So a private citizen can’t pick and choose who they want to live with?

[JakeStarkey]

RGS, you are fascist lite with a statement like that. Grow up.

 

[thereisnospoon]

? Was the residence in question a private home, or a home paid for in part by the housing authority (secton 8)?

Section 8 tenants cannot sublet their units. If they take in a roomate, that roomate must be related and included on the lease.

Hijack..
There was no discussion of section 8 or a sublet. Failing evidence to the contrary we must assume this is private property.

 

[Faccops]

Haven't reaqd the thread, other than the op....

If her asking for a christian as a renter, is wrong, then someone asking for a Female renter would be as well? So if I were widowed and wanted to rent a room in my house, I could not advertise that I am looking for a female renter?

According to the cited regulations, if the roomate will share common areas, like the kitchen and living room, you are allowed to discriminate by gender. But if they aren't, then you're not allowed. Your ad cannot exclude men. So say you own a two story house, and there's an outside stairway your roomate can take up there, and he stays up there, and you stay downstairs... that means your ad has to allow a dude to be upstairs from you in your own house as long as he stays up there and doesn't take the inside stairway down to your family room to chat with you.

I don't agree with the law, but there it is.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What are the limits on what government can make you do?

Apprently nothing.

 

[Gadawg73]

You can not rent or sell housing based on religion.
Can not believe you folks do not know that.

 

[Care4all]

You can not rent or sell housing based on religion.
Can not believe you folks do not know that.

Not just religion though, right?

So I can not advertise to rent to a female?

isn't it Gender, race, religion, age etc that is protected by law?

Was she renting a house or renting A ROOM in her house?

 

[frazzledgear]

“It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement,” Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. “There are no exemptions to that.”
FreeDumb.................and this **** enforces it like a Nazi slave.
Executive director. Gimme a fucking break. She's nothing more than an office manager.

Only a liberal moron would believe an advertisement looking for a compatible roommate based on the characteristics most important to her -amounts to "discriminatory statement". She isn't offering to rent them their own separate living space which would be a different matter -she intends to bring someone else INTO HER HOME and share HER living space with that person. That means its HER RULES here about who she is and is not willing to share HER living space with! Government can't FORCE her to open her own living space to someone she doesn't want to live with! If government can't force her to live with someone she doesn't want to live with, then she has the RIGHT to decide who she will live with. Rejecting opening HER living space to ANYONE can be made on ANY grounds whether others like it or not! She can say she refuses to live with someone with bad teeth, anyone with a pet, anyone of an entire gender, gamblers, smokers or flat-footed people. It doesn't matter WHAT grounds she refuses to share her living space with someone else -BECAUSE IT IS HER LIVING SPACE, not that of the person she would be bringing in as a roommate! Because IT IS HER LIVING SPACE and since government cannot force her to open it and share it with ANYONE, it also means they can't prevent her from NOT sharing it with someone of HER choice, using whatever grounds SHE chooses to make that decision. Government has NO ROLE HERE to regulate how someone tries to choose a compatible roommate to share THEIR living space with! If its HER living space, then the only thing that counts is HER preferences -not government's or those of some FUCKING BUSYBODY who really needs to get a life.

A teeny part of me agrees that those who filed the lawsuit should face a firing squad just for the sheer arrogance. But at the very least the lawsuit seeking MORONS should be bitch slapped and forced to pay for this woman's legal costs and any loss of income handling this ASININE lawsuit as well as HUGE penalties for tying up the court system with this crap suit!

 

[Charles_Main]

Haven't reaqd the thread, other than the op....

If her asking for a christian as a renter, is wrong, then someone asking for a Female renter would be as well? So if I were widowed and wanted to rent a room in my house, I could not advertise that I am looking for a female renter?

Apparently not, At least not in Liberal PC land.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What are the limits on what government can make you do?

Duh, have you ever read the Constitution?

Does the Constitution obligate you to sublet your home to anyone government forces you to rent it to?

Nope. 4th Amendment can be used to envelop an individual protecting them from such an obligation.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

From where I see it, such a restriction would be in effect a seizure.

 

[Gadawg73]

You can not rent or sell housing based on religion.
Can not believe you folks do not know that.

Not just religion though, right?

So I can not advertise to rent to a female?

isn't it Gender, race, religion, age etc that is protected by law?

Was she renting a house or renting A ROOM in her house?

renting is renting.

 

[WillowTree]

So, in conclusion. Renting is not a good idea, Neither is advertising.

 

[Gadawg73]

So, in conclusion. Renting is not a good idea, Neither is advertising.

Not for those that hide behind religion refusing to obey the law.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's not rocket science. The law says you can't make discriminatory statements in these matters. When prospective renters call, it can be determined in the first few minutes if the person is a Christian or not. This is a lot of saber rattling by retards.

You can't post such statements on Craigslist either. Deal with it.

Umm there are exceptions to every law.
Fort example, the Couth Carolina Landlord and Tenant acts expempts all rental properties on which the owner resides AND/OR any property with 4 or less units.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t27c040.docx

See 27-40-120..Exclusions.
So cuckoo yourself.
As a property owner and being in occpation of said property, the law states I am able to choose whomever I wish to occypy MY property with me.

This civil rights suit is bogus and a sham.
Simply a person with an Anti- Christian axe to grind.

 

[frazzledgear]

No ******* or Jews wanted can not be used anymore but we still see many that want to go back to that.

Its never phrased that way but apparently you NEVER read the ads, do you? Or you would already know there are ads that say stuff like "single black male seeking similar to share living expenses" or "Single white Christian woman seeking similar of opposite sex for friendship" What the hell do you think that means? Or do you think government has a right to force a black man to live with a beer swilling redneck who subscribes to Mercenary Magazine and therefore create a very uncomfortable living arrangement for him? Or is it just white Christian people that government should force share a living space with people they don't want to live with?

Can people use religious and racial grounds when choosing a date or spouse? Your kidding right? Because they do ROUTINELY -and why not? After all its THEIR life. If you don't want to be married to someone of a different religion because you think it would cause problems for the marriage, do you think government should be able to FORCE you to marry that person anyway or what? If they can use these grounds to choose a mate, then they can use them to choose a ROOM MATE as well. ITS THEIR LIFE, not yours and not governments! Government cannot force someone to share living space with someone they don't want to live with and the fact it isn't a marriage partner and just a roommate sharing the same living space changes nothing.

If you believe government should be able to force this woman to live with someone she doesn't want to for ANY reason of her choosing, then what if someone considering to move in with this woman decides they don't want to live with HER -they don't want to live with a woman, they think her religious views are too rigid after all even though the same religion, or they don't want to live with a white person, a union member or because she has a cat and they hate cats? Shouldn't government be able to force THEM to move in with her anyway if it has the right to force that person on the woman opening her home to live with someone she doesn't want to live with? Why would it just be the person opening THEIR home and living space to someone else that government gets to force to take on an unwanted roommate? It isn't "illegal discrimination" to decide who you do and do not want to live with for ANY reason -unless you really do believe government has the greater right to force people into living arrangements and marriages they have decided would make them unhappy. And of course you would still give lip service to the pretense that people have the right to pursue happiness -but only "happiness" as defined by GOVERNMENT and not the individual, of course. Are you for real?

And seriously, why would YOU be willing to forfeit that kind of right and power of YOUR life to government of all things? Liberals place very little value on their own freedom and think that means no one else may be allowed to place any higher value on their own either. Liberals see people as the property of government and therefore with little right of self-determination except for inconsequential things -like whether to have rice or potatoes with dinner. (Except some are trying to BAN POTATOES in this country now. You know -those people who think they have the greater right to control your diet than you do.) The people who filed and support this lawsuit believe government owns this woman and her life and that means if the woman has decided to open her home and share HER living space with someone, SHE has no right to reject someone for any grounds THEY think are not legitimate. Whether this woman thinks they are legitimate or not. But when choosing to share LIVING SPACE, the people who end up in that living space have the right to decide those grounds for themselves. NOT a pack of busybody assholes with no life.

 

[Ravi]

No ******* or Jews wanted can not be used anymore but we still see many that want to go back to that.

Its never phrased that way but apparently you NEVER read the ads, do you? Or you would already know there are ads that say stuff like "single black male seeking similar to share living expenses" or "Single white Christian woman seeking similar of opposite sex for friendship" What the hell do you think that means? Or do you think government has a right to force a black man to live with a beer swilling redneck who subscribes to Mercenary Magazine and therefore create a very uncomfortable living arrangement for him? Or is it just white Christian people that government should force share a living space with people they don't want to live with?

Can people use religious and racial grounds when choosing a date or spouse? Your kidding right? Because they do ROUTINELY -and why not? After all its THEIR life. If you don't want to be married to someone of a different religion because you think it would cause problems for the marriage, do you think government should be able to FORCE you to marry that person anyway or what? If they can use these grounds to choose a mate, then they can use them to choose a ROOM MATE as well. ITS THEIR LIFE, not yours and not governments! Government cannot force someone to share living space with someone they don't want to live with and the fact it isn't a marriage partner and just a roommate sharing the same living space changes nothing.

If you believe government should be able to force this woman to live with someone she doesn't want to for ANY reason of her choosing, then what if someone considering to move in with this woman decides they don't want to live with HER -they don't want to live with a woman, they think her religious views are too rigid after all even though the same religion, or they don't want to live with a white person, a union member or because she has a cat and they hate cats? Shouldn't government be able to force THEM to move in with her anyway if it has the right to force that person on the woman opening her home to live with someone she doesn't want to live with? Why would it just be the person opening THEIR home and living space to someone else that government gets to force to take on an unwanted roommate? It isn't "illegal discrimination" to decide who you do and do not want to live with for ANY reason -unless you really do believe government has the greater right to force people into living arrangements and marriages they have decided would make them unhappy. And of course you would still give lip service to the pretense that people have the right to pursue happiness -but only "happiness" as defined by GOVERNMENT and not the individual, of course. Are you for real?

And seriously, why would YOU be willing to forfeit that kind of right and power of YOUR life to government of all things? Liberals place very little value on their own freedom and think that means no one else may be allowed to place any higher value on their own either. Liberals see people as the property of government and therefore with little right of self-determination except for inconsequential things -like whether to have rice or potatoes with dinner. (Except some are trying to BAN POTATOES in this country now. You know -those people who think they have the greater right to control your diet than you do.) The people who filed and support this lawsuit believe government owns this woman and her life and that means if the woman has decided to open her home and share HER living space with someone, SHE has no right to reject someone for any grounds THEY think are not legitimate. Whether this woman thinks they are legitimate or not. But when choosing to share LIVING SPACE, the people who end up in that living space have the right to decide those grounds for themselves. NOT a pack of busybody assholes with no life.

And you want the government to be able to force gay people to marry someone of the opposite sex if they wish to marry.

Hypocrite.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So if none of you think her ad was discriminatory, then all of you must agree that BET and the Congressional Black Caucus are not discriminatory either.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Wrong on all counts. She is a private citizen, choosing a roommate to share her home with her. BET is a cable television channel, broadcasting to the public for profit. The Congressional Black Caucus is an organization inside the federal government, which ostensibly operates for the benefits of all citizens and legal residents of the United States.

Oh, and the phrase is correctly "eat your cake and have it". The other way doesn't make sense. So you just didn't get a single thing right in this whole post.

 

[Ravi]

Typical right wing hypocrisy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

An Ad will narrow the field to some extent .
I not bitching ,Im exploring the depth of your victimology .

There is no victimology. The only point at which victims were created was when she used discriminatory language. If she didn't like the law, she should have written her congressman. This is just political grandstanding ultimately. I can't believe the seething ignorance of your lot that you would side with this idiocy...

I think most on here, and most in America would be wondering about your idiocy on this, Ozmar.

I'm pretty sure most on here have stopped reading Ozmar's posts entirely. I know I have. I've also noticed that every other liberal around here appears to have taken three big steps back from Ozmar, and he's now standing in a large circle of empty, shouting and frothing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's another one.

Another 2 seconds.

[link I'm not allowed to quote due to having less than 15 posts]

That's talking about landlords renting to tenants... I agree the standards are higher for that. We're talking about people seeking roomates.

Vanquish no habla ingles. He doesn't understand the difference between a landlord and a roommate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The state wouldnt be prosecuting it if there wasn't a violation in place. So yeah, not really settled

Yes, because state prosecutors are perfect, infallible beings, not humans with agendas who go nuts. Anyone who is ever prosecuted is, therefore, automatically guilty by virtue of the fact that they're being prosecuted.

What a twit you are.