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

[theHawk]

Welcome to Obamanation folks, we're living in it.

Now the libs want to force you to live with a Muslim or an atheist rather than let you choose to live who you feel comfortable with like a fellow Christian.


She should turn around and counter-sue them for attempting to violate her 1st amendment rights.

 

[hboats]

Really she was using a government newspaper ?

Commerce clause: If the newspaper wishes to operate, it has to abide by certain government regulations.

Nice attempt at a red herring, though.

Only problem with this? The ad wasn't in a newspaper. It was posted on a church bulletin board. No commerce clause for church bulletin boards.

Rick

 

[theHawk]

Here we go:

However, the owner cannot make oral or written statements, or use notices or advertisements which indicate any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability. (47) Further, the owner cannot discriminate on the basis of medical condition or age. (48)

Roommate and Single Room Rental Exceptions to Rental Property Discrimination Law

Wow, that is completely unconstitutional. So a woman can not specify what she wants to room with another woman, and would thus have to consider living with a strange man?

 

[Vanquish]

Do you value equal protection? How much is it worth to you?

I guess I don't really see who needs protection from a private citizen advertising for a roommate of the same religion.

You're a smart guy. Phrase that questions differently and you'll be able to come up with your own answer. Ask yourself, why is discrimination bad in any case, ever, at all? Then use your analytical skills to apply that to this case in specific.

Sticking strictly to the law forbidding ADVERTISEMENT of discrimination...if we set up a society where we advertise prejudice and hate...where we degrade to the point that we separate from each other based on assumed and stereotypical differences. Where we disenfranchise minorities...people who should have the same protections and rights to enter contracts for housing...and we gang up on a group in a manner that can easily be copied and disseminated.

Merely penalizing the advertisement still allows you to make your own decision...but it stops an individual decision from snowballing into unfair, damaging practices on a local or nationwide level.

There are much better arguments against discrimination...that's simply a start.

She stated the qualifications one must have in order to be her room mate and someone cries discrimination.

"Crying discrimination"

Are there people who abuse discrimination claims? Sure. Are there valid discrimination claims that result from physical and emotional abuse and mistreatment by racist individuals? Also sure.

You sound like someone who just thinks all discrimination claims are bullshit without thinking. If you're different, your lack of discussion of the merits of the debate sure seem to point that way. By all means, though, keep being a dick.

 

[Faccops]

To me, a church bulletin board sounds like a gray area lying somewhere between a word of mouth ad for a Christian roomate (which I assume would be totally legal) and a newspaper ad (which sounds illegal due to some totally whacked out regulation that needs to be repealed).

 

[boedicca]

Whatever happened to Freedom of Association?

And didn't the USSR seize people's homes, divide them up, and force the former owners to live with strangers?

 

[manifold]

Sticking strictly to the law forbidding ADVERTISEMENT of discrimination...if we set up a society where we advertise prejudice and hate...where we degrade to the point that we separate from each other based on assumed and stereotypical differences. Where we disenfranchise minorities...people who should have the same protections and rights to enter contracts for housing...and we gang up on a group in a manner that can easily be copied and disseminated.

Hysterical hyperbole is not exactly a convincing argument.

But nice try nevertheless.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Do you value equal protection? How much is it worth to you?

I guess I don't really see who needs protection from a private citizen advertising for a roommate of the same religion.

You're a smart guy. Phrase that questions differently and you'll be able to come up with your own answer. Ask yourself, why is discrimination bad in any case, ever, at all? Then use your analytical skills to apply that to this case in specific.

Sticking strictly to the law forbidding ADVERTISEMENT of discrimination...if we set up a society where we advertise prejudice and hate...where we degrade to the point that we separate from each other based on assumed and stereotypical differences. Where we disenfranchise minorities...people who should have the same protections and rights to enter contracts for housing...and we gang up on a group in a manner that can easily be copied and disseminated.

Merely penalizing the advertisement still allows you to make your own decision...but it stops an individual decision from snowballing into unfair, damaging practices on a local or nationwide level.

There are much better arguments against discrimination...that's simply a start.

If there was ever a time to be discriminating, this is it. She ought to be very discriminating in looking for a room mate in a complete stranger. Lots of loons out there.

She stated the qualifications one must have in order to be her room mate and someone cries discrimination.

"Crying discrimination"

Are there people who abuse discrimination claims? Sure. Are there valid discrimination claims that result from physical and emotional abuse and mistreatment by racist individuals? Also sure.

You sound like someone who just thinks all discrimination claims are bullshit without thinking. If you're different, your lack of discussion of the merits of the debate sure seem to point that way. By all means, though, keep being a dick.

No, just this one.

Impossible.

 

[manifold]

Whatever happened to Freedom of Association?

Those words don't appear anywhere in the Constitution, so just like separation of church and state, it must be a fallacy.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I need someone to watch my child from 3pm to 6pm, M-F. Must have driver license. Non-smokers need only apply.

^^ OMG! Discrimination against smokers! Quick, file a lawsuit!

 

[manifold]

I need someone to watch my child from 3pm to 6pm, M-F. Must have driver license. Non-smokers need only apply.

^^ OMG! Discrimination against smokers! Quick, file a lawsuit!

No worries, smokers are not a protected class.

Quite the contrary actually, they're a vilified class. Filthy douchers that they are and all.

 

[Dis]

I need someone to watch my child from 3pm to 6pm, M-F. Must have driver license. Non-smokers need only apply.

^^ OMG! Discrimination against smokers! Quick, file a lawsuit!

What if I only smoke during the hours of 9am, to 3pm? What if my drivers license is restricted to use only during working hours of 8-4?

I'm not smoking around your kids, and I do HAVE a drivers license.

 

[Ravi]

Whatever happened to Freedom of Association?

Those words don't appear anywhere in the Constitution, so just like separation of church and state, it must be a fallacy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's dumb to you.

Would you like to see in big letters in an ad, "Easy going dudes looking for black room mates only"?
I bet you would feel pretty shitty. You would probably cry up a shitstorm, and make a discrimination case, because that's how the double standard works.

This may surprise you, but your thin-skinned hypersensitivity to such things is NOT universal to other people. I daresay most mature adults wouldn't give a rat's ass about such an ad, much less "feel shitty" about it.



It's the American way to cry and throw tantrums and file lawsuits because a complete stranger has requirements for a roommate that you don't happen to meet? That's not the American way. That's the kindergarten way.



You mean you also sue people for dressing inappropriately at cocktail parties?

You're a moron.

Yes, whyever would it be socially acceptable to use an advertisement for a roommate to specify what kind of roommate you want, in order to not waste people's time? How rude of her, to want to expedite the process for everyone, rather than weaseling around, being PC?

I see! It's about expediting the process! "We're not going to waste your time by letting you come and eat at our restaurant, we don't like your kind around here and it's socially acceptable for us to deny you service!" Do you know what kind of socially acceptable attitudes led to these laws you now bitch about? Fuck what she considers "socially acceptable."

Exactly where IS the time and place for basic honesty, in your opinion?

How honest is honest? There is a time and place for everything. Should I just go to every woman I see and say "I want to raw dog you in the closet?"

Well, so long as we're keeping this on a mature level, using a sense of adult perspective. I wouldn't want you to be reduced to replacing reasoned arguments with pointless insults or indulging in crazy, hyperbolic comparisons with no meaning, or anything.

Run along, newbie. You're out of your depth here.

 

[Care4all]

Haven't reaqd the thread, other than the op....

If her asking for a christian as a renter, is wrong, then someone asking for a Female renter would be as well? So if I were widowed and wanted to rent a room in my house, I could not advertise that I am looking for a female renter?

 

[Gadawg73]

No ******* or Jews wanted can not be used anymore but we still see many that want to go back to that.

 

[Care4all]

so if I advertise that I am "Looking for Love", I can't mention that I want a man and have to advertise that my love searching is for a male and/or a female? or since no money is being exchanged, I can choose to advertise for a male lover?

Gender is protected just as religion, no?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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>>>
​

This is not a discrimination based on hate race creed color or national origin. This is a choice. A choice we as supposedly free citizens have a right to make.
By extension of this poaticularly absurd charge vs the Christian woman, a black person can claim their civil rights were violated by a Hispanic person that refused to date them.
This is political correctness run amok. And I believe the person laying the charge is anti-Christian.
I would be willing to be a week's pay that if the perosn placing this ad were Muslim, Hindu or some other politically correct protected class, she would have not made a peep.
Instead we ahev a far left wing radical wiht an axe to grind using a postiopn of power to make a statement.
If it were me she was hassling, I would tel her bring it on and then go fuck herrself.
I will room with anyone I want and you'll damned well deal with it. Get your fuckin lawyers. I'll tear them and you an new asshole.
Look, this is a rant. Sorry.
This is what we need to do to get PC out of our lives. PC is a liberal path to censorship and a violation of OUR civil rights.

 

[Vanquish]

Nope. Religion is given more scrutiny (protection) than gender is.

The justification is that there are more legitimate reasons for discriminating based on gender than there are for religion....e.g. the physical differences.

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis

1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.):

A. Suspect Classifications:
1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis)
4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).

B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights
1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental

2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.):
Quasi-Suspect Classifications:
1. Gender
2. Illegitimacy

3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.)
Minimum scrutiny applies to all classifications other than those listed above, although some Supreme Court cases suggest a slightly closer scrutiny ("a second-order rational basis test") involving some weighing of the state's interest may be applied in cases, for example, involving classifications that disadvantage mentally retarded people, homosexuals, or innocent children of illegal aliens.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

 

[JakeStarkey]

? Was the residence in question a private home, or a home paid for in part by the housing authority (secton 8)?

So WC confirms the Lefty Reality that if our lives are subsidized by the Feds, we have no Constitutional Rights.

It means we have legal obligations to meet.