8537
VIP Member
I find it unjust that the law STATES clearly that they CAN be discriminate, when choosing a room mate to share their own home, but then tells them they can't advertise for the person they are LEGALLY seeking to be their room mate.
Ok, but now we're debating not debating the facts of the case or the law as it is. We're discussing the law as you want it to be. Courts don't get to interpret law as they want it to be, they must interpret the law it is. In this case, the posting was a clear violation - though I'll say again that it's a very small matter and I wish the FH org had decided to use education instead of litigation to make their point.
the gvt has given them the legal right to rent and share their own home, with whom they want.... they should be allowed then to NOT WASTE their time and the person seeking to rent's time, and allow the homeowner seeking a room mate to just TELL THE TRUTH, in their ad. Save everybody time, and time is money.
This does sorta remind me of ''don't ask, don't tell'' ....it's ok, but it's not ok if you tell the truth.
I'm not completely disagreeing with ya here. But you have to remember the origin of the act: A half-decade after the original civil rights act, the legislature was trying to provide protections for minorities related to housing access in the wake of the assassination of MLK. They didn't want to continue to allow "No N-words allowed" or such language. Even today, I'm not sure if an ad that reads "Seeking roommate. I don't want any N-words" should be allowed. But I'm a bit torn on it.
and where in the fair housing act does it give an exemption to sex/gender to this 'no ad' thingy? did i miss it?
It's not in the act itself. it was part of the regulations HUD delivered for the law (or a later HUD guidance - If you're genuinely interested in seeing the HUD statement, I can try to dig it up). Courts have abided by that HUD directive ever since.