http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/22/civil-rights-complaint-filed-christian-roommate-advertisement/

A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.

The ad "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 case was turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Depending on the outcome of the case, she said, the woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and “fair housing training so it doesn’t happen again.”

Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.

"It's really difficult to say at this point what could potentially happen," he told the newspaper, noting that there are exemptions in the law for gender when there is a shared living space.

But Joel Oster, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the woman free of charge, describes the case as "outrageous."

"Clearly this woman has a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with," he said.

"Christians shouldn't live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. 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."

Haynes said the person who filed the initial complaint saw the ad on the church bulletin board and contacted the local fair housing organization.

The ad included the words, "Christian roommate wanted," along with the woman's contact information. Had the ad not included the word "Christian," Haynes 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.

Oster said he hopes the case will eventually be dropped and that he's sent a letter to the state asking the authorities to dismiss the case as groundless.

"The First Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Religion," he said. "And we have the right to live with someone of the same faith. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is denying her rights by pursuing this complaint."

But Haynes said officials plan on pursuing the matter.

"We want to make sure it doesn't happen again," she said.

This is outrageous as well as a waste of taxpayers time. I would not want to live with someone that I would feel uncomfortable living with and if this woman is seeking a Christian roommate then she has that right! Why does everything that we do have to governed by rules and laws? It's pathetic that the person that turned this in didn't have something better to do with their time!

oh you have to be carefull how you advertise. Can't discriminate against anybody.

Why not in this particular type of advertisement? That would be like a female looking for a female room mate and a male files a complaint for discrimination against males, it's the same difference.

Lame! It is not like she was posting an ad for a job, which would be different. She should live with whomever she wants to live with!

I'm not what most would call a christian, but......


This has to be one of the most outrageous lawsuit ever filed.


I think that the person that filed it should be sued for wasting all the time, money and effort. And their attorney for taking the case should be jailed.

Exactly, there's no discrimination or anything. She just chose not to accept this person. The reasons really don't matter for it's up to the person's discretion on whom she/he wishes to live with.

I agree. Clearly, the intent of the law was misapplied in this complaint/lawsuit-- the words 'shared living space' make all the difference. I think the suit should be dismissed on that basis. The pendulum has definitely swung too far in the other direction on this one.

It would be pretty difficult for anyone to claim they incurred damages because of an alleged discriminatory action. If anything, I would think the reverse would be true, that an atheist and a devout Christian would be miserable were they to live together.

-Kerry O.

I agree that this case should be thrown out. She has every right to choose who to live with.

I do not however agree that she is being punished for being christian, i can't prove it but I have a feeling that it wouldnt matter what religion she is, they would have sued her anyways.

thats what be created in any society, when "one book" is slowly and incrementally embraced as "divine", rather than the majority vote and will of the people as the ONLY "divine" guide of ALL PEOPLE.

yes...

the founding father's could not seen far enough into the future, to see that without actually "defining", WHAT A RELIGION BE, to garauntee "freedom of religion", was absurd, and would create later tyrannical and unsane notion's as true.

CAN ANYTHING GAURANTEE SOMETHING WHEN IT HAS NOT BEEN DULY ACKNNOWLEDGED BY COLLECTIVE VOTE WHAT "RELIGION BE"...

indeed not...

it has come that any whim of the self emotion's, that makes one "feel" any particular affintity for any sentence written on earth, can now be defined as a "religion for self"...

just register oneself as a religious entity.

but what be the requirements?

what be the democratically voted definition of a "religion now", rather than in the primitive minds of 234 years ago...

again, since it was first long ago, accepted by many that a "book" should lead human civilization, instead of the collective wisdom and knowing of current man, as brought to bear by collective vote, than we now have absurdity posed as "religious freedom"...

there be only one way to solve such infinity debates.

a new constitution.

as if modern man is somehow not wise enough to tramp the definition's handed down oever two centuries ago...

such notion most created by first belief in a book as more intelligent, than one's own collective fellow man.

get the fuccking book out of government.

get it off the walls of courtrooms, that are supposed to represent ALL BOOKS AS EQUAL, not EMBRACING ANY ONE AS SUPERIOR.

such unsane and unequal that first lopsided society into the abyss of no common definition of what be actually "good"...

to even give "tax exempt status", unto SELF DECLARED RELIGIOUS GROUPS, be one of the greatest biased notions that exist...

does not a pharmaceutical company help the "sick"?

does IBM help the poor, by providing the poor jobs?

so than all these do NO DIFFERENT.

no different than the self appointed "holy", whom deem their work as MORE OF GOD, and not for profit, and CHRISTIAN, and so demand tax exempt status, and SELF GROUP SANCTIONED AS OF GOD!

please...

lol...

there can be no freedom of religion, as ANYTHING CAN BE DEFINED AS A RELIGION...

the only right that can exist, is FAIR TREATMENT OF ALL AS EQUAL...

AND WHAT BE FAIR TREATMENT?

THE SAME DONE UNTO ALL, OR IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS FAIR OR JUST.

which the very notion of christian and unchristian be against.

and athiest and christian be against.

and hetro and homo be against.

each one then deeming their existence as somehow SUPRERIOR or better than the existence of other mortals or other groups.

what a fuccking unsane mentality.

lol...

all writings on earth are but equal.

all just words.

the merit of all words, can only be based upon the merit GIVEN THEM BY THE COLLECTIVE MAJORITY VOTE.

it was only dumbasse primtive human's that first allowed such biased definition's of certain writings, to later create the unsane notion's that would come to be embraced as logical and good, and by now, far time that such biased and illogical notion's portrayed as good be undone.

I thought these laws were designed to protect tenants from discriminatory landlords - not prevent like-minded people from living together.

My friends have been wary of this issue for several years now. Some of them prefer to live only with vegans, others only with christians, etc. They are able to screen their roommates without any difficulty - you just have to be careful how you phrase your posting.

Reading davidben1's post my mind started wandering - imagining what the interview process might be like?

Rentor: So you are a Christian. Do you attend services regularly?

Rentee: Oh yes, I've attended very regularly - in fact I haven't missed a single Christmans eve service in 15 years.

Rentor: Oh I love Christmas eve services, the birth of our Lord Jesus is such a moving experience. My second favorite is season is Resurrection Sunday.

Rentee: Really? What happens then?

Rentor: Oh, well in my church we have a .......

Rentee: OHHHH, I get it, that's the Sunday you celebrate Jesus death.

Rentor: well, ah actually that's when we celebrate his reserrection.

Rentee: Oh well I only attend the Christmas eve service, but like I said it's on a regular basis.

SECOND INTERVIEW:

Rentor: Since we'll be living in such close quarters, I want to make sure our values won't clash. I attend church services regularly and bible study.

Rentee: YES - so do I. I have made so many loving frienships through church and the church outreach program.

Rentor: How wonderful. So what church do you attend.

Rentee: Oh the church downtown, the Jesus Metropolitan Community church.

Rentor: I've heard of that church, what denomination is it?

Rentee: It's non-denomincational, everyone is welcome.

Rentor: Interesting. What kind of outreach program are you involved in.

Rentee: There are several, I focus on AIDS awarness and fundraisers to assist people with AIDS.

Rentor: I see. Do you know many people with AIDS?

Rentee: Yes, in fact my partner died last year of AIDS complications.

NEXT INTERVIEW -----

Listen, I understand the reasoning behind the woman's add and I don't disagree them. If we're volunteerily going to share living quarters with someone, we would like to have a foundation of shared values. But do they HAVE to be values of religion - can't they be human values?

I think the woman had a reasonable expectation - to share her living quarters with someone she has something in common with. On the other hand, if a person advertizes rooms for rent, it is a business arrangement and as such it is subject to the laws of public domain. Among other things, privicy rights don't allow a rentor to question a persons relious affilations.

I think the woman made an honest mistake and should not (probably won't) incurr any penalties.

It may prove to be a hard lesson but the truth that our actions affect many poeple and often are subject to legal scrutiny. The woman showed no concern for others or for the law before she acted. Her focus was centric to religious objectives as they related to self.

Perhaps religions should place higher values on human objectives and allow individuals to focus more on common human values than on common religious ones.

Because of the housing laws this person needs to not advertise discriminatorily but when she interviews ask each one during the interview.

While I agree that she should be able to have whatever roommate she wants, it goes back to the days when people wouldn't rent to blacks, Jews, Catholics or whatever. The fair housing laws were passed for good reason. This particular case is just an example of how extreme things have gotten. However, these laws came into being for a reason.

Agreed

So, does this mean that if I was looking for a female room mate and a male talked to me, I would have to rent to him?

What is if the male is a mid-change transgender? Would that be close enough for you or would only postops be acceptable?????

this is a bunch of gibberish,seriously if i want a roommate meaning someone to live with me and help out w/rent and bills i should be able to pick who i want,now if i'm renting a room or apartment etc.then that makes a little sense but other than that noone is going to tell me who i can choose as a roommate,this isn't a college dorm or prison cell,dam people will sue for anything

I dont agree, being that she is not the RENTOR but a RENTEE looking for a co rentee,,, if she is already paying for the space it should be within her right to invite whatever type of person she wishes to share the bill,,,

You know what we need it just came to me..


A 1 world Govt. Yes we all be the same.

Lets let our leaders draw up whats right and whats wrong with all aspects of life and have these Laws WORLD WIDE.

This away we will give our children something to look forward too..

Everyone is the same.. We ARE DATA.. No emotions Human Spirit lost.

No Man IS SUPREME Let Him Deside Our Future for Evermore.

Ye i am FOr a 1 world GOVT> and Policing of our schools and every bit of Society so these crazy antics of Religioud Fanatics are Baished.

All Religion and All Past ways of the World Flushed.

Yes a World with Leaders who Rule The World for our own Good.

No Religion.. If caught go to Jail.

No well I guess thats the only problem in this messed up world so Just No Religion the World Leader is Your SAY SO MAN