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

[Cecilie1200]

Shouldn't the fact that this ad was in a Christian church, directed at Christians make it less objectionable, not worthy of a lawsuit?

Some dimwits think anything is worthy of a lawsuit if it allows them to vent their bitter spleen at other people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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be totally legal) and a newspaper ad (which sounds illegal due to some totally whacked out regulation that needs to be repealed).

I suspect that until this happened, the people of that area had no idea that this was codified in the law, much less that their officials actually intended to waste their tax money prosecuting such nonsense. I further suspect that a correction in the law will be forthcoming in the next legislative session.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!

Discrimination against poor people who have to take the bus! You elitist pig-dog, you!

 

[Defiant1]

It is an illegal ad as defined by the civil rights act of 1964.

but if you are going to room with someone, you want some degree of compatibility.

Do you want this ias a roomy?

He looks like an Obama voter. Not allowed in my house.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, in conclusion. Renting is not a good idea, Neither is advertising.

Apparently, liberals really want to force little old ladies looking for roommates to pay a lawyer to help them compose their notices for church bulletin boards. We're rapidly getting to the point in this country where you can't say "Hello" to someone without consulting a lawyer to make sure you're not engaging in "discriminatory hate speech".

 

[Gadawg73]

It's not rocket science. The law says you can't make discriminatory statements in these matters. When prospective renters call, it can be determined in the first few minutes if the person is a Christian or not. This is a lot of saber rattling by retards.

You can't post such statements on Craigslist either. Deal with it.

Umm there are exceptions to every law.
Fort example, the Couth Carolina Landlord and Tenant acts expempts all rental properties on which the owner resides AND/OR any property with 4 or less units.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t27c040.docx

See 27-40-120..Exclusions.
So cuckoo yourself.
As a property owner and being in occpation of said property, the law states I am able to choose whomever I wish to occypy MY property with me.

This civil rights suit is bogus and a sham.
Simply a person with an Anti- Christian axe to grind.

If you do not take $ you can.
It is Federal law. State law has nothing to do with it. You can not use relgion to not rent to someone.
Damn, this is old news.

 

[frazzledgear]

You can not rent or sell housing based on religion.
Can not believe you folks do not know that.

Not just religion though, right?

So I can not advertise to rent to a female?

isn't it Gender, race, religion, age etc that is protected by law?

Was she renting a house or renting A ROOM in her house?

renting is renting.

No, renting is NOT renting. Renting a separate living space to someone else is different than offering to share YOUR living space with someone. If you think government has a right to FORCE you to live with someone you don't want to live with for religious or racial grounds - then government should have the right to force you to marry someone you don't want to marry on those grounds as well. After all marriage is just another kind of living arrangement.

This is nothing but trying to FORCE other people to use "pc" criteria for making decisions about THEIR OWN living arrangements. But when its YOUR living arrangements, the ONLY criteria that counts is YOUR OWN. Not what someone else wants to impose on you. And who the hell is anyone else to tell me what criteria I may use in choosing a roommate anyway? Its MY life and MY living arrangements and I won't be living with those trying to impose their own preferences on me!

If government can force you to live with someone you have decided you would rather not based on ANY criteria you want including criteria deemed "wrong" by the power elite, then you cannot be allowed to use those "wrong" criteria to reject ANYTHING that may affect YOUR personal life and living arrangments -including marriage or even your choice of a date. Where would those who think government has a right to force this woman to open her home to someone she doesn't want to live with draw the line?

WHO OWNS THIS WOMAN'S LIFE? Who has the "right" to force this woman into a living arrangement SHE believes would make her uncomfortable or even miserable? Who has the greater right of SELF-DETERMINATION here!! I have a hard time believing anyone is defending this lawsuit because clearly such people believe no one has the right to choose their own living arrangements and live with whoever makes them happy! When people announce what they are seeking in a potential ROOMMATE, it benefits everyone -including those who wouldn't dream of living with this kind of person and now know not to waste THEIR time considering her as a roommate. Oh unless THAT is also "illegal discrimination" and you think government should force them to bunk up together anyway. Why make one person miserable when government can make them both miserable, right? ROFL

What is it about FREEDOM the left just can't grasp and have repeatedly proven they don't even value?

 

[Gadawg73]

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

Its never phrased that way but apparently you NEVER read the ads, do you? Or you would already know there are ads that say stuff like "single black male seeking similar to share living expenses" or "Single white Christian woman seeking similar of opposite sex for friendship" What the hell do you think that means? Or do you think government has a right to force a black man to live with a beer swilling redneck who subscribes to Mercenary Magazine and therefore create a very uncomfortable living arrangement for him? Or is it just white Christian people that government should force share a living space with people they don't want to live with?

Can people use religious and racial grounds when choosing a date or spouse? Your kidding right? Because they do ROUTINELY -and why not? After all its THEIR life. If you don't want to be married to someone of a different religion because you think it would cause problems for the marriage, do you think government should be able to FORCE you to marry that person anyway or what? If they can use these grounds to choose a mate, then they can use them to choose a ROOM MATE as well. ITS THEIR LIFE, not yours and not governments! Government cannot force someone to share living space with someone they don't want to live with and the fact it isn't a marriage partner and just a roommate sharing the same living space changes nothing.

If you believe government should be able to force this woman to live with someone she doesn't want to for ANY reason of her choosing, then what if someone considering to move in with this woman decides they don't want to live with HER -they don't want to live with a woman, they think her religious views are too rigid after all even though the same religion, or they don't want to live with a white person, a union member or because she has a cat and they hate cats? Shouldn't government be able to force THEM to move in with her anyway if it has the right to force that person on the woman opening her home to live with someone she doesn't want to live with? Why would it just be the person opening THEIR home and living space to someone else that government gets to force to take on an unwanted roommate? It isn't "illegal discrimination" to decide who you do and do not want to live with for ANY reason -unless you really do believe government has the greater right to force people into living arrangements and marriages they have decided would make them unhappy. And of course you would still give lip service to the pretense that people have the right to pursue happiness -but only "happiness" as defined by GOVERNMENT and not the individual, of course. Are you for real?

And seriously, why would YOU be willing to forfeit that kind of right and power of YOUR life to government of all things? Liberals place very little value on their own freedom and think that means no one else may be allowed to place any higher value on their own either. Liberals see people as the property of government and therefore with little right of self-determination except for inconsequential things -like whether to have rice or potatoes with dinner. (Except some are trying to BAN POTATOES in this country now. You know -those people who think they have the greater right to control your diet than you do.) The people who filed and support this lawsuit believe government owns this woman and her life and that means if the woman has decided to open her home and share HER living space with someone, SHE has no right to reject someone for any grounds THEY think are not legitimate. Whether this woman thinks they are legitimate or not. But when choosing to share LIVING SPACE, the people who end up in that living space have the right to decide those grounds for themselves. NOT a pack of busybody assholes with no life.

Doesn't matter what I believe. If she takes $ to rent or sell then Federal law applies.
Write your Congressman if you want to change it but for now it is Federal law.

 

[2Parties]

These cases just show how asinine the laws many in this thread actually support (when convenient, of course)...

 

[Zander]

This kind of stupidity is what government seems to do so well! A bunch of stupid shit enforced by stupid people.

If this gal wants a "christian" roommate she is going to get one and their is nothing anyone can (or should) do about it.

 

[Gadawg73]

This kind of stupidity is what government seems to do so well! A bunch of stupid shit enforced by stupid people.

If this gal wants a "christian" roommate she is going to get one and their is nothing anyone can (or should) do about it.

I can sell or rent my car to anyone and deny blacks and Muslims, whatever.
Housing is different.
I own my home and it is my property but I can not deny a black or Jew from buying it.
This is old news.

 

[Vanquish]

It's so funny that some conservatives think their "common sense" hatred of all things "pc" is anything other than rage against their perceived enemies.

This has nothing to do with PCness. It's protection against discrimination. Period.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So she can't chose who she wannts to live with?

Government compels her to sublet to anyone?

She can choose, but to be "politically correct", you just can't state in writing who you choose. It's dumb, huh?

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.

In a civilized society, there are limits to what is socially acceptable to say or do. Any adult with half a brain knows that there are consequences to using free speech irresponsibly. She is more than free to make her ad the way that she did. In this litigious society, she is getting sued for it. That's the American Way ®, so you should all be very happy!

Guess what, you don't go to a cocktail party dressed in mechanics coveralls, chewing tobacco, and making redneck jokes. You don't advertise that you want a room mate who is of your preference. It's not socially acceptable, and it's laughable that you are making this a "political correctness" issue. There's a time and a place for everything, and a classified add is not it.

"You don;t adverstise that you want a roomate who is your preference"..
That is how you PC libs invoke your Speech Police nonsense. You people have been making the rules for far too long. You have wimped this nation into a society that has to have a civil defense attorney's number on speed dial. ENOUGH!!
We've had it with your anti - freedom , anti- American bullshit.
We're fighting back and the first win in the battle for liberty and freedom is November 2, 2010.
Waving the Flag....You bet your last dollar.
You lefty moonbats have pushed us too far.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No, if it's discovered some how, some way, that she did not rent to someone merely because they were a non-Christian, she's fucked.

No running away from that.

I see ads in the classified that read like this....."Christian plumber seeks helper. No smoking, drugs or alcohol. Must have drivers license. Read, write and speak fluent English"..No one says boo about it.
Doesn't say he would not hire one who does not have the same ideals and qualitites. However one can read betwen the lines.
I believe the problem here is not the law. The problem is hypersensitive knee jerk reactionary people who go through their lives looking for things to bother themselves with. That combined with those in positions of authority who are willing fools( courts) in this tragic play.

 

[Zander]

This kind of stupidity is what government seems to do so well! A bunch of stupid shit enforced by stupid people.

If this gal wants a "christian" roommate she is going to get one and their is nothing anyone can (or should) do about it.

I can sell or rent my car to anyone and deny blacks and Muslims, whatever.
Housing is different.
I own my home and it is my property but I can not deny a black or Jew from buying it.
This is old news.

She is not selling her house, she is sharing it with a room mate.

 

[Dis]

Roommate Wanted: No Christians, no Atheists, no drug users, smoker preferred, cats only allowed, must be a vegetarian...

Did I leave anyone out?

Edit: Oh, and must be Republican!

 

[thereisnospoon]

I heard about this when I was walking the dog...my jaw dropped on the news.
People ask "what freedoms have we lost?" Looks like this may be one of them, yes it is little but it can have a snowball effect.
Although, there are those who are blinded by their ideology AAAAAwryCHoooooo that will defend the government intruding on individual rights

You mean like conservatives defending Bush for illegal wiretaps, denying speedy trials, the use of torture and denying habeas?

Those freedoms?

Oh terriffic. Another "blame Bush" post. For fucks sake, get a life.
BTW, Obama has ahd the bully pulpit since 1/21/09....Did he remove the wiretaps? Non. Did he order Congress to investigate or even recommend repeal of the Patriot Act? No.
Have you eveidence of the denial of any citizen, registered alien or any foreign national covered by the Geneva Conventions the right to a speedy trial?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The more of this nonsense the better.
The backlash will be stunning.

The only backlash will be against retarded bitches like this woman.

A simple rephrasing would have stopped this mass hysteria. But then America has gone insane hasn't it?

No, you Barney Frank disciple, the backlash is going to smack you libs so hard your dead ancestors will feel it.

 

[Trajan]

What are the limits on what government can make you do?

if the SC upholds the mandate, in short very very little. This is how it happens.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"Christian woman seeks room mates"
"Woman seeks Christian room mates"

One of those statements is discriminatory...

In your opinion.