I agree. I wouldn't want a fundie for a roommate, given other choices. But I thought these laws didn't apply to people you shared a room in your home with... ie, if you were renting out the in-law apt in your basement you could use any criteria you wanted? I thought it was apartments in a separate building?

That's what I was told when I was renting an attic apt in someone's house, that they could kick me out for any reason. I kept my religious beliefs laid low.

Her attorney points out that she has every right to freely associate with whomever she wants. The government acknowledges that she can refuse to rent to a non-Christian, but says she cannot state this up front. Bizarre leftist doublethink.

Just why does the federal government think it has any business involving itself in the way people select their roommates?

Every single incumbent should be out of a job in two weeks. Vote the bums out!

Every single incumbent should be out of a job in two weeks. Vote the bums out!

That's what my pal Ron Kaye's LA Clean Sweep is all about:

http://lacleansweep.com/

As Welch said re:Williams/NPR, this should include the pundits.

And by the way, friends and taxpayers... We're hearing alot this week about whether the NPR and CPB should be "defunded"... But the operational funds are a tiny part of the cost of public broadcasting.

The larger sacrifice is made by taking all those broadcast licenses out of the hands of business men & and women who could use them to CREATE WEALTH. Keep your eyes on the prize: All those transmitter towers could be worth something, but we'll never know how much as long as they're imagined to be "free".

"She can actually, in practice, not rent to a non-Christian. But she can't make the statement. The statement alone is a violation of the act. What she can do in practice she can't make a statement about.""

Riiight... and if said renter finds out she will only rent to Christians even if she doesn't explicitly state it in her ad, they could likely file suit or a complaint with the FHA/FHC/PC cops and get her in trouble anyway. If said renter was angry enough about it.

How freaking stupid!!! I'm also more than a little miffed that someone in her own Christian church got offended and filed the complaint.

What? A handwritten note on a 3x5 card, posted on a church (private property) bulletin board is committing a civil rights violation?

I guess we'll have to expand the government rolls to accommodate the new army of civil servants hired to monitor the sundry ads placed on bulletin boards in churchs, community centers, colleges, laundromats,etc.

Can't you just see them now? The starchy government inspector in a pantsuit, requesting that the venerable priest show her the bulletin board...

Adding to the stupidity, Haynes points out that it's perfectly within her rights to refuse to rent to non-Christians...she just can't say it!

AAAAARGH!

The Fair Housing Act can be put somewhere where the sun don't shine, because I'm going to rent to whom I WANT to rent!

It their logic remind anyone of Catch-22?

Great quote: If you think that you and people like you should control large swathes of society and large swathes of the economy, then you really had better be very - make that impossibly - smart, and you are not smart, if only because you believe in this seriously dumb idea. But if the notion that you keep repeating during your campaign is that neither you nor people like you, nor your political opponents nor people like them, should have this kind of centralised power over everything, then provided you are sufficiently smart to make that one smart idea stick and have political consequences, it really doesn't matter how dumb you may be about anything or even everything else.

As a practical matter, an Orthodox Jew or Muslim would find it difficult to have a roommate who does not share the same set of religious beliefs. For example, the kitchen of someone who keeps kosher or hallal would be unusable if the roommate does not keep the same dietary rules. Similarly, attempting to keep the Sabbath would be very difficult if the roommate is not required (or even supposed) to live by the same rules.

If someone has not made the same commitment, it is hard for them to avoid violating the rules even by accident.

Another typical example would be the usage of a television. Consider the difficulty of living with someone who insists on watching television shows that send you screaming from the room, even without the religious aspect.

Surely that government representative didn't say that the law in practice works as follows:

"you're perfectly free to violate the spirit and intent of the law; the only actual crime is EXPRESSING a desire to live with a Christian"?

My husband and I got into this discussion at dinner the other night.

He doesn't think that this law should exist at all. Everyone is going to use their own criteria to rent, and it's not right to make the renter lie.

I think that this law goes a long way to preventing a bunch of lawsuits. While you can discriminate, you can follow this law and have absolutely no physical evidence to tie you down.

So, can I still wear my "No Fat chicks" shirt without getting arrested ?

The Fair Housing Act is the stupid-ass, unrealistic, PC housing act, and it's about time we changed it. I know, that won't happen, but we have far too many stupid laws on the books, and this is one of them.

Yes, and yes.

Consider the difficulty of living with someone who insists on watching television shows that send you screaming from the room, even without the religious aspect.

Well, this is a relatively easy thing to fix. Get your own tv. They're less expensive than they used to be. One of my daughters watches tv shows on her laptop, in her room or the kitchen or wherever.

...the kitchen of someone who keeps kosher or hallal would be unusable if the roommate does not keep the same dietary rules.

Right. This is not the same as having separate tvs, unless your roommate has a small fridge in their room for their personal food. But sharing the one stove or refrigerator could be difficult.

The Fair Housing Act can be put somewhere where the sun don't shine, because I'm going to rent to whom I WANT to rent!

You and most other landlords, and I believe it is their right to be able to rent to whomever they want to, and to NOT rent to someone they DON'T want to rent to! It's their house/property, after all, and the landlord is the one who's responsible for repairs, insurance, etc. Not the tenant, unless they have an agreement. The tenant makes repairs, the landlord shaves some of the rent off for that month, whatever. But people are people and some people don't have any respect for others' property, and it shows. Even when landlords impose a security deposit, they don't rent to someone expecting them to trash the house/apt. but all too often, it happens. And then there's the eviction process, which is it's own private hell, and when people are getting evicted, even if they've been a fairly decent tenant up until then, all bets are off. I have seen the aftermath of landlord/tenant conflicts and it ain't pretty. There are no guarantees, I know, but I wouldn't be a landlord for all the money in the world. WAY too much of a hassle.

So, can I still wear my "No Fat chicks" shirt without getting arrested?

Sure, but I like the one that says "Instant Asshole. Just add Alcohol" better!

Assorted blurbs:

Seeking a roommate is not renting a facility. Done.

Government: the monolith who will now be selecting your healthcare for you.

Notice that someone in the congregation was offended? Way to go, minion of Jesus™!

Again, the idea that there is only so much wit to be had in the universe, and so some do not have any, appears!

"I think that this law goes a long way to preventing a bunch of lawsuits. While you can discriminate, you can follow this law and have absolutely no physical evidence to tie you down."

Practically speaking, that's what this means. That doesn't make it right.

If I am considering renting out a room in my house, and I will only accept female Mormons of Bolivian extraction who are under 5'2" tall, that's my business. It may be stupid, it may be bigoted, it may be weird, but it's my house and my room and my business. The government has no right to dictate private, personal behavior - this is freedom of association, pure and simple.

Ok, here's the catch: we scale this up. I run an apartment complex with thousands of apartments. It's not a room in my house, but it is a private business - they are *my* apartments? Do I still have the right to rent only to short Bolivian women? This is getting into difficult ground.

My view is that the government can regulate the behavior of pubically held corporations, but not privately held companies. Mom'n'pop businesses should be out of the government's reach: If you want to run a B&B, and only accept short Bolivian customers, more power to you.

No, I am not a bigot - I really have nothing at all against short Bolivians... :-)

Boy, sometimes I get all riled up about some piece of nonsense like this, then I realize I'm getting all riled up about about a piece of nonsense like this and I erase my post, note my realization and move on to the next thing. Bye.

I'm guessing that a 20% reduction in Federal expenditures would be painless, except to the brainless morons who get involved in this nonsense. It's a private home. A man's castle, so to speak. (Yes, I'm politically incorrect. I was here before PC. Wait till I'm dead, and you can have it your way.)

The already broke government has no role here. Come back when you can pay your bills and we'll see if this is worth worrying about.

I wonder--is this really a violation of the law, or is that the opinion of some misinformed bureaucratic twit?

I have no trouble believing the law could be that stupid, but I also believe an employee of the Fair Housing Center could be.

Random factoid: search on "Fair Housing Center" and "Nancy Haynes" (the employee there), and you get:

Meet our staff: Nancy L. Haynes, Executive Director

Sadly, if she is a misinformed bureaucratic twit, she is a highly placed one.

If you're advertising for a roommate and you want someone who shares your religion/sexuality/hygiene, just describe the kind of household it is and who YOU are, instead of saying who you want.

I'm assuming that a Christian household that is described as such would not be appealing to someone who hates Christianity or Christians, and they would self-select out. If a heavy smoker answers an ad for a non-smoking household and doesn't get the place, that's their problem. If a homophobic person interviews at an openly lesbian household, and for some reason they get the spot, it's on them to deal with it.

It can get ugly once they're in there, because in some places it's very hard to evict someone even if you are the master tenant. We've all learned to spot those red flags when it comes to roommates, I think. I can sense when someone is not honest or mentally stable, and after a few disasters and successes I know what questions to ask, too. I also check references (can include chatting with any mutual acquaintances or ex-roommates).

A lot of roommate incompatibilities are over little stuff, like whether to do dishes at midnight or 7am. A lot of people have no boundaries and try to control their roommates' personal lives, eating habits, political beliefs, etc. People really don't know how to MYOB anymore.

So, can I still wear my "No Fat chicks" shirt without getting arrested ?

Yes. But don't be surprised if some fat chicks knock you down, then sit on you. And whatever you do, don't attend WisCon. Of course, Elizabeth Moon was disinvited as the Guest of Honor for a blog posting about the Victory Mosque in NYC.

Also, don't click on that link if you're squeamish. Some things, once seen, can not be unseen. I'm looking for brain bleach...

See I R A, this is why I go to Walmart. A little surrealism is good for you. Plus it feels so good to get out alive and without going on a killing spree myself.

so, if you put out an ad for a female or male roommate, is that violating the law too...?

Wiscon - oh dear. If that is modern feminism, there is definitely too much of it

Thanks I R A. That made my day.

This is dangerously close to the government being able to come right on in and take your house away from you.

Oh, wait! It CAN! Eminent domain, baby.

Say, rather than focusing on what some person or agency has done / is doing wrong, get a handle on a principle:

The freedom of association must be defended as a basic human right.

Rights are for individuals, not groups - which have powers, not rights. You are the ultimate minority, and you should never forget that and allow someone else to activate any mechanism that can be turned on you.

You'll get strip-searched for wanting to fly on a plane - and because you let that happen it'll happen somewhere else. Then, you'll be told, "If you have nothing to hide, you should have no objections." All while you have surrendered your presumption of innocence.

"Also, don't click on that link if you're squeamish. Some things, once seen, can not be unseen. I'm looking for brain bleach"

That was hilarious!

I wonder who in the congregation would be offended by this? That seems odd.

I wonder if she could get around this by saying something like "Christian woman seeks roommate." It would be honest and would be more likely to attract Christians.

Oh, I wrote both of the above before realizing that someone else said both of them.

Seems weird that this is illegal if this is in a private home.

While it seems fair that she may only wanted a christian roommate, I think it stupid of her to want christian only, considering the possiblity that there may be some atheist or freethinker out there who may be a more suitable candidate.
As in all religous groups, we see these type of stupidity(in varous other religous or socalled religous groups) whenever one relgion group have an upper hand and turned irrational.

This woman has the right to discriminate who she rents to. The government agent is off-base. The FHA rules only apply to "absent" landlords. The only exemption is for senior living complexes -- over 55 you can prohibit kids -- on a permanent basis.

But that still doesn't cover the abuse of this law. While I know anecdotes don't make up fact, it has happened.

Women goes to an apartment landlord and applies to rent. She has eight kids and wants to rent a three bedroom apartment. They won't accept her application. She sues and wins.

But the other side: Guy gets arrested for "dealing" pot. He may be a scumbag, or not. Does his time. Gets out and wants to live with his mother/wife/gf in government housing apartment. That is illegal under the most metropolitan housing authority rules.

F*** the government.

While there were and are less discrimination in the predominantly christian world, there are obviously more discrimnation in their islamic world. In malaysia, there is alot of these type of stupid islamic advertisement advertising for islamic doctors,islamic helpers, etc...It is really disgusting and eerie. And those nonislamic asians employers in malaysia also kept on employing other islamic asians from other predominantly islamic asian country such as indonesia, thus making the situation even worst for lone minority nonbeliever like myself who did not come from rich background.

I agree the woman have a right to discriminate, and most probably a christian would only be comfortbale living with her.

Isn't it unconstitutional for the government to dictate what messages can be posted on a church bulletin board?

"Isn't it unconstitutional for the government to dictate what messages can be posted on a church bulletin board?"

Well, read the Constitution itself: "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion."

But Congress does this all the time. Possibly the most obvious was Public Law 103-141, "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act". Eventually overturned as an unfunded mandate, this law set the Attorney General as the sole arbiter of whether a group of people was a "cult" and/or "a substantial burden to government" and disband it by force!

Then, there's the tax code. Put up a cross, get a break.

While you're at it, note that there's a peculiar definition of "establishment" when religion is considered by government. There's no problem identifying the structure and business model of a proprietorship, like a bar, when referring to an establishment - but all of a sudden it's a verb when Congress is thinking about it.

You might also wish to consider the principle of incorporation. That's the degree to which the Federal Constitution applies to localities. In firearms law, Morton Grove v. Quilici was a landmark - it established that yes, a locality may make laws more restrictive than the Federal government.

Interesting, huh? Good thing most people are totally happy if they can just bitch a little bit: they quit after they've had a say. They don't actually want to do anything more.

So the 1st Amendment will get enforced down to the inside of a local classroom - but none of the others will.

You might also wish to consider the principle of incorporation. That's the degree to which the Federal Constitution applies to localities. In firearms law, Morton Grove v. Quilici was a landmark - it established that yes, a locality may make laws more restrictive than the Federal government.

The District of Columbia v. Heller changed incorporation.

You might also wish to consider the principle of incorporation. That's the degree to which the Federal Constitution applies to localities. In firearms law, Morton Grove v. Quilici was a landmark - it established that yes, a locality may make laws more restrictive than the Federal government.

The District of Columbia v. Heller changed incorporation.

Jim P - it changed the degree with respect to the 2nd Amendment, but not the principle.

Notice that there is inertia in legislation. DC vs. Heller didn't magically set aside gun bans set up by localities. Those have to be challenged individually.

I found it - find it - reprehensible that the presumption of guilt is extended so rapidly by people against their fellows.

When a justice, for instance, makes a comment about "state militia", or someone asserts that the National Guard is the entity protected by the 2nd, I'm amazed that the utterer can breathe without assistance. Go read the fence around such a facility. That should tell you, definitively, that you are not the party these people represent.

> Sure, but I like the one that says "Instant
> Asshole. Just add Alcohol" better!

Sportswear can be such a personal choice.

This woman has the right to discriminate who she rents to. The government agent is off-base. The FHA rules only apply to "absent" landlords. - Jim

That is what I thought when I read it so I did some quick research. A closer look says that is what the agent said. She could use that to determine to not rent to someone who will be living in the same space. However, it is still illegal to advertise the fact she will be using that criterion. Silly.