I recently read a snarky column in the conservative Washington Times taking issue with housing being developed for LGBT seniors. But this point struck me as of interest:
In 2013, a federal housing study found that when heterosexual married couples look for a place to live, they are slightly more likely to get a favorable response than gay couples. HUD said that while the gap isn’t huge, it did find more discrimination in states that had laws on anti-gay discrimination than those that didn’t. The five-month national study covered 50 metropolitan markets and took place in 2011.
Could that be right? I googled and came across a June 2013 Huffington Post story that reported:
One of the most interesting findings of the new HUD survey is that discrimination was actually slightly higher against same-sex couples in states with protections for LGBT individuals.
“Several factors could account for this unexpected finding, including potentially low levels of enforcement, housing provider unfamiliarity with state-level protections, or the possibility that protections exist in states with the greatest need for them,” HUD concluded.
Since it’s the liberal jurisdictions that have passed LGBT-inclusive housing measures, it doesn’t really seem likely that “protections exist in states with the greatest need for them,” does it. What is more probable is that once these nondiscrimination statutes are passed, landlords are less likely to rent to same-sex couples because it becomes that much harder to evict them for legitimate reasons if the tenants can claim unlawful discrimination.
Something similar has become evident with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of what used to be called disabilities. Once protected-status individuals are hired, it increases the employer’s liability in the event that they are let go. Which could be why, as pointed out by Walter Olson, labor force participation for the disabled actually declined after the ADA’s passage.
Beware those unintended consequences of well-intentioned legislation.
Another example: Labor advocates push for raising the minimum wage to help low-wage earners, who then have their hours cut or find themselves unemployed because, it turns out, businesses actually don’t operate with excess profit margins that can be redirected, by government decree, to salary budgets. Seattle is just the latest demonstration of this unintended (but actually quite well-documented) consequence.
More. The proposed federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is focused on employment discrimination, not housing or public accommodations (while some activists are now advocating that its scope be expanded to include these areas). But the principle of unintended consequences remains very real, which is one reason I remain equivocal about it. The belief that absent a compelling reason for it, businesses are best left to hire, fire and promote as they see fit, is another. And LGBT advocates have failed to produce convincing evidence of systemic employment discrimination.
As for the comparison with race- and gender-based civil rights measures, enforcement of these typically falls back on disparate impact analysis, meaning employers who don’t employee women and racial minorities based on their representation in the population (or at least their representation among qualified job applicants) can be sued by either the EEOC or those who believe they suffered discrimination by not being hired (or promoted). Since there is no convincing count of LGBT people in the population, no one is seriously proposing that LGBT disparate impact be written in to anti-discrimination legislation.
Furthermore. Walter Olson also took note of the housing discrimination finding.
12 Comments for “From the ‘Unintended Consequences’ File”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What is more probable is that once these nondiscrimination statutes are passed, landlords are less likely to rent to same-sex couples because it becomes that much harder to evict them for legitimate reasons if the tenants can claim unlawful discrimination.
If this were true, wouldn’t we expect to find similar rates of heightened discrimination with respect to race/ethnicity, gender, non-Christian religions, and so on? If heightened levels of discrimination are present in those situations, then you might have a point. If not, then you might want to look for other factors.
posted by Brian on
Or it could be that the presence (or lack) of LGBT discrimination protections directly influence the likelihood that people report such discrimination. Perhaps states with no anti-discrimination laws have a lower percentage of people who have been discriminated against reporting that discrimination.
posted by Lori Heine on
A snarky, petty, mean-spirited piece in The Washington Times about gay people. What a surprise!
I can’t understand how anybody who’s gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender can even stand to read such crap.
Of course they’re VERY worried about all those LGBT seniors who are being discriminated against. I think it’s true that this still happens, and I don’t pretend to know the reasons why. While I tend to agree that anti-discrimination laws have unintended consequences, I balk at being lectured about such matters by the likes of The Washington Times.
“Religious freedom” legislation would have some pretty jolly unintended consequences, too. Not that many commenters here believe that. But the rabid ‘phobes at the Times, and those who read it, are equally blind about foreseeing such consequences. When they criticize others about such things, they sound pretty stupid.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t know why anyone reads a newspaper published by the Moonies. the cozy relationship between Rev Moon and the right wing of the GOP is one of the more bizarre examples of strange bedfellows in US history.
posted by Jorge on
Since it’s the liberal jurisdictions that have passed LGBT-inclusive housing measures, it doesn’t really seem likely that “protections exist in states with the greatest need for them,” does it. What is more probable is that once these nondiscrimination statutes are passed, landlords are less likely to rent to same-sex couples because it becomes that much harder to evict them for legitimate reasons if the tenants can claim unlawful discrimination.
Interesting. I suppose anything is possible. I think it reflects the current relative lack of severity of the problem. The smaller the problem, the more likely any change will make things worse in some ways. Now the question* is whether the current laws actually grant protection enough to compensate victims.
(*Although in practice, it’s irrelevant, because it’s politically impossible to repeal even those anti-discrimination laws that are useless and irrelevant. Try pointing out that the Voter Rights Act is antiquated and we’ve moved forward and watch what happens. *GASP!* You support racism! You Heart KKK!)
A snarky, petty, mean-spirited piece in The Washington Times about gay people. What a surprise!
I can’t understand how anybody who’s gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender can even stand to read such crap.
Oy, vey. You’d have to be desperate.
posted by Mark J on
What is more probable is that once these nondiscrimination statutes are passed, landlords are less likely to rent to same-sex couples because it becomes that much harder to evict them for legitimate reasons if the tenants can claim unlawful discrimination.
No point in trying to reason with Stephen, because his unreasonable ’70s era hate of all things progressive or liberal is well established.
For the rest, a few thoughts. It seems perfectly reasonable that one would find a higher percentage of discrimination cases in more liberal enclaves because, you know, that is where the gay people are. I doubt there are many cases of anti-gay discrimination in Tulsa, Oklahoma, because there really aren’t that many LGBT people there. And there certainly aren’t many out gay people there compared to more accepting cities./states.
And of course if you don’t have any legal protections, why report? In fact, why even present yourself to a potential landlord as a gay couple?
These seem far likelier scenarios than Stephens knee-jerk suspicions that anti-discrimination laws cause more discrimination.
posted by Tom on
OK, I am not buying the Ayn Rand/Libertarian Party line that people would be better off without private sector civil right laws.
Example; Minnesota has had a comprehensive civil right law on the books since 1993 and it is enforced and does have reasonable exemptions built into it. Does discrimination still exist? Yes. Would it be better if the law was repealed? No.
One of the challenges is that — at least in Minnesota — the LGBT community is generally well liked and well organized in certain parts of the State (i.e. Twin Cities), but prejudice is much higher in other parts of the state (where the gay community is also much less organized)
So, if a gay person faces housing discrimination in the Twin Cities, they are much more likely going to report it, then if they face discrimination in certain other parts of the same State (a large chunk of West-Central Minnesota), they are much less likely going to report it because their is much less support from the gay community (and the straight community) and reporting the discriminating will cause lots of social problems.
In large parts of (especially rural) West Central Minnesota the gay community is largely invisible, unorganized and faces significantly higher levels of social prejudice and isolation (if they are open) then the gay community in say, Duluth or Minneapolis.
posted by Houndentenor on
I live in a state with no such nondiscrimination rules. I would therefore not report such discrimination since nothing can be done about it. Also, it’s not as if passing a law against something makes it go away. Perhaps that’s what Stephen is implying? If so that surprisingly delusional, even for him. We have the laws because they are necessary. Of course there is anti-gay discrimination even in places with nondiscrimination laws. Duh. If there weren’t, why would we have asked for the laws at all.
posted by clayton on
I, too, live on a state without LGBT protections, and would therefore not report discrimination. In addition, the lack of protection is one factor in why many LGBT people in my state remainnin the closet. Being closeted may make it harder for people to discriminate against you, but the psychic cost is tremendous.
posted by Tom on
North Dakota –as another example — has no state wide civil right law for gay people (one or two cities have some more limited protection).
Anti-gay discrimination does exist — I have know cases where it has happened in both employment and housing — but people are much less likely willing to come forward to complain when the discrimination does actually occur.
Again, the gay community is much less visible and less organized in much of the State, so the support needed to handle the backlash does not really exist.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I took the time to review the HUD study (“An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples“), and discovered that the study’s findings and conclusions are more complex that presented in the post:
In other words, a mixed bag, not necessarily supporting the conclusion Stephen seems to have reached. Again, I quietly point out that in order to support Stephen’s broader thesis (non-discrimination laws have a boomerang effect), we need additional data concerning the effect of non-discrimination laws with respect to other unpopular groups protected by the laws — racial minorities, single/divorced women, Muslims, Jews and other non-Christians. Without that data, it is impossible to support the general thesis or even dicuss it intelligently.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Their is this idea — often promoted by Ayn Rand fans and Libertarian Party members — that the market will regulate itself better when it comes to civil right laws. Basically, that public outrage over unfair practices will compel a business to do the right thing. I do not buy this argument (beyond an academic theory) for several reasons.
First off all, gay people that face discrimination in say, housing (or employment) may be leery of coming forward;
(a) if their are no civil right laws on the books then it becomes largely a waste of time, unless the public/press cares about it.
(b) their is also the secondary concern that filing a complaint or going to the press essential “outs” you within a straight community that may not be terribly “OK” with it and a gay community that is largely unorganized and unable to offer a helping hand.
Does consumer protest impact company policy for the better? Sometimes it can (i am not going to totally shi# on the basic idea, but oftentimes it doesn’t (or the company simply denies it and threatens anyone with a lawsuit who says otherwise.