I would understand it if this was the renters advertisement, but I dont get the big deal about someone choosing whom they personally wish to room with,,,,


if thats the law , so be it, but its a strange one,,,

I don't agree with the act when it's a roommate and people have to live together. I think then someone should be able to co-habitate with who they want. BUT here is the part in the act that this applies to



FAIR HOUSING ACT
http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/title8.php

I personally think it should be separated between a roommate and someone who is just renting and not living there

I don't really see the difference in advertising it and asking in an interview.

The difference isn't a legal one, its a practical one. And its a huge difference.

By putting it in print, you put yourself on the map for potential lawsuits for a wider audience. If you wait for an interview, then only a very few people will even be aware of your preferences - and those will be people who met you in person (you can assess them, their motivations, etc, and they can see you are a decent person who shouldn't be sued). Also, putting it in print directly creates evidence of violating the law; limiting it to conversation means someone would have to take the extra step of recording the conversation.

Also, if one is really concerned about this in a roommate situation, there is no need to state these preferences, ever. Its not illegal to refuse to live with someone you simply don't like. If you are a Christian who won't live with atheists, you can interview everyone and simply choose the Christian. You don't even need to say why.

this is different

BUT....people can still claim discrimination if asked and denied (whether they know the reason or not)

Either way, you can still set yourself up for a lawsuit

It would seem to me too that there should be a distinction between "rooming" with someone, and "renting to" someone.

I would think that a "roommate" is someone who would share the mutual rent to basically live in the same apartment with someone. Of course they could obviously have private bedrooms, but typically the share the rest of the apartment. That's what I would call a "roommate".

Now if this lady is actually RENTING a ROOM out in her house, then she becomes a LANDLORD. She is not sharing the expenses with someone but rather she is CHARGING them to live in her abode.

To me that would change the whole thing from being a "roommate" (someone who shares an entire apparent with someone, versus a "landlord" someone who basically owns the apartment and just RENTING a room.

Technically if this lady is trying to rent out a room, then she's a landlord. She either needs to satisfy the requirements of being a landlord, or consider a different arrangement.

For example, don't advertise, and instead just keep an eye open for a suitable 'roommate' and then offer to let them live with you if they pitch in on 'expenses'. That could almost be done without even officially becoming a "landlord".

I'm sure the lawyers will figure out which laws apply to her situation and hopeful the court will achieve "justice". Whatever that may be in this case.

Id love to see how far a lawsuit actually gets in a situation where someone has a preference of whom to live with,,,,

This whole fiasco is totally absurd to anyone.You can't even pick your own roomate in your own house now?Are we living in a dictatorship?I can't remember any country in the world have such a stupid laws.Dictator,Communist China is more lenant then the United states of America.This sounds more like you are living in a prison.

I would really love to see how a homosexual woman would react if she was told that a male member from the Westbourgh baptist church wanted to be her roommate and the courts ordered her to accept him.


If I was this woman I would counter sue everyone that had anything to do with this case.I'm sure she could come up with a grocery list of violations starting with slander,emotional distress,and a violation of her first Ammendment right banning Government officals from prohibiting her from practicing her religion.


Sec. 804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices

(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.



This law will never hold up in court and is unconstitutional towards a Christian or anyone else who is religious.The US Constitution stomps any local or state laws prohibiting Christians and others to change their morals and beliefs according to their religious beliefs.

A state can add as many laws as they want.What they will never do is to pick up our Constitution and draw a big red X in the first amendment and claim it is null and void.


I also don't believe for one second if this was a case where a Muslim woman didn't want to be a roomate with a Jewish man,or a homosexual man didn't want to be roomate to a straight Christian man we would be reading this story.

I agree there should be a distinction. I just posted what it said. I don't think it's right.

I understand the purpose to hender discrimination, but in a roommate situation (where the person has to live with someone) they should be able to chose.

IMO it's more about finding a common interest with someone you are living with. It makes it easier to get along with someone that you are going to be living with. It's not just about money at this point.

Now if the person is renting a house and not living there themselves, then I can see the Fair Housing Act.

Here's a update....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/04/hud-dismisses-complaint-woman-ad-seeking-christian-roommate/?test=latestnews



The U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department has dismissed a civil rights complaint against against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.

The complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.had accused the unidentified 31-year-old woman of posting an ad that "expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths."

HUD acknowledged that statements suggesting a preference for one religion are prohibited, but it concluded that the woman in this case didn't violate the law.

"In light of the facts provided and after assessing the unique context of the advertisement and the roommate relationship involved in this particular situation potentially involving the sharing of personal religious beliefs, the Department defers to Constitutional considerations in reaching its conclusion. Accordingly, the Department finds that there is no reasonable cause to believe that the Act was violated in this matter," HUD said.



"the Department defers to Constitutional considerations in reaching its conclusion".



Yeah boy that damn Constitution just keeps getting in the way towards of our goal of eliminating the Christian religion in this country.Enjoy looking at a nice lawsuit for violating a womans first ammendment rights and a termination notice where you work.

Seriously laws or no laws what kind of people would support this?Common sense tells anyone with a brain that you put two people together who do not want to live together you are going to have arguments,fights,and probably a dead body with a knife in her head lying on the floor.

What about the right to life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness?Is this not a right?It sounds like the fair housing act is steam rolling over all of that.You own a house and someone is telling you who can live there?What kind of life is that?

All these stupid laws are doing is creating division,racial tesions,costly lawsuits,inequality,more laws,more red tape,and more hatred.It's forcing people not only to do things against their will but to accept a way of life they do not want to be apart of.


Would this law not also apply to colleges?How about students who pick their roomates?Under this law it would be discrimination for a person to pick a roommate unless they had a blindfold on.