Woman who placed ad seeking Christian roommate did Not violate fair housing laws: HUD

[bobbyw24]

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (RNS) A Michigan woman did not violate fair housing law when she posted a flier at her church seeking a "Christian roommate," federal officials have ruled.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. But officials from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights saw more than one constitutional issue.

"When it comes to a federal law, the individual's constitutional rights trump all," HUD spokeswoman Laura Feldman said. "That's the highest power."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/officials-say-no-discrimi_n_779767.html

[stu2002]

YES--victory for individual and not group rights!

AMEN

[Heimdallr]

FINALLY they're starting to get it! Hail individualism!

[bobbyw24]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=265513&highlight=discriminate

[stu2002]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=265513&highlight=discriminate

Hmmm... The Collins would seem to value group rights over that of the individual. Is The Collins a closet collectivist??:D

[moostraks]

Interesting decision. Which begs the question why bother to have this law?


Maurice McGough, deputy regional director for fair housing and equal opportunity in HUD's Chicago office, said they were concerned about the individual's right to freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of intimate association, among other issues.

The fact that it was a roommate situation and that the woman posted her ad in a church -- as opposed to a general circulation newspaper, for example -- came into play, HUD officials said.

So if a skinhead posts a roommate request in a kkk bulletin would that exempt them? Devil's advocate here. The law either infringes upon the aforementioned constitutional rights of association or it does not, where it is posted should be irrelevant,imo...

[bobbyw24]

Interesting decision. Which begs the question why bother to have this law?



So if a skinhead posts a roommate request in a kkk bulletin would that exempt them? Devil's advocate here. The law either infringes upon the aforementioned constitutional rights of association or it does not, where it is posted should be irrelevant,imo...

Precisely what I thought after bolding the quote in the OP

[Southron]

I'm glad of the outcome but the very fact that this was an issue tells you where we are headed.

[UtahApocalypse]

Go to Craigslist any day, any city. You will find almost every ad has some stipulation that would violate the discrimination laws. " seeking female roommate" " non-smokers only" and etc. This is a good ruling in the right direction but could go further.

[AxisMundi]

Interesting decision. Which begs the question why bother to have this law?

So if a skinhead posts a roommate request in a kkk bulletin would that exempt them? Devil's advocate here. The law either infringes upon the aforementioned constitutional rights of association or it does not, where it is posted should be irrelevant,imo...

The Fair Housing Act is intended to stop legitimate discrimination in housing, i.e. an Atheist refusing to rent to a Christian, a Christian refusing to rent to a Pagan, a property owner refusing to rent to a couple with children, or a renter refusing to rent to a US citizen of foreign birth, for some examples.

In the case mentioned in the OP, however, said laws simply do not apply, which has been confirmed and emphasized by all agencies involved.

The whole thing stinks of some busy-body this lady might have pissed off trying to get back at her.

[UtahApocalypse]

The Fair Housing Act is intended to stop legitimate discrimination in housing, i.e. an Atheist refusing to rent to a Christian, a Christian refusing to rent to a Pagan, a property owner refusing to rent to a couple with children, or a renter refusing to rent to a US citizen of foreign birth, for some examples.

In the case mentioned in the OP, however, said laws simply do not apply, which has been confirmed and emphasized by all agencies involved.

The whole thing stinks of some busy-body this lady might have pissed off trying to get back at her.

And what gives the government the right to tell an atheist they have to rent to Christians? Or that I have to allow renters with children that will destroy my house?



On another note..... how do "55+ senior communities" exist under the law?

[Icymudpuppy]

The trick is not to advertise your preferences... Simply require everyone to apply through email and post a link to their facebook profile, then delete any applicants that don't meet your preferences.

[puppetmaster]

And what gives the government the right to tell an atheist they have to rent to Christians? Or that I have to allow renters with children that will destroy my house?



On another note..... how do "55+ senior communities" exist under the law?

it s not really your house.....I suppose....just dont pay your rent to the gov on it and see who owns it.

[bobbyw24]

GRAND RAPIDS -- In a battle between the U.S. Constitution and federal fair housing law, the Constitution always wins.

Maurice McGough, deputy regional director for fair housing and equal opportunity in HUD's Chicago office, said they were concerned about the individual's right to freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of intimate association, among other issues.

The fact that it was a roommate situation and that the woman posted her ad in a church -- as opposed to a general circulation newspaper, for example -- came into play, HUD officials said.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/11/why_discrimination_case_was_dr.html

[Southron]

The fact that it was a roommate situation and that the woman posted her ad in a church -- as opposed to a general circulation newspaper, for example -- came into play, HUD officials said.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/11/why_discrimination_case_was_dr.html

So Christians possibly can't seek out fellow Christian roommates in non-Christian print media?

[angelatc]

On another note..... how do "55+ senior communities" exist under the law?

The law specifically exempts 55+ communities, because the seniors are a powerful lobby.

It was really thoughtful of the Michigan Democrats to attack the nice Christian lady right before the elections.

[tremendoustie]

People have a right to live with whomever they choose. These government mandates are absurd and absolutely tyrannical.

[AxisMundi]

And what gives the government the right to tell an atheist they have to rent to Christians? Or that I have to allow renters with children that will destroy my house?

Would you support a non-resident renter discriminating against a black family or person in renting?

Resident landlords are a different matter, and not adressed by this Act.

[tremendoustie]

Would you support a non-resident renter discriminating against a black family or person in renting?


Would I support it? No. Do I think government violence should be perpetrated against him/her because of it? Also no. I don't own my neighbors property. I should speak out against them publically, even organize boycotts of his/her businesses, but I have no right to threaten violence against him/her in order to get him/her to conform with my preferences.

Cultural reform is only morally accomplished using peaceful means.

[AxisMundi]

Would I support it? No. Do I think government violence should be perpetrated against him/her because of it? Also no. I don't own my neighbors property. I should speak out against them publically, even organize boycotts of his/her businesses, but I have no right to threaten violence against him/her in order to get him/her to conform with my preferences.

Cultural reform is only morally accomplished using peaceful means.

Violence? What violence?

I don't see mobs of police officers beating bigoted landlords with batons, do you?

Civil Rights are a Constitutional Matter, and as such must be enforced by our Elected Employees.

What you, and others, appearently advocate is a return to the 1950's, when equality and freedom were reserved for White Christians men.

[LibertyEagle]

Violence? What violence?

I don't see mobs of police officers beating bigoted landlords with batons, do you?

Civil Rights are a Constitutional Matter, and as such must be enforced by our Elected Employees.

What you, and others, appearently advocate is a return to the 1950's, when equality and freedom were reserved for White Christians men.

No, Axis, not at all. What most people here are supporting are private property rights.

Please read this: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-property-basis-of-rights/

[AxisMundi]

No, Axis, not at all. What most people here are supporting are private property rights.

While I support the rights of resident landlords and/or "roommates" as in the OP, there is a huge difference between property rights and enabling bigots.


Please read this: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-property-basis-of-rights/

To be frank I only skimmed through it after the Nazi and Commie references.

If such comparisons are the only arguments a person can make, they have little credibility, IMHO.

[dannno]

While I support the rights of resident landlords and/or "roommates" as in the OP, there is a huge difference between property rights and enabling bigots.

If you don't want to enable bigots, then don't rent from them and don't associate with them.



Violence? What violence?

I don't see mobs of police officers beating bigoted landlords with batons, do you?


Violence is implied when one is not obeying laws. They force you to go to prison, if you don't go then they will be violent with you.

The threat of violence is used against people who use cannabis as officers are able to take their property and arrest them even though they never hurt anybody. Behind the badge is always the threat of violence.





Civil Rights are a Constitutional Matter, and as such must be enforced by our Elected Employees.

What you, and others, appearently advocate is a return to the 1950's, when equality and freedom were reserved for White Christians men.

Apparently you missed the whole Rand Paul / Rachel Maddow debacle.

Rand Paul, pretty much everybody here on the board, Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater are all against the portion of the Civil Rights act which mandates businesses and property owners have to serve everyone equally. In an act with 11 or 12 amendments, there was only one single amendment which dealt with this.

That doesn't mean we are for discrimination, I would never support a business that discriminated against black people or any minority group.. but I have no right to force them to serve everybody, that's essentially slavery.

What we are against was the Jim Crow laws and the institutional racism that was taking place in the south, referred to as "government racism". This was all of the government infrastructure, separate black and white restrooms, segregated public schools, etc.. This was the majority of the Civil Rights Act, the other 10 or 11 amendments of the bill and this portion was a positive step in the right direction.

[dannno]

YouTube - Rand Paul on The Civil Rights Act of 1964 on The Rachel Maddow Show Part 1 05192010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIIDgZreHio)

YouTube - Rand Paul on The Civil Rights Act of 1964 on The Rachel Maddow Show Part 2 05192010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0EciaKb2ZU)

[Vessol]

Wait, there was actually a law preventing this? That's retarded..

[LibForestPaul]

Violence? What violence?

I don't see mobs of police officers beating bigoted landlords with batons, do you?

Civil Rights are a Constitutional Matter, and as such must be enforced by our Elected Employees.

What you, and others, appearently advocate is a return to the 1950's, when equality and freedom were reserved for White Christians men.

reserved for White Christian Men...so as a white business owner, I could allow coloreds into my establishment? I think not. Stop rewriting history.

[nate895]

AxisMundi sounds like he wants thought police. Want to have Christian tenants? Sorry, that thought is unacceptable to AxisMundi, and therefore it must not be allowed to be acted upon.

[AxisMundi]

If you don't want to enable bigots, then don't rent from them and don't associate with them.

Perhaps in a perfect world, that would work.


Violence is implied when one is not obeying laws. They force you to go to prison, if you don't go then they will be violent with you.

The threat of violence is used against people who use cannabis as officers are able to take their property and arrest them even though they never hurt anybody. Behind the badge is always the threat of violence.

Hysterical comment, as I thought. You complain the g'ment uses fear, and then turn around and use the same "tactic".


Apparently you missed the whole Rand Paul / Rachel Maddow debacle.

Rand Paul, pretty much everybody here on the board, Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater are all against the portion of the Civil Rights act which mandates businesses and property owners have to serve everyone equally. In an act with 11 or 12 amendments, there was only one single amendment which dealt with this.

That doesn't mean we are for discrimination, I would never support a business that discriminated against black people or any minority group.. but I have no right to force them to serve everybody, that's essentially slavery.

What we are against was the Jim Crow laws and the institutional racism that was taking place in the south, referred to as "government racism". This was all of the government infrastructure, separate black and white restrooms, segregated public schools, etc.. This was the majority of the Civil Rights Act, the other 10 or 11 amendments of the bill and this portion was a positive step in the right direction.

How many Amendments "deal with this" is moot. The fact that even one Amendment "deals with this" is all that matters.

[AxisMundi]

Wait, there was actually a law preventing this? That's retarded..

No, there no law supporting this.

This is clearly some busy-body who doesn't understand basic legal concepts, or someone trying to stir up trouble for someone.

I suspect the latter as the report was amide anonymously.

[reardenstone]

But with that law, no one would be allowed to start their own self governed community of like cultured people. Freedom of association?

[kylejack]

Apparently you missed the whole Rand Paul / Rachel Maddow debacle.

Rand Paul, pretty much everybody here on the board, Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater are all against the portion of the Civil Rights act which mandates businesses and property owners have to serve everyone equally. In an act with 11 or 12 amendments, there was only one single amendment which dealt with this.

I think you missed seeing him back down from that position afterward. It isn't right to have entire towns or regions where people aren't willing to rent to a particular class of people based on things outside their control. Racism was institutional in this country for a while and the institution has a responsibility to repair the damage it helped to do. Enforcing in the opposite direction is a great way to set things right.

[Vessol]

Good for her. Seriously, when I first heard about that, it was fucking retarded.

Property owners have full rights to their property.

[low preference guy]

Racism was institutional in this country for a while and the institution has a responsibility to repair the damage it helped to do.

That doesn't justify attacks on the freedom of association of innocent people. If A did something wrong, the liberties of B should be restricted? Wow.

If you steal something from Peter, is it your responsibility to steal from Paul to give back to Peter what you stole from him? That's in essence what you're arguing for.

[acptulsa]

Um, there's a difference between a 'resident landlord', who could have a seperate apartment in the same building, and a roommate situation. Surprised I have to point that out. She isn't a lessor, but a sublessor. And will have to allow her roommate access to all her stuff. And see that roommate at breakfast. Now, how is this the same as a landlord situation?

[Stary Hickory]

Even landlords have the right to specify what kinds of tenants they want on their property. If you have a racist landlord fine, let him run his business that way and see how it works out. The woman was fine for doing what she did, and a landlord would too. If a black landlord said "blacks only" would that be outrageous? I would not care. If a white landlord said "whites only" I also would not care, but I would not dare live there. I would not want to be associated with that line of thinking.

Bottom line is if it is your property you can associate with whomever you wish for whatever reason, or not do so under the same criteria.

[acptulsa]

Bottom line is if it is your property you can associate with whomever you wish for whatever reason, or not do so under the same criteria.

Well, I don't believe it's her property except so far as she's got a lease there. It's government property, and no landlord that doesn't obey EOE strictures is supposed to be getting Section Eight or other types of government funding. But she isn't the landlord. She's just someone who wants a roommate of her own choosing.

[kylejack]

Well, I don't believe it's her property except so far as she's got a lease there. It's government property, and no landlord that doesn't obey EOE strictures is supposed to be getting Section Eight or other types of government funding. But she isn't the landlord. She's just someone who wants a roommate of her own choosing.
Right, I support her right to choose who she wants to live with, but some people in the thread were going far beyond that to landlords.

[eduardo89]

The thing that worries me it's it's bureaucrats at HUD who are interpreting law, not a judge.

[acptulsa]

The thing that worries me it's it's bureaucrats at HUD who are interpreting law, not a judge.

Well, that's what we get for letting benefits get so big, taxes get so onerous, and wages get so small. The federal government gets to handle the money at some point, and everybody jumps through hoops forevermore.