So a private citizen can’t pick and choose who they want to live with?

[8537]

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.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Since when?


Try telling that to SCOTUS...
Telling that you won't even consider the possibility that Der Staat can ever be wrong.

 

[8537]

Since when?

Since the first decision of the Marshall court.

Try telling that to SCOTUS...

I think SCOTUS is well aware of it.

Telling that you won't even consider the possibility that Der Staat can ever be wrong.

telling that you would read that into what I wrote. Of course, you'd rather I be dead so that puts some perspective on your posts for me.

 

[Navy1960]

A civil rights complaint has been filed against a Grand Rapids woman who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.
“The statement “expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.
“It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement,” Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. “There are no exemptions to that.”
Haynes said the unnamed 31-year-old woman’s alleged violation was turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Depending on the outcome of her case, the Christian woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and “fair housing training so it doesn’t happen again.”
“This is outrageous,” said attorney Joel Oster, with the Alliance Defense Fund. His organization is representing the woman free of charge. “Clearly this woman as a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with.”
Oster said he’s sent a letter to the state asking them to dismiss the case as groundless.
Christians shouldn’t live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians,” he said. “It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church–an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity,”
But Haynes said they plan on pursuing the matter.
“We want to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” she said.
The person who filed the initial complaint apparently saw the ad on the church bulletin board.
It included the words, “Christian roommate wanted” along with her contact information. Had the ad not included the word “Christian,’ she said it would not have been illegal.
“If you read it and you were not Christian, would you not feel welcome to rent there?” Haynes asked.
Rest here>>>
​

I find this whole situation a means by which a civil rights attorney is kept employed and nothing more. If a person did not feel comfortable for whatever reason they would not answer the ad in the first place. It seems to me there is a lot of focus on the what appears to be a simple preference in a roomate much the same as if someone said, they prefer a woman or a man or a smoker or non-smoker, frankly I think had that been the case here, you would not have seen this rise to the level where a civil rights attorney more likley seekng recognition for themselves would have made such a fuss over the issue. I don't see many of these so called issues come to pass when the local church be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or whatever run an ad seeking a pastor or help in the church. So again, had we not had an attorney seeking fame in this matter I suspect you would have had a person who ran an ad in the local paper seeking a like minded individual as they do everyday in this nation pass without any notice or fanfare.

 

[JBeukema]

HUD Dismisses Christian Roommate Case

 

[Immanuel]

HUD Dismisses Christian Roommate Case

Immie

 

[Care4all]

good! It was a frivolous complaint from the beginning, that should not have been filed.

knew it would turn out this way!

 

[8537]

HUD Dismisses Christian Roommate Case

Glad to see that. Far too often, lawsuits intervene when some simple education / outreach would suffice - and it ends up costing all parties and taxpayers a lot of money better saved.