PDF page number 9-10)
ANALYSIS, II, § [8], ¶ 1 - Government regulation of an individual’s ability to pick a roommate thus intrudes into the home, which “is entitled to special protection as the center of the private lives of our people.” Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 99 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring). “
Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home.” (emphasis added by Beaudreaux) Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 562 (2003). Holding that the FHA applies inside a home or apartment would allow the government to restrict our ability to choose roommates compatible with our lifestyles. This would be a serious invasion of privacy, autonomy and security.
(printed page number 987-988 / PDF page number 13-14)
ANALYSIS, ***, § [13], ¶ 1 - Because precluding individuals from selecting roommates based on their sex, sexual orientation and familial status raises substantial constitutional concerns, we interpret the FHA and FEHA as not applying to the sharing of living units. Therefore, we hold that Roommate’s prompting, sorting and publishing of information to facilitate roommate selection is not forbidden by the FHA or FEHA. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for entry of judgment for defendant. ...
[...]
I'd like to add, that what makes this even more apropos (IMHO) and even more defendable from an ideological standpoint, much less from a Constitutional standpoint, is that this ruling is from the 9th Circuit, the most liberal/progressive court in the US Federal Court system - meaning, that such a Constitutionally conservative finding form this court, of all courts, should pass muster with even the most strict of Constitutional scrutiny possible.