Slashdot Mirror
Flawed Online Dating Bill Being Pushed in New Jersey
Billosaur writes "According to a report on Ars Technica, a committee of the New Jersey Assembly is trying to push an on-line dating bill even though it contains significant flaws. The Internet Dating Safety Act would require dating web sites that interact with customers in New Jersey to indicate whether they do criminal background checks and if people who fail such checks are still allowed to register with the site. 'The backers of the New Jersey Internet Dating Safety Act undoubtedly feel that the law provides at least a measure of protection despite its flaws. In this case, however, users of such sites are probably better off assuming that their personal safety remains a personal responsibility, rather than placing faith in a background check that has little chance of uncovering any information on a person attempting to hide it.'"
I recall a story a while ago on this same topic, except that a particular online dating site which did some form of background check was the primary backer -- they wanted all print and online personals sites to be required to display a warning if no background check was performed.
Another piece of New Jersey legislation requires business owners to disclose to the public whether or not they have ties to organized crime.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
1. Use common sense.
2. The website should tell you to use common sense. (i.e., chat online before speaking on the phone; speak a lot before agreeing to meet; meet somewhere public the first few times; meet their friends and family and see if they look normal. remember if you marry someone you're marrying their family, and if their family is psycho, chances are they are psycho too, even if they behave normal for a while).
3. The website should detail if background checks are done and if so, which ones.
4. It doesn't require a state law to deal with the problem of background checks.
How would one do a background check on an avatar? Or will Avatars simply now be discriminated against, and prohibited from joining social sites altogether?
I "fail" a background check but you are unlikely to find a better lover or employee.
Up yours, ChoicePoint. You McCarthy-esque blacklisting fascists are what is wrong with America.
All freedom loving Americans should blacklist ChoicePoint and everyone who subscribes to their blacklist.
I read a couple years back that True.com is pushing state legislatures to adopt such bills as a boost to their own business model (and a hindrance to their competitors). Anyone know if this is the case here?
Because that's how dating works in real life!
... Nice to meet you, Martha, now may I see your papers?
... wait, wtf is this? A filing for a restraining order against you! WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN UP TO! THIS DATE IS OVER!
Everything seems to be in order here
if->then does not imply then->if, or "not if"->"not then"
ex:
If user X has a bad criminal record, user Y won't trust user X
does not imply
If user X does NOT have a criminal record, user Y won't NOT trust user X
the logic for the opposition is just as flawed as the logic of the argument. Add to that the fact that people who are wary now will probably remain wary even with the background check, it just makes things easier to increase the list of untrastables, this bill really amounts to telling a customer how much privacy they have.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
I think it's ridiculous that the Jersey gov is forcing their dating sites to do a mandatory background screening.
1. The Article states that it's not even a true background check (it's a name check only -- so, it's essentially worthless anyway)
2. Users should bare the responsibility of checking out their own dates, not the site
If anything, the state should only require the dating sites to offer a full background screening service for a reasonable price. That way, the user can check out their dates, plus the dating site isn't forced to do a background check on everyone, plus the site can still make a profit which is what the site is there for in the first place.
Health Insurance Quotes
"In Soviet Russia the state dates YOU!
That would probably be an improvement for most slashdotters, where you're more likely to be *ahem* "dating yourself ..."
Kevin Smith on Prince
When are they going to criminalize it when women post pictures that are five years and 100 pounds out of date? That's the real danger of internet dating sites.
I think you're cute. Background check me anytime and then maybe we'll get a cup of coffee.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
What the hell? Since when are we doing background checks on real people before we let them date? I am sick of this attempting to regulate the internet version of real life events. People go to match.com, true.com, iwantsomeactionfromanyone.com to find people. Its there fault if they agree to then meet them at the corner of 235th avenue and No-one-goes-here-ever road.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
psychotic murderous psychopaths on death row with multiple female admirers sending them their panties in the mail and even a bride or two. and aren't women supposed to like the "bad" type?
maybe new jersey (teh state that gives us the sopranos, irony) has the wrong idea. maybe the real issue here is the nugget of a new online dating business: a place for women to meet and date proven criminals, not avoid them
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Seriously, a lot of hook-ups, meeting new people for dating, etc. happen at bars, not online. This is one of those half-baked ideas by some clueless legislators who seem to think the Internet is a scarier place than a bar.
Requiring background checks for online dating is not a realistic safeguard. People who have something to hide will figure out how to hide it, face-to-face or on the Internet. If anything, this will cause clueless daters to fall into a false sense of security by assuring them that this safety net exists when it's merely a mirage.
This is simply true.com trying to legislate their business model. They pay a lot for background checks on their members and the public seems to think these background checks aren't important. By legislating this, they're hoping to a) force other companies to take on a huge financial burden or b) force other companies to look shady by having a disclaimer "warning: people on this site might be axe murders". What they should really be requiring is for everyone to do a background check on anyone they ever interact with. That clerk at the coffee shop? Who knows what s/he might be hiding!
Seriously, the more we alienate excons the more crime they will commit. THe only situation that requires notification are sex offenders. People need to start taking care of themselves. Meet a person, go slow, and figure them out.
to fuck things up. Less reputable dating sites will attract the bottom feeding leeches of society and others will spring up and offer high-quality services with real background checking, better features and options... there are dating services in every big city that are free and then there membership services that cost thousands of dollars to join. The same will happen with online services as well.
If that is supposed to make me feel warm and fuzzy, you've done the very opposite. The people you talk about are the same ones who give you a deer-in-the-headlights look when you tell them that by putting up pictures of themselves and personal information such as where they go to school on Facebook, someone could figure out where they live.
They current crop of legislators aren't the only ones who have no idea about what the internet is.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
How would one do a background check on an avatar?
Ask him to bring you the Codex of Ultimate Wisdom?
A person goes to jail as punishment. Once out, that punishment should not continue, with society treating the person as a pariah. That leads to recidivism. Not all crimes make that person a danger to be avoided. There are some crimes, yes, that if the person committed them, might make you pause to trust them in that situation again. But, let us not treat the background check as a magic bullet.
Bearded Dragon
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
..."Assembly is trying to push a"... "bill even though it contains significant flaws."
That passes for news these days?
No more online dating. I guess it's back to raping and murdering strippers for me. Doo de doo doo...
That is patently unenforceable. If it was, any state could simply pass a law criminalizing websites and then start collecting money. They can require sites operated in New Jersey to abide by these laws and maybe even residents of New Jersey who operate such sites (but I doubt it), but no one else.
This is just feel-good, do-nothing legislation that politicians can point to when they run for re-election.
I certainly hope this fails. I don't know how many times I've been confused with someone else with the same name and date of birth!
Sincerely,
Hubert Q. Sexington
D.O.B. February 14, 1969
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Thats fine, I can always resort to following people down dark alleys . . . I mean, they . . . they can always resort to following people down dark alleys . . .
the movies and tv create stupid stereotypes, but they are also embraced in kitsch ways by those who are depicted as such, and often have basis in real life fact
only brittle weirdos with a chip on their shoulder would have a problem with ridiculous stereotypes no one believes and have no real life consequences
did you know everyone from minnesota talks like they do in that movie "fargo"?
did you know everyone in california is a surfer dude?
please, by all means, don't let light hearted humor get in the way of your need to get off on high holy indignation
zzz
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Just because you're a dog molesting cannibal doesn't mean you're a bad date.
The internet is a little bird tweeting in meadow;
The internet is a wreath of pretty flowers which... smell bad.
Norman coordinate... beep beep beeeeeeeeee...
There, fixed it for you. :)
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
You've made the fatal assertion that 12 year olds never grow up. Some don't, but must do.
I obviously haven't, because I'm still posting on Slashdot.
...why did I think of Amazon Women on The Moon when I heard of this insanity?
Yep, we don't need this law, women just need one of these devices.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
... fail a background check?
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -
What disturbs me is the fact that they understand the bill is flawed but want to pass it anyway because it will provide some semblance of protection... It's not the first time I've heard of a bill described in this way... it's quite troubling honestly since when are we so lazy that we can't redraft something we know to be wrong but instead just pass it and figure out how to deal with the fall out later.
Something tells me the self-centered and generally lazy nature of the up coming generation wont do much to fix THAT problem...
Collector's Edition
and it provides dating services, and someone from New Jersey gets a date from there, I have to provide a background check? Yeah sure ok. Try to enforce that. Damn, I forgot you can't. thanks Spamhaus
"Dating"... doesn't that mean telling how old an object, like a fossil or something, is? Carbon dating, etc?
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Criminal background checks are often wrong if the person has had his case dismissed or expunged. There are so many data brokers who collect this information that its hard to change it. They pick up the initial arrest but then neglect to pick up whether the person had his case thrown out or expunged. Thats especially the case for DUII where people go through diversion and then have their record expunged. But they are never able to escape that history of DUII.
The Virginia Legislature considered this a couple of years ago. The day that the bill was considered by the House Committeee on Science and Technology, a pair of lobbyists (from a pretty high-power firm, at that) spent the day taking the head of True.com around meeting legislators. During the day, they met with a pretty good chunk of the committee, and most of the Leadership from both parties.
In the end though, the bill was very quickly, and very literally, laughed out of committee. I kind of felt bad for the True.com guy, because even though he was treated very politely, it was pretty clear that the agenda item was all about getting the bill killed in as little time as possible.
The sad thing was that before the bill made it to Sci-Tech, it was approved by the "Courts of Justice" committee, which considers general laws. CoJ is made up exclusively by attorneys, Sci-Tech has a pretty good number of engineers and technology people in its membership. Go figure.
goatse like link in parent.
HTML tags are advisory, and rendering them in any particular way, is totally at the browser's discretion. Looks like online dating sites aren't going to be allowed to be part of the web. ;-)
What goes through a lawmaker's mind, when he writes about typography? Is it possible to do that, and still believe that you're helping someone? You'd think they'd at least (and even this is ridiculous, but at least it would be a hundred times better), instead of including such details, re-use some existing code. You know, defer to some kind of already-heavily-referenced statute that defines requirements for informed consent in contracts, etc.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
... because from what I can gather, the law doesn't force dating sites to conduct background checks, just to indicate whether they conduct them or not. It's a big difference.
It's very common in pseudo-democracies for common citizens to be more accurate than they thought. I lived in Moscow for several years in the eighties, and several of my acquaintances (I had no true friends, being a Serb), were more accurate than they thought. Sexual intercourse was rarely involved, but when it was, it was a bit more satisfying than your run-of-the-mill bar encounter.
Since I was not a citizen (I was there illegally), I was unable to be more accurate than I thought. I feel I missed out somehow, but I got over it after Glasnost.
Anyway, my point is, you were more accurate than you thought.
-1 not first post
Billosaur:
You're kidding me, right? The background check, conducted by some presumably reliable company, with corporate resources behind it, is unlikely to uncover any information on the potential date... but I'm going to do better myself by using "personal responsibility"?
Don't get me wrong - there's lots not to like about this bill. But let's not kid ourselves - "personal responsibility" doesn't give you some kind of magical powers that reveal information not available to a formal investigation.
Seriously, have you any idea of how few people in a relationship met in bars compared to other means? Or how ubiquitous online dating services have become? This is particularly true for age ranges > 30.
Your point stands about a false sense of security. You'd think that maybe someone smart enough to go online to a dating site would be smart enough to do their own background check; the problem is that there is no assurance that the person they are checking on is actually who they say they are; the dating sites act as a vetting service -- this is what potential daters are paying for.
That said, I think the problem is that people too stupid to do their own background checks actually increase their chance of reproducing through these dating sites. This means that, from an evolutionary standpoint, they are getting some help in propagating their genes. I would like my legislator to propose legislation to ban all people too stupid to perform their own background checks from using dating sites. For the good of the species, please.
Won't someone think of the genome?
[1] Yes, I know, the 90s called, and they want their "The 80s called and want their $FOO back" joke back.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
#! /bin/sh /home/medcabinet/sanitizer > /dev/lefthand /home/dvdcase/porn* > /dev/brain
#
# pleasure w/o STD i/o,
#
cat
cat
while $TESTES !==0
do
sex -1
done
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
As a 20-something who grew up with the internet and IM, I take offense to your stereotyping. It is true, many of my generation are morons. But that is true of all generations. As it turns out, half the population is above average, and the other half is stuck being below average. If a group of 25-30 year olds can attain Congressional seats in the next few years... it would be an improvement for this generation and subsequent ones.
Pertaining to the article, any legislation which attempts to make rules for the internet is foolish. Legislation should let the internet remain to be a hub for culture and information. There will always be people who misuse it, and it does as much good to punish them as it does to punish people who are occasionally (or habitually) dishonest.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
you forgot /bin/backgroundcheck
-1 not first post
""Dating"... doesn't that mean telling how old an object, like a fossil or something, is? Carbon dating, etc?"
I for one welcome dating our carbon-based overlords.
Kevin Smith on Prince
If this bill passes, the most likely effect will be that dating sites will follow the path of easiest compliance, and simply prohibit any and all users from New Jersey.
Where can I contribute?
If I am going to potentially get in a relationship with someone, I have a right to know about their criminal background and make a decision for myself if that's ok. You are in no place to tell me that their background isn't my business, if the seek a relationship with me, they make it my business. Maybe I decide I don't care enough to check, maybe I do check and what I find doesn't concern me. However it's my choice to make.
This is stupid because there's no reason why dating sites should have to take the burden. Should be up to the individual. If it is something you care about, you spend the money to do it. It shouldn't be forced just because something is online. Online dating is no more inherently dangerous than finding a date in a bar.
If a group of 25-30 year olds can attain Congressional seats in the next few years... it would be an improvement for this generation and subsequent ones.
Yeah, that's what we need - a bunch of idealistic know-it-alls who haven't lived long enough to really understand anything. That'll be a big plus.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Is anyone else tired of comments to this effect? I get laid regularly, and I'm sick of being stereotyped otherwise, jokingly or not.
Background checks aren't a universal proposition. There is not an "International Background Check Association" that sets a standard. A background check is just that: A check in to a person's background. How intensive and what areas varies per check. A criminal record check just checks to see if there's a criminal record, Top Secret clearance requires a whole lot more. The pass/fail is then up to the person/business who is doing the check.
In the case of dating, it would be the individual you wish to date. They decide if what their search turns up is ok or not. You might think that a rape conviction is "no big deal" but someone you are trying to date might disagree, and that is their right. On the other hand maybe you have a shoplifting conviction that prevents your employment somewhere, but your date decides they don't give a shit.
I'm sure you think you are a great lover, but you don't get to make that call for people. The person you wish to date gets to decide and it is up to them what methods they wish to use. If they want to use a background check, that's their prerogative. It's basic freedom of association. My freedom to associate with whomever I want includes the freedom to NOT associate with people if I want, and I can set the conditions on that. Hell, I can decide to make you submit to a credit check if you want to be my friend. I'm not going to have many friends if I do that, but I don't have to associate with you if I don't want to.
The reason this is stupid is that online services should not have to incur the cost of background checks, it should be up to the individual.
It's their fault, idiots.
Most people don't even think inside the box.
True, but the parent has a point. When a more tech-savvy generation steps in and takes over lawmaking, we'll hopefully see fewer legislative proposals that clearly misinterpret the way the internet fundamentally works.
Right now, we have a situation where technology and lifestyle in general is moving faster than the judicial system can keep up with. Generation 1 (we'll say) are all over 40 now, and are sitting in all the high-up positions. They grew up in a Generation 1 lifestyle, where people mostly met face to face, and everyone was accountable for their contributions to the culture. Things have changed since then. Generation 2, now in their 20s, are living in an entirely different way. Social interactions are different now, communication is different in general, education is different.
Without much of an understanding of the Generation 2 lifestyle, these Generation 1 lawmakers are stumbling blind. Most of them couldn't tell you how the internet works, nor what it means to participate in social networking. Yet they still try to pass laws and tell those of us who live online what we should and shouldn't be doing, even if their cries don't actually make sense. "I've got no idea how forums work, but since I'm 53 and therefore know more about the world than the youngsters of today, I feel that I have the right to propose stupid laws, such as forcing everyone who makes a comment on a blog to supply their full name so they can be found later if their comment turns out to be against the law."
Or better yet, "Let's force content-sharing sites to moderate what people upload, by hand, to ensure they aren't infringing anyone's copyright!" Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's force Google to hire thousands of people to sit there processing user videos 24/7 and deciding if they should be uploaded or not. Never mind being able to watch the video within a week of submitting it.
What Generation 1 doesn't understand is that the internet is built by the people of the world, not by authorized institutions, not by a specific populous of a specific country, and not under any kind of standard set of rules. You can't stop people from pretending to be someone else, or supplying fake details, or trolling forums with disgusting pictures just because they're bored. You cannot ever stop it, and Generation 1 shouldn't be proposing ridiculous and unenforceable laws just to make it appear that they understand the issues of today. When Generation 2 takes over the courtrooms, the online world will be a much, much better place.
Heh. I wondered how long the Flamebait tagging would take :D
http://xkcd.com/313/
Growing up and understanding technology aren't necessarily related. After all, the baby boomers who hold much of the political power in the United States grew up with television, cars and telephones, but relatively few know in any great detail how a TV, an internal combustion engine or a telephone network function: those who took the time to learn.
OK, the third occurrence of this post in a single thread. Is it a new /. troll? And if so, isn't it a tad short?
Ignore this signature. By order.
They know more about it than their parents did, I'm certain of it. And they know magnitudes more than their grandparents would have known. Most politicians are "grandparent age" right now.
It's just one more lie to create an account.
Are you 18 or over? > yes
Are you currently living in New Jersey? > no
when true.com was trying to codify their business model in Michigan law, not New Jersey.
My post was in respose to the one that mentioned 'dating ourselves'. There is a man page on sex().
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
Look beyond the syntactic.
-1 not first post
While this is OT, I'm quite tired of hearing this, so...
As it turns out, half the population is above average, and the other half is stuck being below average.You are wrong.
If there are four people, and one has 1 apple and three have 100 apples, then 3 out of these 4 people have more than the average number of apples.
It is not that hard...
I won't need to filter all requests to chat from NJ freaks then. The State will do it for me.
OK, I'm a moron.
Though the fact that I should have gone to sleep long ago may account for a part of that.
Ignore this signature. By order.
IIRC measures of intelligence (whatever that is) are strongly believed to be symmetrical, nearly Normal distributions,in which case mean = mode = median. GP is correct.
Yeah. But that doesn't match with the bell curve that we typically see in population averages, and in the case of that bell curve, 50% being above average is pretty much spot-on. You're right in theory, but in practice, you aren't.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I think they already have laws covering that. The way most dating sites are set up, each user sets up a profile, which is basically an ADVERTISEMENT for themselves. So each user is literally trying to 'sell' themselves to whomever is browsing the ads (profiles). Now I do believe that every state in the country has truth in advertising laws...particularly concerning the old 'bait and switch' tactic. Are there any creative lawyers willing to try to push the issue?
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
When I signed up for the site wouldn't I have to consent to a background check, which would give me a good clue as to whether there is a background check or not, right?
As with so many other state attempts to legislate what citizens can and can't do on the Internet, this one looks like it violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. NJ is attempting to control what happens in NJ, but because this is the Internet, it affects online businesses that are operating in other states. Should an online dating outfit based in California or New York be forced to comply with NJ law? No.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
When you know the only girlfriend you'll ever have is the square-headed kind, you tend to be a little sensitive on the issue! :)
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
A little precision when referring to technicalities never killed anyone.
The average is just the expected value, which---for extra fun---is a value one generally does not expect to see. The fact that in particular cases happens to coincide with some other parameter of the distribution does not make it correct to identify them.
This may sound anally retentive, but this is statistics we are talking about: unless you are 100% clear about what things mean, then one ends up in giant messes.
or balance the budget. We New Jerseyites ...I mean New Jersians,,, Augh! ...residents of New Jersey are up to our neck in state debt. Our taxes our out of this world, and it costs an arm and a leg living here. We are in serious financial trouble and need to cut our state debt in half, but that's not fun. It means charging more taxes for less services and our governor won't let us do some cheap accounting trick this time around. No matter what you do, someone is going to get pissed.
Better off hyping legislation that is entirely useless, costs the state nothing, and makes the public this the government is "doing something". It's like the school uniform fad that every place went through about a decade ago. You make the parents buy school uniforms, the school districts don't spend a dime, and at the same time, they can claim they're doing something about education.
I made the mistake of moving here a couple of years ago. I'm ready to move out. The people here are a bunch of tools. They readily and happily bend over for authority.
They can always do a strict proxy check, verify your IP, and/or require the use of a piece of identification that would pin you in NJ (that has a very high penalty of falsifying).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
75% or more of the comments here are expressing outrage that NJ is trying to require background checks. That should be a source of shame to people who still seriously consider slashdot to be a community of informed, intelligent people.
And if you increase your sample size, you'll find that even more people probably had about 50 apples. There's a reason they teach the bell curve in statistics classes.
All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
Don't waste your time or energy getting offended by a stereotype that isn't even true. My advice is to stop taking things (or yourself) so seriously and just be whatever it is you feel like being (especially if it involves regular sex).
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
So most people don't read the flaming article. It is true that the bill only requires notification of their background check status. Don't be so fast to put down illiterate /.'rs. The outrage about background checks for online dating is still valid.
If your from NJ you will have to agree to the background check or you will only get the desperate, ugly ones responding to your messages. Putting in 12pt bold that I have not had a background check is not going to impress the ladies.
Under this new Bill, unless I agree to a deep criminal probe, the hotties are going to think I have something to hide - previously they only thought I was a weirdo with bad acne.
Smitth1276, do what I'm doing, write to your legislator tell them you're a loser with social problems and need this repealed!
Do you credit check all of your dates as well? This seem really fucking stupid. Why on earth would it matter to you. Do you really want to know everything about someone prior to even meeting them? Remember, a very large percentage of US citizens have criminal records and or previous messed up credit histories. Must be why so many here on
"If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
I'd automatically want a criminal background check if I was going to meet anyone from New Jersey!!
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Well, I think my wife would be upset if I dated at all...
But my single friends who are dating typically depend on other things to ensure their date is not a big risk. Like only dating people recommended to them by people they trust, or dating people from work for whom they already have a sense of what kind of person they are. Sure, it's not foolproof, but there is SOME kind of vetting process.
Meeting an absolute stranger on the internet and then dating them in person carries a lot of risks that can be mitigated via background check.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I suppose that I have never really thought of risk analysis for dating, also gave never dated by internet so perhaps it is not so far fetched for the US/Internet dating. Just seems strange and somewhat clinical/cynical. But hell, like the Clash said "This is the Modern world"
"If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Erm, IINM both Stalin and Hitler were carbon based life forms. I, for one, would not have welcomed them. The corporate overlords who buy our laws are carbon based and I, for one, wish they would eat shit and die.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If you are renting out a personal dwelling (if I remember correctly the cutoff is 5 units or less) you are perfectly free to discriminate. You are not required to allow any and everyone to rent a room in your house, you are not required ot be ADA compliant. that would violate your freedom of association. Now if you have a commercial location (like apartment complexes) then the anti-discrimination laws kick in because it is no longer an issue of your rights, it is a commercial structure.
So yes, women can also discriminate against dating you, and their reasons can be highly capricious and arbitrary. A woman can, if she wishes, tell you to submit to a full background check, credit check, employment history and so on before she dates you. You are free to tell her where she can stick it, but she's then free to not date you.
I'll say again: People have the freedom of association. They can choose not to associate with you if they choose, and they can set conditions on that association.