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

[Capitalist]

This kind of stupidity is what government seems to do so well! A bunch of stupid shit enforced by stupid people.

If this gal wants a "christian" roommate she is going to get one and their is nothing anyone can (or should) do about it.

I can sell or rent my car to anyone and deny blacks and Muslims, whatever.
Housing is different.
I own my home and it is my property but I can not deny a black or Jew from buying it.
This is old news.

Makes me wonder if denying one mans rights, (property rights), to secure another mans rights (hurt feelings), actually works. Maybe both mens rights are in jeopardy or lost under that system.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation.

 

[manifold]

I own my home and it is my property but I can not deny a black or Jew from buying it.

Sure you can.

 

[Yurt]

Typical right wing hypocrisy.

so you're ok with moms marry their sons, assuming son is of the age of consent....

 

[manifold]

This has nothing to do with PCness. It's protection against discrimination. Period.

Still waiting for you to explain exactly who needs protection from a woman looking to room with someone of the same religion. Preferably without all the hyperbolic fail this time.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Whatever happened to Freedom of Association?

Those words don't appear anywhere in the Constitution, so just like separation of church and state, it must be a fallacy.

Umm yeah it does....CRS/LII Annotated Constitution First Amendment......
It's rather long....so use this link...click on first amendment , then "annotations"...
in any event we do indeed have a constitutional right to association....
BTW, no hair splitting.....a group can be any number of more than one person

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

See this just goes to show how retarded you are. At no point does this force her to live with someone she doesn't want to live with. It just says that she can't advertise to specifically exclude people who don't share her faith.

“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.”

The only people bitching about this are little bitches. The woman was evidently willfully ignorant of what entailed her making an advertisement of this sort.

Bullshit. She'll get prosecuted or sued if it can be proved to a judge she did not rent on the basis of religion.

And you don't really have a problem with that, do you?

ozmar is a little bitch's bitch.

 

[Dis]

Man, are y'all some whiny ass bitches.

Heaven forbid someone clearly state what they do, or do not want, and the rest of the fucking world just deal with it.

 

[manifold]

Whatever happened to Freedom of Association?

Those words don't appear anywhere in the Constitution, so just like separation of church and state, it must be a fallacy.

Umm yeah it does....CRS/LII Annotated Constitution First Amendment......
It's rather long....so use this link...click on first amendment , then "annotations"...
in any event we do indeed have a constitutional right to association....
BTW, no hair splitting.....a group can be any number of more than one person

umm, no it doesn't.

But just like separation of church and state, the concept is supported by what does appear in the Constitution.

In case you missed it, my comment was just a sarcastic dig at the many nitwits that have spent the better part of two days defending some ignoramus, teabagging witch running for Senate.

 

[Care4all]

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.

great info! thanks!!!

 

[Charles_Main]

Those words don't appear anywhere in the Constitution, so just like separation of church and state, it must be a fallacy.

Separation of Church and state is not a Fallacy. Only the extreme interpretation that leads to crap like a Cross being taken down off of state land is. That is an interpretation of the constitution that is not based on anything in the constitution at all.


Constitutional Separation of church and state is limited to two things. The fact that the congress can not make a law restricting anyone's right to worship as they please, and the fact that Congress shall make no law regarding the Establishment of Religion. A lucid non partisan interpretation of those 2 things should not lead one to believe that it means there can not be any religious symbols ever on any state or Federal Land. That is an Extreme and inaccurate Interpretation of the document.

So despite what you, or Liberals may think. When the founders wrote the constitution. They were worried about only 2 things. Not having a government that restricts anyone's right to worship what ever and how ever they wanted, and Not having a government that could establish an official State Religion. They had no problem with things like a cross on federal Land, or the 10 commandments on the wall in the supreme court. In fact such symbols could be found all over state and Federal Land until just a few Decades ago.

The idea that any Religious symbol on state or Federal land somehow Violates either of those rules is a relatively new, and radical idea. People who hold that view are taking separation to the extreme.

 

[R.C. Christian]

One of the things that few people, even run of the mill gays don't understand, is that the eventual goal of gay marriage is legal status between multiple persons, pets, inanimate objects, etc. Now, that is not to say that I believe for 1 second that average gay couples seek that goal, rather, I'm simply stating that this is the goal of some of their leadership as they have stated in the past.

 

[Charles_Main]

Typical right wing hypocrisy.

You sure you want to go down this road? Or are you ok with Sister and Brother Marriages. After all they should be able to Marry who ever they want right?

 

[blu]

Typical right wing hypocrisy.

so you're ok with moms marry their sons, assuming son is of the age of consent....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/113167-should-incest-be-legal.html

 

[Care4all]

the whole suit should be thrown out imho, especially since it was a room mate that she was looking for to rent/share her space.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Good Lord! Sometimes I think I'll never see anything more lunatic than what I'm then looking at ... then it happens: An even more lunatic issue.

Hell, if I wanted a roommate who is male, and advertised such preference, would that mean I'm discriminating against women? If a lesbian came to my door to fill a roommate request in an ad, would I get sued for discrimination?

Holy mackerel!

It is exactly what the nitwits would do.

 

[Charles_Main]

The fact is as a conservative and a constitutionalists. My only problem with Gay Marriage comes from a constitutional Direction.

I would support any State who wants to make gay marriage legal, I do not support the Federal Government forcing all States to do it as I see that as yet another over stepping of the Federal Governments intended powers, and No matter how Nobel the Intentions every time we allow the Fed to grab Power not given to them by the Constitution. The constitution become less and less binding and powerful. IMO.

 

[Charles_Main]

Good Lord! Sometimes I think I'll never see anything more lunatic than what I'm then looking at ... then it happens: An even more lunatic issue.

Hell, if I wanted a roommate who is male, and advertised such preference, would that mean I'm discriminating against women? If a lesbian came to my door to fill a roommate request in an ad, would I get sued for discrimination?

Holy mackerel!

It is exactly what the nitwits would do.

That is the precedent this Suit will set if she loses.

 

[Ozmar]

There is already judicial precedence, which is why the dumb **** is being sued to begin with.

 

[Charles_Main]

There is already judicial precedence, which is why the dumb **** is being sued to begin with.

Then how do you explain the Thousands of ads that appear every day. Which do the same thing, only not with religion but with Sex? Open up your newspaper and check. I bet you find an ad where someone says, Woman seeking Female Roommate or visa Verse.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Typical right wing hypocrisy.

Right wing is more bible beleiving which God says marriage is between man and woman, anything else is an abomination. So it is not hypocrisy, it is the truth. Do not like it, too bad, get right in the head.