Is Advertising for a Christian Roommate a Civil Rights Violation?

Remove all ads!

Story

Apparently a woman in Grand Rapids, Michigan, put a bulletin up in her church stating that she was looking for a Christian roommate. In response, the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan has filed a civil rights complaint. In response to that, I say 'WTF?!?!?!?!?!' Ok, I guess this has something to do with it being a business arrangement and non-discrimination stuff, otherwise it's clearly a free speach issue, but doesn't that mean that it'd also be illegal for her to ask specifically for a female roommate (being a Christian, I'm assuming she did)? It seems to me that someone in Michigan may need their head screwed on again.

 

Where is this Michegan you speak of? I can only assume it is an alternate dimension in which any type of discrimination is abhorrent.
It's actually spelled Michigan (I lived there for the first 15 years of my life), but jokes aside I'm with you. It's pretty silly.

I wonder if "Nancy Haynes" would complain about giving her job as Executive Director to me, because it's discriminatory to decline me simply because I'm not qualified! I touched on this more in-depth in another thread: discrimination is perfectly acceptable in many cases. Looking for employment, finding someone you want to live with, picking someone to watch your children, etc., etc.

 

Are us heathens such unpleasant company?

I think fining is a bit ridiculous, perhaps request to have it rephrased? but then again specifying a christian wanted in a church bulletin is kind of redundant, surely? "Devout Christian seeking roomate" wouldn't have caused a fuss either.

Does just seem to be playing word games.

 

That's some crazy stuff. This is probably some low-level government flunky with nothing better to do. What a crock.

 

More
*Warning, distinctly right-wing views here*

Apparently, not only are they serious, they claim to have recieved death threats over it! More confusing still, Nancy Haynes, executive director of the Fair Housing Center, had this to say:

So, let me get this straight. It's perfectly legal to actually discriminate, but it's illegal to tell people that you're discriminating? Yes, I believe this is firmly a Freedom of Speech violation.

 

Something else must be going on here. People make all sorts of criteria in their rommate wanted ads all the time. The woman or her church must have pissed off a low level functionary somewhere. The kind of person I want to live with is really none of the State's business.

 

No, I do not believe it is a civil rights violation. What is more, I think stating such preferences saves everyone's time.

I was looking for a room/an apartment to rent recently, resulting in meeting quite a few potential landlords (including a drunken, elderly pervert and a madame who was apparently running a brothel... but I digress ). One of the ladies asked me if I was a Christian. After my explanation of what an Odinist was, she decided we are 'worse than atheists' and asked me to leave.

Did I think it was discrimination? Gods, no. It is her house and she can rent it to whomever she sees fit, to whomever she will feel comfortable with. If the potential room/house-mate has rights, the landlord/lady should have them too.

The only thing I was irritated about was the fact that she actually wasted my time. That week was damn crazy, and I could have definitely used the two forever lost hours to sleep. Had she stated her preferences in the ad, I simply would not have gone there. Then again - what if she had not asked? What if she assumed I was of the same faith, and would decide to break the agreement after finding out that this was absolutely not the case? That situation would surely prove infinitely more problematic.

Ergo - such preferences not only should be stated, they must be stated.

BTW... seen another ad. 'Two female students looking for a TOLERANT roomate'. I wonder what would the Fair Housing Center say about such a horrid display of intolerance against homophobes?

Haha, maybe they fear for their cats!

 

Yeah, a bit

It's stupid. When I advertise for tenants in one of my houses, I specifically say that they have to be employed and be a British citizen. It's not discrimination, it's covering my arse! This really isn't any different. People can be so weird about religion. If your room mate is a Muslim or something and has to pray at odd times of the day, you're going to get upset at having your sleep disturbed!

 

It's discrimination, but there is nothing wrong with that. I remember one of my mentors saying that when he married his wife, he discriminated against 100% of the men and 99.99998% of the women.

 

I think that the question warrants a nuanced approach:

(a) Choosing a room mate, perhaps as a subtenant, means you are going to share living spaces, in a sense, share your privacy. That means that aspects critical to you personally in your room mate gain great importance. I think it is thus fully justified to discriminate in such cases. Getting someone in your personal living spaces that you know you're not going to get along with is lunacy.

I have discriminated, albeit implicitly, against flat mate candidates - against a conservative Muslim - and against a charismatic Christian, who enthusiastically shared his spiritual experiences even in the brief interview we had. That I then had a lesbian room mate was an important factor to dismiss both as suitable candidates. I also dismissed, for sheer dislike, that one guy who entered the flat application interview along the lines 'When will I move in since I so fabulously awesome?'.

(b) Simply renting out rooms is a different issue. In that case your tenants religion or what your tenant is doing in his own private sphere (What if he is gay? ) is none of the landlord's business and it is not justified to discriminate then. Discrimination in such cases is not justified IMO. Of course it still happens, even though it is usually next to impossible to prove.

In a sense, discrimination, often for good and sensible reasons, happens all the time, and it is necessary and inevitable. Still, differentiation is warranted: In the scenario (a) it was justified, in scenario (b) it wasn't. Point is that that lady was stupid enough in advertising her considerations, solving the problem with the evidence for discrimination all by herself. Congrats.

 

The thing that worries me is that, from all I've seen, this isn't some low-level functionary who got ticked. The executive director is one of the people doing this!

 

Hmm.

 

Yet further proof that the government has too many employees.

 

That's just bizarre. Normally it is indeed the low level underlings who are left to explain such impossible-to-explain positions. If she didn't see this statement as fundamentallly idiotic and didn't have the sense to run and hide and push somebody else out in front of the microphone in her place, maybe Nancy herself is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

The sad thing is, I'm sure she's telling it exactly like it is. These people usually know their rules pretty well, so there's probably a code somehwere that states that very thing, explicitly.

 

The following is one of the many parts of the Fair Housing Act (which Nancy Haynes was talking about).

To me the whole document seems like it is directed at the owners of the space. Whether or not this girl owned the unit that she was looking for a roommate for, I don't know. But either way, I guess I can see how the Fair Housing Act would apply... but I don't really understand it. (And if it's meant the way Nancy Haynes is saying, don't people do the exact opposite all the time?)

 

It also lists as an exception:

The woman in question is renting one room, intended to be occupied by 2 'families' (i.e. two unrelated individuals), living independently, wherein the original renter (since the actual owner isn't involved in this, I suspect it's a reasonable substitute) actually maintains and occupies one such living quarters as her residence. It doesn't really seem to be written with sub-letting in mind.

On the other hand, since the Fair Housing Center isn't a government body, I'm not sure they have standing to sue, unless they are claiming that they, as a whole, (or more likely one of their members) are an "aggrieved person" per Sec. 813. a.

Although it seems that Nancy Haynes may not be as familiar with the law as she claims:

That sounds to me like actually refusing to rent to anyone who isn't a Christian would be illegal as well. Of course, under this law, it seems all rental properties must be co-ed, as sex is one of the covered criteria.

 

I don't think that means the renters actually have to have "sex."

 

What if she had said "No muslims please"?

 

No, but presumably they must have a sex. At least, I hope so...