Hey folks, you are not ALLOWED to decide who your roommate is.

As much as I hate the overbearing, over litigating government and populace, I have to agree that this is a clear violation of fair housing statutes.

The key issues here are "rent" and "advertising."

You cannot place an ad that violates fair housing, and you cannot get paid for something that violates any number of protected classes.

Now, she can discriminate all she wants based on personality conflicts, credit record, or just plain ugliness, but she cannot advertise for a specific class of people.

Honestly, I think there should be some exceptions (and there may already be) for a single individual with a single property or a self-occupied property. The laws are written for the bigger corporations and property managers and developers. There is a big difference between someone building a PUD and a little Christian woman trying to rent a room out. I think the law should make that distinction.

reply to post by yadda333


Nice try, but the Housing Act is implying that you as the home owner are not residing with the occupants. In other words, The Housing Act specifically addresses the issue if you are the Home Owner, and are renting or selling etc, the property with no intentions of living in the quarters with said renters/purchasers. However, that is not what this case addresses. It is suggesting that you ARE living in the quarters, and are renting a room out.

Quoted, "Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability)"

In your own source, you left out a few key items, so I took upon myself to post it for you:

Basic Facts About the Fair Housing Act
The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.
www.hud.gov...

Next time I suggest you read all of your source before you respond~

How about this?

Roommate needed:

Must be of the Zoroastrian faith
Must be 5'7'' exactly
Must have IQ of 104.7867 (no rounding up or down).
Must be able to do 41 pushups in a row (no more, no less)
Must be able to drive a short bus on ice (only on ice)
Must be a magenta supremacist (must believe only magentians deserve rights).

This is what is wrong with the world today. This topic should NOT be debatable. It's ******* common sense. Equal rights is in and of itself an oxymoron because it creates preferential treatment for certain people. It's complete bias and in conflict with its own nature. You have the right to determine who you want on your property at all times. This goes for people trying to sublet out rooms too as their contract will be with the original leasee and not the actual owner. These people's rights go as far as allowing them to apply for the room and her having the right to deny them. She's just saving them the time and energy.

I understand a certain minimal level of regulation based on things we have no control over like color or disability. Everything else is a preference - religion, hygiene, moral values, cultural behavior. It is in everyone's BEST interest that we be allowed to associate with who we wish to and stay away from those we don't get along with. Forcing people together with opposing preferences is masochistic and a detriment to society. It breeds hate and social dysfunction.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
As much as I hate the overbearing, over litigating government and populace, I have to agree that this is a clear violation of fair housing statutes.

The key issues here are "rent" and "advertising."

You cannot place an ad that violates fair housing, and you cannot get paid for something that violates any number of protected classes.

Now, she can discriminate all she wants based on personality conflicts, credit record, or just plain ugliness, but she cannot advertise for a specific class of people.

Honestly, I think there should be some exceptions (and there may already be) for a single individual with a single property or a self-occupied property. The laws are written for the bigger corporations and property managers and developers. There is a big difference between someone building a PUD and a little Christian woman trying to rent a room out. I think the law should make that distinction.

Maybe you can explain how asking for a "Christan" roommate is "advertising for a specific class of people"?

reply to post by MrWendal


Religion is a protected class.

Therefore, advertising for a "Christian" roommate excludes a number of other protected classes. Pretty simple?
.
.
.
.
Unless you mistook the word "class" to mean that Christians are a better class of people. In that case, the connotation came from your preconceived notions and should be explored, LOL!

Originally posted by 2Rotten4u
reply to post by yadda333

 

Nice try, but the Housing Act is implying that you as the home owner are not residing with the occupants. In other words, The Housing Act specifically addresses the issue if you are the Home Owner, and are renting or selling etc, the property with no intentions of living in the quarters with said renters/purchasers. However, that is not what this case addresses. It is suggesting that you ARE living in the quarters, and are renting a room out.

Quoted, "Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability)"

In your own source, you left out a few key items, so I took upon myself to post it for you:

Basic Facts About the Fair Housing Act
The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.
www.hud.gov...

Next time I suggest you read all of your source before you respond~

Maybe you should have read my entire post!

My reply was to another poster about renting, selling, etc. I stated specifically at the end of my post that, in regard to the OP, this lady could have a case because SHE OCCUPIED THE HOME AND IT WAS LESS THAN FOUR UNITS.

Take your own advice and read more thoroughly.

Your Quote, "ABSOLUTELY WRONG! You may not agree, but discrimination is not allowed under the Fair Housing Act."


Simply Responded to your original comment, nothing more~ Have a good day!

Okay folks, do not mistake posters assertions being the instituted statutes. Some are posting their thoughts and feelings on personal private property usage not the statutes.

Sorry, if I was to be renting to someone in my house here, they definitely would not be a follower of the flying purple spaghetti monster.

Oh and if the follower of the purple flying spaghetti monster attempted to sue me, they would be laughed at by the jury. Oh and if the Department of Injustice attempted to charge me, the jury would laugh them out of court.

Oh the humanity.

Originally posted by 2Rotten4u
Your Quote, "ABSOLUTELY WRONG! You may not agree, but discrimination is not allowed under the Fair Housing Act."


Simply Responded to your original comment, nothing more~ Have a good day!

edit on 26-10-2010 by 2Rotten4u because: (no reason given)

You can cut one line out of my post if you want but it doesn't change anything. You didn't read my entire post and now you're trying to save face.

reply to post by yadda333


Not trying to do anything? You simply made a comment that I capitalized on. You can get defensive all you want, but other readers have already seen that I rebuked you. Period~