News Is Seeking a Religious Roommate a Civil Rights Violation?

[drankin]

So a woman posts an ad on a church wall looking for a Christian roommate and gets slammed with a civil rights complaint.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/2...stian-roommate-advertisement/?test=latestnews

If an athiest posts an add looking for a non-religious roommate, would that person be infringing on the civil rights of the religious?

I think the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan is going to get egg on their face for this one.

 

[Evo]

So a woman posts an ad on a church wall looking for a Christian roommate and gets slammed with a civil rights complaint.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/2...stian-roommate-advertisement/?test=latestnews

If an athiest posts an add looking for a non-religious roommate, would that person be infringing on the civil rights of the religious?

I think the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan is going to get egg on their face for this one.

She's not renting a property to anyone, she's looking for a roommate. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. This is taking the intent of the law too far.

And it was on a church builletin board.

You most definitely should have a right to select who gets to live with you.

This has nothing to do with *christians*, she just happens to be a christian. So let's not even pretend that this is a law against christians. The law is

the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.

A rental property and a roommate are not the same thing.

 

[Hepth]

Why doesn't fox report the entire ad rather than a single select section of one sentence?
Unless by <<"The ad included the words, "Christian roommate wanted," along with the woman's contact information. ">> They mean that this is the entire message.

I looked around at a bunch of news sources and no one wants to post the entire ad, just the "I am looking for a Christian roommate" section.

If the ad was like "I have a house that I am currently renting and my previous roommate left, and now I am looking for a Christian roommate.." Then yes, that's illegal right? You can't ADVERTISE the discrimination, but you can discriminate at-will.

I don't see the problem. Its a violation of the law to advertise discrimination when renting.

Again, this is assuming the condition that she had the rental property, or already had the room which would have been sublet to the new roomate. If it was a "I'm looking for someone to together find a place and rent it together that's Christian" Then I don't see that as illegal.

 

[Hepth]

You most definitely should have a right to select who gets to live with you.

I thought the point of that law was that you HAVE the right discriminate, but you don't have a right to advertise the discrimination.

 

[drankin]

Why doesn't fox report the entire ad rather than a single select section of one sentence?
Unless by <<"The ad included the words, "Christian roommate wanted," along with the woman's contact information. ">> They mean that this is the entire message.

I looked around at a bunch of news sources and no one wants to post the entire ad, just the "I am looking for a Christian roommate" section.

If the ad was like "I have a house that I am currently renting and my previous roommate left, and now I am looking for a Christian roommate.." Then yes, that's illegal right? You can't ADVERTISE the discrimination, but you can discriminate at-will.

I don't see the problem.

Of course, FN over-dramatizes their articles in an effort to create more news than there actually is. I take most of it with a grain of salt. At least I know what I'm getting with FN.

But, should it be illegal to advertise that you want a Christian roommate? Or an non-religious roommate for that matter? Shouldn't one be able to advertise exactly what they are looking for in someone they will be living with?

 

[Evo]

I thought the point of that law was that you HAVE the right discriminate, but you don't have a right to advertise the discrimination.

Yes, it's *advertise*. But is a note tacked to your church's bulletin board advertising? Did she specifically say that the person would have to pay her rent?

If it was a "I'm looking for someone to together find a place and rent it together that's Christian" Then I don't see that as illegal.

That's no different.

What about saying that I want a roommate but won't consider a PETA member? That's as much of a religion than anything I can think of.

 

[Al68]

I don't see the problem. Its a violation of the law to advertise discrimination when renting.

Again, this is assuming the condition that she had the rental property, or already had the room which would have been sublet to the new roomate. If it was a "I'm looking for someone to together find a place and rent it together that's Christian" Then I don't see that as illegal.

Either way, there simple is no "dwelling for rent" in this case. A bedroom is not a dwelling. The right to share a bathroom is not a dwelling. This ad was simply not an offer to rent a dwelling.

The only problem I see here are power hungry bureaucrats in desperate need of wedgies.

 

[Al68]

What about saying that I want a roommate but won't consider a PETA member? That's as much of a religion than anything I can think of.

Hey, how is that a religion? I'm a Person for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It sounds like the problem is with the wording of the law. An exemption is made for people of the opposite sex sharing space, which suggests that a rented room counts as a dwelling, but no general exemption is allowed for the same conditions.

 

[Evo]

So sexual descrimination is allowed, it's perfectly fine for someone to refuse to rent to a homosexual. Unless homosexuals start a church, then they are protected. This is so wrong. I become more opposed to the misuse and abuse of "Freedom of Religion" every day. Freedom of Religion should be restricted to the right of an individual to practice that religion, period, that's all. And I really don't think it should be covered in the Constitution anymore, there is no need now, it's obsolete, A person's choice of religion doesn't need any more protection than my choosing which shoes to wear. Renting a house has nothing to do with them practicing their religion. Religion is chosen, it's not like a person's race, you can't choose your race.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So sexual descrimination is allowed, it's perfectly fine for someone to refuse to rent to a homosexual. Unless homosexuals start a church, then they are protected. This is so wrong. I become more opposed to the misuse and abuse of "Freedom of Religion" every day. Freedom of Religion should be restricted to the right of an individual to practice that religion, period, that's all. And I really don't think it should be covered in the Constitution anymore, there is no need now, it's obsolete, A person's choice of religion doesn't need any more protection than my choosing which shoes to wear. Renting a house has nothing to do with them practicing their religion. Religion is chosen, it's not like a person's race, you can't choose your race.

It seems to me that anyone looking for a roommate should be able to list any preferences desired. They just need to generally exempt advertisements for roommates from the anti-descrimination law.

 

[Al68]

Freedom of Religion should be restricted to the right of an individual to practice that religion, period, that's all. And I really don't think it should be covered in the Constitution anymore, there is no need now, it's obsolete, A person's choice of religion doesn't need any more protection than my choosing which shoes to wear. Renting a house has nothing to do with them practicing their religion.

This seems more like a freedom of speech issue than freedom of religion, since no one is being deprived of their right to practice their religion, and there is no separation of church and state issue at all.

The supposed "wrongful act" is speech, so the issue is whether this particular type of speech should be prohibited and punished. Is stating a preference for a roommate equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The supposed "wrongful act" is speech, so the issue is whether this particular type of speech should be prohibited and punished. Is stating a preference for a roommate equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater?

It is an issue of a roommate being equivalent to a renter. Why in the world would you relate this to the fire example when this is clearly about anti-discrimination laws?

My impulse is to say that when it comes to sharing a personal living space, privacy rights trump the anti-discrimination law.

 

[Al68]

It is an issue of a roommate being equivalent to a renter. Why in the world would you relate this to the fire example when this is clearly about anti-discrimination laws?

Uh, because the "anti-discrimination" law in question prohibits speech.

 

[Evo]

Uh, because the "anti-discrimination" law in question prohibits speech.

Free speech doesn't apply to things that are illegal. You can't solicit sex with minors, you can't offer your body parts for sale, you can't offer sex for money, soliciting murder for hire, etc...

 

[Al68]

Free speech doesn't apply to things that are illegal. You can't solicit sex with minors, you can't offer your body parts for sale, you can't offer sex for money, soliciting murder for hire, etc...

It was my understanding that it was not illegal to actually decline a roommate based on their religion. Is that not correct?

Having (and exercising) the roommate preference is perfectly legal, but stating it is illegal.

Obviously offering to buy or sell an illegal service is itself illegal, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

[Jack21222]

The law mandates providing false hope to people, that's all. I'm an owner-occupant renting out my basement to some roommates. At one point, they were going to move out, so I was advertising on craigslist to get a new one.

I would NOT have accepted a religious fundamentalist in my house living with me, but I wasn't allowed to advertise that. If I had gotten interest from one, I would have had to say no.

It seems to me this harms the applicant more than helps them. It would have saved this hypothetical zealot time and energy if I was able to post "no religious nuts" in my ad.

(before anyone asks, owner-occupants have more rights in accepting or declining a tenant than a more traditional landlord. If I moved out, I couldn't discriminate based on anything protected. As long as I live here, I get to choose who I live with)

 

[Evo]

It was my understanding that it was not illegal to actually decline a roommate based on their religion. Is that not correct?

It's advertising as was stated earlier, which makes your post about free speech make even less sense.

Obviously offering to buy or sell an illegal service is itself illegal, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

That is the case. She "advertised" for a roommate, so they claim. Have you read any posts? Or did you forget what you posted about "free speech"?

 

[Al68]

The law mandates providing false hope to people, that's all. I'm an owner-occupant renting out my basement to some roommates. At one point, they were going to move out, so I was advertising on craigslist to get a new one.

I would NOT have accepted a religious fundamentalist in my house living with me, but I wasn't allowed to advertise that. If I had gotten interest from one, I would have had to say no.

It seems to me this harms the applicant more than helps them. It would have saved this hypothetical zealot time and energy if I was able to post "no religious nuts" in my ad.

(before anyone asks, owner-occupants have more rights in accepting or declining a tenant than a more traditional landlord. If I moved out, I couldn't discriminate based on anything protected. As long as I live here, I get to choose who I live with)

I agree. Like I mentioned before, this is a free speech issue. It's perfectly legal for you to have and exercise your preference, but it's illegal to advertise it.

 

[Evo]

I agree. Like I mentioned before, this is a free speech issue. It's perfectly legal for you to have and exercise your preference, but it's illegal to advertise it.

No, it's not free speech. I pointed that out earlier. Don't degrade the thread with nonsense.

 

[Al68]

It was my understanding that it was not illegal to actually decline a roommate based on their religion. Is that not correct?

It's advertising as was stated earlier, which makes your post about free speech make even less sense.

I don't understand what you mean here. You correctly pointed out that advertising an illegal service was not protected speech and I pointed out that the actions advertised were not illegal. Only the speech itself is prohibited by this law.

Obviously offering to buy or sell an illegal service is itself illegal, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

That is the case. She "advertised" for a roommate, so they claim. Have you read any posts? Or did you forget what you posted about "free speech"?

Having a roommate is an illegal service? What are you talking about?

 

[Proton Soup]

I don't understand what you mean here. You correctly pointed out that advertising an illegal service was not protected speech and I pointed out that the actions advertised were not illegal. Only the speech itself is prohibited by the law.Having a roommate is an illegal service? What are you talking about?

you've got two different actions here. one is the act of putting your requirements in the ad. the other action is actually choosing the roommate based on your preferences. one of those actions you can do, the other you can't. that is the difference.

 

[Jasongreat]

This is the most absurd complaint ever,imo, if buisinesses have the right to refuse sevice to anybody(atleast that's what the signs say), I would think somebody could choose who they want as a roommate. I routinely get turned down for rentals just because of being a single male(who wants the chance of parties every night in their rental property), and I see adds all the time asking for only female roomates. Private property is private property imo, choose who you want for any reason you want. She probably would have had better luck if she would of just listed the things she wanted, like non-smoker, non-drinker, or what ever instead of putting a certain religion in there, but she did list it in a church and not in a public place such as a city building. IMO government has no rights to dictate private interaction in private settings.

 

[BobG]

How does this affect dating web sites?

I take it I could word my profile so incompatible people would realize we're not going to get along - but I couldn't say people of a certain race or religion need not reply?

I think choosing a roommate kind of follows along the same line. This isn't the same as a person renting their own personal living space. This is an ad looking for a partner in renting out a shared living space.

 

[JaredJames]

This is ridiculous. As a student who has seen plenty of ads (granted in the UK) for rooms for rent, I have seen on numerous occasions people putting "female only / male only" or "smoker / non-smoker" or "single / couple". All of which discriminate, but, as it is a private room in someones house I don't see a problem. This is what they want in a person to live with them. It is their choice and the websites that allow you to advertise even have these as fixed options.
Even so far as renting an entire house / flat to people, I think it's the right of the owner to decide who lives there, even if it is advertised (so long as you don't go extreme in the ads).

I do see an irony though, I see ads which are pretty specific (female, non-smoker, single) and that appears to be acceptable (at least in the UK) and yet if the police were to target only people matching that description (for random knife checks for example - assuming that was the group of people most likely to be carrying them), that would be seen as discrimination.

 

[Pinu7]

I would NOT have accepted a religious fundamentalist in my house living with me, but I wasn't allowed to advertise that. If I had gotten interest from one, I would have had to say no.

There must be something wrong with you if you cannot live with someone who has different religious beliefs. When you meet your roommate candidate and he does turn out to be fundamentalist, just ask him to not try to "convert" you.

 

[JaredJames]

There must be something wrong with you if you cannot live with someone who has different religious beliefs. When you meet your roommate candidate and he does turn out to be fundamentalist, just ask him to not try to "convert" you.

You do know what fundamentalists are don't you?

They don't accept anyone elses veiws, at all. So to say he has a problem with not wanting to live with someone like that is just silly.

To live with someone with a different veiwpoint to your own is one thing, but to live with someone who firmly believes you are completely wrong in your beliefs and theirs are definitely right is a separate issue.

 

[Hepth]

This is the most absurd complaint ever,imo, if buisinesses have the right to refuse sevice to anybody(atleast that's what the signs say), I would think somebody could choose who they want as a roommate.

PLEASE read the story man, you're making the same mistake a LOT of people, both here and on other forums + the grand rapids news site's comments sections are making.

This is NOT an issue of whether one can discriminate when choosing a roommate or renter, PLEASE don't make it into that. Its about the advertisement of discrimination against "religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling." NOT male/smoking/gay/etc.

Its specific.

 

[Astronuc]

She's not renting a property to anyone, she's looking for a roommate. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. This is taking the intent of the law too far.

And it was on a church builletin board.

You most definitely should have a right to select who gets to live with you.

This has nothing to do with *christians*, she just happens to be a christian. So let's not even pretend that this is a law against christians. The law is

the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.

A rental property and a roommate are not the same thing.

Yes - and this is where the Fair Housing Authority is wrong, and over-stepped the bounds.

They seem to interpret the offer for a roommate as a commercial transaction with any member of the general public. If the offer was for someone to rent a room or apartment owned by the woman, that would be a strictly commercial transaction in the marketplace, and one is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, . . . .

However, as Evo inidcated this is about getting a roommate, i.e. sharing one's personal space, not a commercial transaction. Everyone discriminates on the basis of personal taste, comfort, preference, . . . .

 

[JaredJames]

PLEASE read the story man, you're making the same mistake a LOT of people, both here and on other forums + the grand rapids news site's comments sections are making.

This is NOT an issue of whether one can discriminate when choosing a roommate or renter, PLEASE don't make it into that. Its about the advertisement of discrimination against "religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling." NOT male/smoking/gay/etc.

Its specific.

Ah so discrimination has boundaries. The fact the housing act has these quotes shouldn't make a difference, one could easily argue that those ("male/smoking/gay/etc") that don't fall into the categories listed in the act are being discriminated against (perhaps by the act itself).

It appears the act says you can't advertise you want a Christian, but I can advertise I don't want someone who's gay. Now that to me is a bigger issue.

I do firmly believe a person should be allowed to advertise exactly what their requirements are when it comes to private property. But I don't like the idea that there is a distinction made between what discrimination is and isn't acceptable. Either allow people to post what they want (within reason) or blanket ban it.

As a side, would this act cover the following type of advertisement wording:
"3rd floor flat, 3 bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom, not suitable for disabled persons"?

This is clearly specifying a specific handicap that should not apply and yet it is, after all, a necessary fact.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just to be clear, one cannot discriminate in their choice of renters either. It isn't just the advertisement. Landlords who discriminate on the basis of race etc can be and are held accountable.

 

[JaredJames]

Just to be clear, one cannot discriminate in their choice of renters either. It isn't just the advertisement. Landlords who discriminate on the basis of race etc can be and are held accountable.

In a business transaction I can understand and accept that (although don't agree personally).

In a private situation, I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone to specify what they want in a person renting a room.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In a business transaction I can understand and accept that (although don't agree personally).

In a private situation, I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone to specify what they want in a person renting a room.

For a shared living space, I agree. I was just making the point that here in the US, the law applies both to advertisements and practices. Someone earlier was saying that he is free to discriminate in his choice of renters. While in practice this may be true for roommates, it isn't true for renting generally, and it may not even be legal in the case of roommates [which again, I think is an invasion of privacy].

 

[BobG]

PLEASE read the story man, you're making the same mistake a LOT of people, both here and on other forums + the grand rapids news site's comments sections are making.

This is NOT an issue of whether one can discriminate when choosing a roommate or renter, PLEASE don't make it into that. Its about the advertisement of discrimination against "religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling." NOT male/smoking/gay/etc.

Its specific.

Why is it against the law?

The law against advertising discrimination is part of the Fair Housing Act. The intent of the Fair Housing Act isn't to regulate advertising - it's to prevent discimination in the sale or rental of housing.

The justification for regulating advertisements is that you can't advertise illegal activity.

If there is an exception to the Fair Housing Act (which there is), then the exception should logically apply to advertisements, as well.

And, specifically, the Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to "Advertise or make any statement that indicates a limitation or preference based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or handicap. This prohibition against discriminatory advertising applies to single-family and owner-occupied housing that is otherwise exempt from the Fair Housing Act."

http://www.fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pagename=FHA_3604

(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

http://www.fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pagename=FHA_3603

(b) Exemptions
Nothing in section 3604 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to -

(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at anyone time: Provided further, That in the case of the sale of any such single-family house by a private individual owner not residing in such house at the time of such sale or who was not the most recent resident of such house prior to such sale, the exemption granted by this subsection shall apply only with respect to one such sale within any twenty-four month period: Provided further, That such bona fide private individual owner does not own any interest in, nor is there owned or reserved on his behalf, under any express or voluntary agreement, title to or any right to all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale or rental of, more than three such single-family houses at anyone time: Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-family house shall be excepted from the application of this subchapter only if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 3604(c) of this title; but nothing in this proviso shall prohibit the use of attorneys, escrow agents, abstractors, title companies, and other such professional assistance as necessary to perfect or transfer the title, or

(2) rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence.

Emphasis mine.

Why in the world is it illegal to advertise a legal activity? And I'd also note that advertising a preference for a male or a female resident is also illegal. The exemption for sex is in the same paragraph that's specifically excluded from exemption for advertising.

 

[JaredJames]

And I'd also note that advertising a preference for a male or a female resident is also illegal. The exemption for sex is in the same paragraph that's specifically excluded from exemption for advertising.

Thank you, I took it from a previous quote it only applied to the three listed (as per my previous post).

I also note it clearly states where it does and does not apply.

 

[Evo]

I looked up the "fair housing act" and it's utterly ridiculous. They state that in the case of a roommate, you can freely discriminate, you just can't put it in writing.

For example, you can't say "property has no wheelchair access", the poor handicapped person has to go out to your house to find out the place wouldn't work out.

It's also illegal to state things like "perfect for single or couple", "nice, quiet neighborhood".

We live in a sick world, IMO.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA#examples

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I looked up the "fair housing act" and it's utterly ridiculous. They state that in the case of a roommate, you can freely discriminate, you just can't put it in writing.

Huh, sure enough. That IS nuts.

I would like to know the basis for that law. This is the sort of thing that once made me a Republican.

 

[BobG]

And, considering the issue is banning the advertisement of a legal activity, then this actually is a free speech issue.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And, considering the issue is banning the advertisement of a legal activity, then this actually is a free speech issue.

Free speech generally means freedom of expression. This is not an issue of expressed ideas being protected.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I bet I know the basis for the law: It would be impossible to enforce the law if someone had to check on the actual dwelling for each advertisement. It is a practical solution needed to protect the rights of renters generally and to avoid abuses that would be a nightmare to verify in each and every case.

 

[JaredJames]

For example, you can't say "property has no wheelchair access", the poor handicapped person has to go out to your house to find out the place wouldn't work out.

It's also illegal to state things like "perfect for single or couple", "nice, quiet neighborhood".

http://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA#examples

Virtually every ad I've seen for roommates has violated at least one of these. Then again, I'm in the UK and from what I can tell (looking it up now) as long as you don't take things too far they don't care what you advertise.

 

[Evo]

And, considering the issue is banning the advertisement of a legal activity, then this actually is a free speech issue.

I'd have to disagree, you can illegally advertise a legal product and it's not protected under free speech. Stating a preference is an illegal advertisement in this case.

I'll admit it's a really dumb law.

Ivan is right (above). He posted while I was posting.

 

[JaredJames]

It would appear, that in the UK other laws cover the various issues regarding discrimination for landlords. I haven't found anything specific on house sharing though.

http://www.accommodationseek.co.uk/responsibilities-landlords-tenants.html

Landlords and tenants each have certain rights and responsibilities when they enter into an agreement about the letting of a rental property. Most of these rights and responsibilities are enumerated in the rental agreement form that each party signs, landlord tenant law and laws related to equality such as The Disability Discrimination Act, The Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. If you are considering becoming involved with a rental property, either as a landlord or tenant, make sure that you fully investigate your responsibilities before you make any firm decisions.

 

[BobG]

Free speech generally means freedom of expression. This is not an issue of expressed ideas being protected.

It's commercial speech, which has less protection than political speech, but has limited protection, none the less:

CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. v. PUBLIC SERV. COMM'N

(a) Although the Constitution accords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed expression, nevertheless the First Amendment protects commercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulation. For commercial speech to come within the First Amendment, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, it must be determined whether the asserted governmental interest to be served by the restriction on commercial speech is substantial. If both inquires yield positive answers, it must then be decided whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.

Or, more succintly:
1.Is the expression protected by the First Amendment? For speech to come within that provision it must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.
2.Is the asserted governmental interest substantial?
3.Does the regulation directly advance the governmental interest asserted?
4.Is the regulation more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest?

The first test is clearly passed.

The second test is debatable? Does the government have a substantial interest in who you choose for a roommate?

It's legitimate to ban certain advertisements if the ban advances a substantial government interest - preventing large amounts of the population from suffering the diseases associated with smoking, for example. There may be a lot of debate about whether the government should be interested in the personal health of individual citizens, but it's a legitimate restriction if the government wins its debate.

To say making the advertisement about roommates illegal is to suggest that the government has a significant interest when it comes to making choices about who people share their living space with. I think that's a lot tougher test to pass than interests about the health of the general population.

In other words, the dumbness of the law is an indication that the restriction of the advertising is unconstitutional. The wisdom of the law is an indication that the restriction of the advertising is constitutional.

It's a free speech issue regardless of which way the issue is decided.

 

[Evo]

The test is 4 part and these are the 4 tests.

In 1980 the Court established a formal test for determining whether restrictions on commercial speech are constitutionally permissible–now familiar in the courts as the Central Hudson test. The Court defined commercial speech as "expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience," and ruled that government may ban "forms of communication more likely to deceive the public than to inform it, or commercial speech related to illegal activity." To regulate commercial speech that is neither misleading nor unlawful, the Court established a four-part test: 1) the State has to assert a "substantial interest" to be achieved in regulating the speech; 2) the regulation must be in proportion to that interest; 3) the regulation must directly advance the State interest; 4) the regulation must be the most limited means available to achieving the State’s interest.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/17/freespeech.html

Edit: The test was updated in 1989

The "Central Hudson"Test
This frequently invoked test for analyzing commercial speech regulations has recently been criticized by several justices. At present, only four justices seem committed to using the test.
Regulations affecting commercial speech do not violate the First Amendment if:
1. The regulated speech concerns an illegal activity,
2. The speech is misleading, or
3. The government's interest in restricting the speech is substantial, the regulation in question directly advances the government's interest, and
4. The regulation is narrowly tailored* to serve the government's interest.

*The original Central Hudson test required that the government prove the regulation was no more restrictive of speech than necessary to serve its interest, but in a 1989 case the Court modified the test slightly to the form above.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commercial.htm

and here is how they get away with it

the Fair Housing Act is authorized by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, in which Congress is given the power to pass laws ensuring that the federal and state governments do not deny any person the equal protection of the laws.

That's got to be a typo, it probably should be section 5 of the 14th amendment.

http://www.answers.com/topic/fair-housing-act-of-1968

 

[Newai]

The dwelling is already rented. After that, the tenant is free to live there pretty much how he/she pleases. She can invite anyone over she wants, and kick them out for any reason, or no reason, discriminating any which way she chooses. She's not running a business; she's inviting a social partner to live with her, to help with rent or not.

 

[JaredJames]

The dwelling is already rented. After that, the tenant is free to live there pretty much how he/she pleases. She can invite anyone over she wants, and kick them out for any reason, or no reason, discriminating any which way she chooses. She's not running a business; she's inviting a social partner to live with her, to help with rent or not.

I find this a tricky definition. How would you apply this to a private home, that has no mortgage (let's take it that it's been paid off) and you rent out your spare rooms (perhaps to help with paying household bills or just for a bit of extra cash)?

Although your definition applies, they are gaining income from such an affair and so it is in a basic sense, a business. Although I'm not sure how the laws apply to said situation. I don't know if it is classed as a business, although I know in the UK you would have to declare the income from it for tax purposes. So again, I'm not sure exactly how the law would apply here. If a contract is signed you are covered by the landlord/tennant laws, if one isn't I'm not sure what happens.

In the states, are there specific laws for landlords/tennants as per the UK?

 

[Evo]

In the states, are there specific laws for landlords/tennants as per the UK?

Yes.

Decision-making: Although the prohibition on discriminatory advertising applies to roommate and shared housing situations, federal Fair Housing laws do not cover the basis of decisions made by landowners who own less than four units, and live in one of the units. This means that in a situation in which a landlord owns less than four rental units, and lives in one of the units, it is legal for the owner to discriminate in the selection process based on the aforementioned categories, but it is illegal for that owner to advertise or otherwise make a statement expressing that discriminatory preference.

Under federal Fair Housing law, the prohibition on discriminatory advertisements applies to all situations except the following:

Shared Housing Exemption -- If you are advertising a shared housing unit, in which tenants will be sharing a bathroom, kitchen, or other common area, you may express a preference based upon sex only.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA#roommates

 

[JaredJames]

but it is illegal for that owner to advertise or otherwise make a statement expressing that discriminatory preference.

This law just doesn't make sense to me. It wasn't long ago people were arguing that the WBC had the right to walk around with banners discriminating against homosexuals and yet now it is illegal to advertise or state something as simple as the type of person you want to live in your property.

 

[Evo]

This law just doesn't make sense to me. It wasn't long ago people were arguing that the WBC had the right to walk around with banners discriminating against homosexuals and yet now it is illegal to advertise or state something as simple as the type of person you want to live in your property.

It all stems from the Civil Rights movement, it was originally Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. People went a bit overboard it seems.