News Is Seeking a Religious Roommate a Civil Rights Violation?

[JaredJames]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/income

1. The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.
1. (Economics) the amount of monetary or other returns, either earned or unearned, accruing over a given period of time
2. (Business / Commerce) receipts; revenue

Now, let's not play dumb here. Any money she receives, is income.

If she is allowing someone the use of a room in exchange for money, then yes, she can sue if they don't pay. This has nothing to do with the landlord if the original lease is between the landlord and the woman. The lodger has no tie to the landlord and does not pay them any money. As you said yourself:

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.

Nothing to do with the landlord.

Why doesn't she get a cent of it? If she chooses to use it to lower the rent then so be it, otherwise she does with it as she pleases. The only time your above scenario, where the money paid in exchange for the room, is specifically for rent to the landlord is if they are on the original lease for the place from the landlord.

 

[Al68]

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

Freedom of speech is not limited to "expressed ideas". No such distinction is contained in the first amendment.

And according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: this right includes freedom to...seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

 

[Al68]

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.

That's exactly what makes this a free speech issue: the fact that the speech in question is illegal despite the fact that it is unrelated to any illegal activity.

 

[mugaliens]

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.

Agreed. What's next? Will we no longer be able to choose our spouses based on similar religious beliefs or the lack thereof simply because getting married usually involves moving in together? How about choosing a roommate based on their sex?

It is against the law to give preference to race, creed, and sex when you're renting out an entire unit (apartment, condo, or house), but the law actually protects one's right to choose a roommate based on whatever criteria one wants.

 

[Galteeth]

People slammed Rand Paul for objecting to a certain part of the Civil Rights Act. It is exactly this extension of that principle that forms the rational basis for the libertarian objection.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm just amazed at the idiocy of the *advertisement* law. Doesn't this law prohibit basic disclosure? Truth in advertising? What benefit does it give the prospective renter to run all over town looking at places they have no chance of getting? It does absolutely nothing to prevent discrimination. What is the point?

It isn't just this. I remember when my girlfriend and I were moving in together and getting a larger apartment, we went around and tried to ask whether there were a lot of young kids in the complex, to avoid the noise, and the leasing officers told us the FHA prevented them from revealing any demographic information about the renters. Apparently you're not even legally entitled to know who your neighbors are because that might allow you to discriminate in where you choose to live.

 

[Al68]

Apparently you're not even legally entitled to know who your neighbors are because that might allow you to discriminate in where you choose to live.

And just to beat a (dead?) horse a little more, you can discriminate all you want in this case. The disclosure of information is what is being outlawed by government.

 

[loseyourname]

My point being the law does not only prevent disclosure of intent to discriminate, but also disclosure of information that could be used by potential buyers or renters to discriminate. Interestingly, where I live right now, the leasing officers told us the renters were primarily military and especially German military. I wonder if it was actually legal for them to tell me that. I didn't ask.

 

[BobG]

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



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

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.

Edit: The test was updated in 1989



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

and here is how they get away with it 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

So do restrictions on advertising for a roommate meet the Central Hudson test?

1. It is legal to discriminate when choosing a roommate, so the first test doesn't apply.

2. The advertisement was posted in a Christian church and requested a Christian roommate. The ad doesn't appear misleading on the surface, but there's not enough info to know if the ad is misleading or not. It could have been posted by three atheists hoping to lure a Christian roommate into their house so they could convert him/her to atheism. Assuming the woman was a Christian hoping to share an apartment with a fellow Christian, the ad probably isn't misleading.

3. Does restricting the speech serve the government's interest? In other words, by restricting the wording of advertisements, it could make it more difficult (and therefore less likely) for a person to discriminate when choosing a roommate. Is it in the public interest for people to share their living space with a more diverse crowd?

In a way, this is comparable to roommate assignments in a college dorm. Pairing of roommates in college dorms is done using a wide variety of methods, ranging from random assignments to filling out a questionaire to improve the chances of compatibility. Questions asked on questionaires list such things as whether the person is smoker/non-smoker, morning person/night person, neat person/unhygeinic slob, etc. No college discriminates by race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. Just about all colleges discriminate by gender when assigning roommates. Diversity in assigning roommates is seen as a positive at colleges.

Is diversity in finding a roommate/housemate in the normal world a positive attribute that the government should encourage? Will the advertising restrictions actually increase diversity in choosing roommates/housemates among the general public?

 

[Proton Soup]

It isn't just this. I remember when my girlfriend and I were moving in together and getting a larger apartment, we went around and tried to ask whether there were a lot of young kids in the complex, to avoid the noise, and the leasing officers told us the FHA prevented them from revealing any demographic information about the renters. Apparently you're not even legally entitled to know who your neighbors are because that might allow you to discriminate in where you choose to live.

is there an exception for "retirement communities"? because i was under the impression that they are pretty open about their discrimination.

 

[drankin]

is there an exception for "retirement communities"? because i was under the impression that they are pretty open about their discrimination.

LOL, this is where politicians don't want to dictate to salty old WWII or Korean War vets as to who they can have living with them or even around them. In the US, the older you are the more rights you have, because they're ornery and they earned it!

 

[Al68]

The test is 4 part and these are the 4 tests...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 first amendment contains no language that could possibly be construed to mean "unless the government has a substantial interest", and the fact that governments historically often do have a substantial interest in restricting speech is the very reason why the prohibition on restricting it is in the first amendment.

Those 4 justices are simply corrupt, like many others before them.

The first amendment was not intended to prohibit government from restricting the kinds of speech it has no substantial interest in restricting, anyway. Is that not obvious?

 

[Galteeth]

is there an exception for "retirement communities"? because i was under the impression that they are pretty open about their discrimination.

The law is fine with discriminating based on age. It even mandates it in many cases.

 

[loseyourname]

The first amendment contains no language that could possibly be construed to mean "unless the government has a substantial interest", and the fact that governments historically often do have a substantial interest in restricting speech is the very reason why the prohibition on restricting it is in the first amendment.

I would have to think that language is intended to mean restriction of something like public disclosure of the launch codes to ICBMs, not the restriction of speech to promote a social goal.

 

[BobG]

I would have to think that language is intended to mean restriction of something like public disclosure of the launch codes to ICBMs, not the restriction of speech to promote a social goal.

No, that language is intended to apply to commercial speech - i.e. advertising, commercials, etc.

Commercials aren't given the same respect as political speech, literary speech, etc. The latter are considered speech to promote a social goal while an Alka-Selzer commercial... not so much.

The first amendment contains no language that could possibly be construed to mean "unless the government has a substantial interest", and the fact that governments historically often do have a substantial interest in restricting speech is the very reason why the prohibition on restricting it is in the first amendment.

Those 4 justices are simply corrupt, like many others before them.

The first amendment was not intended to prohibit government from restricting the kinds of speech it has no substantial interest in restricting, anyway. Is that not obvious?

Once again, a conflict between a literalist interpretation and a constructionist interpretation (i.e. original intent). Advertising has been the red-headed stepchild of speech ever since the Constitution's existence (and before, for that matter). Clarence Thomas and others would agree with you. There's never been a majority of Supreme Court justices on the court that would agree with you.

In fact, it's only recently that commercial speech has been considered to have any protection under the 1st Amendment at all. My favorite case on this is VALENTINE v. CHRESTENSEN (1942). The owner of the submarine came up with the clever idea of advertising tours of his submarine on one side and protesting laws that restricted where he could dock his submarine on the other in order to get around laws that would prohibit distributing advertising handbills (they had a tendency to wind up becoming excess litter). Alas, his trick didn't work, but at least he earns artistic points for creativity.

 

[Evo]

So do restrictions on advertising for a roommate meet the Central Hudson test?

My understanding is that it's sufficient to meet 3 & 4, that's why they threw the "or" in there.

Again, I think the advertisement restriction is absurd, but this is how they get to do it.

I'm just linking to why Congress considers it constitutional, it's because they don't want to appear to make it ok to impinge on anyone's civil rights. When you get two ammendments that step on each other's toes, they decide that one ammendement is for the greater good in that particular area. Again, I'm just relaying the information on the subject, I'm not supporting it.

 

[loseyourname]

No, that language is intended to apply to commercial speech - i.e. advertising, commercials, etc.

Commercials aren't given the same respect as political speech, literary speech, etc. The latter are considered speech to promote a social goal while an Alka-Selzer commercial... not so much.

What does it restrict then? Obscenity?

 

[jreelawg]

Just for the sake of argument, I'll do what I can to represent the other side to this issue.

A store, has the right to refuse service to anyone. But they don't have the right to put a sign on the door that says "whites only".

I'm guessing these laws came about to solve a social problem that existed in a more severe condition that it does now.

Legally, it is hard to separate certain issues, so a line had to be drawn, that advertising discrimination would be illegal.

While it seams perfectly harmless to advertise discrimination in this instance, and under these circumstances, the removal of the law, would have broader consequences which would apply to a broader set of circumstances.

To play it safe, they probably just decided it best to draw the line and leave the issue somewhat clear cut, while also preventing unwanted public discriminatory displays.

Back when these laws were passed, in some areas especially, it might have been common to see whites only, all over the place, or no catholics, or no jews etc.

Now, if you allowed discrimination in public advertising, when it comes to personal living spaces, which seams reasonable, would we end up seeing advertisements which display more offensive messages, or slurs.

If advertising of discrimination were made legal, just for this special case, how would the law be written to keep such offensive material out of the public board? You would have to start drawing subjective lines of appropriateness.

So where there might be a perceived problem in removing the law, the worst case now, is that someone will be inconvenienced a little bit.

 

[BobG]

What does it restrict then? Obscenity?

Tobacco advertising would be a better example.

It's legal to sell, buy, and possesses tobacco products. Advertising of tobacco products is severely limited.

New FDA rules will greatly restrict tobacco advertising and sales

 

[Al68]

Advertising has been the red-headed stepchild of speech ever since the Constitution's existence (and before, for that matter).

Now that's a good analogy. Yet the first amendment makes no distinction.

Clarence Thomas and others would agree with you. There's never been a majority of Supreme Court justices on the court that would agree with you.

True, yet those that disagree with Thomas (and others) have never offered any constitutional justification whatsoever for their "commercial speech doctrine". They just fabricated it because it seems "reasonable" to them.

How is it reasonable to claim that the constitutional restrictions on government power just don't apply when government has "substantial interest"? When does government not have "substantial interest" pertaining to a law congress wants to pass?

Does the first amendment only apply to laws that congress passed because they only had a "insubstantial" or "passing" interest instead of a substantial one?

 

[turbo]

It has been settled and the woman was within her rights to ask for a Christian roommate. It's a narrow ruling based partly on the fact that the posting was made in a church and not in a newspaper.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/officials-say-no-discrimi_n_779767.html

 

[JaredJames]

Marvellous.

 

[Al68]

It has been settled and the woman was within her rights to ask for a Christian roommate. It's a narrow ruling based partly on the fact that the posting was made in a church and not in a newspaper.

I notice that "ruling" was actually HUD bureaucrats deciding not to prosecute, not a court ruling. I guess HUD considers churches special? A newspaper isn't an appropriate venue for what they now say is the woman's constitutional "right to free expression", but a church is?

Perhaps those HUD officials missed a few civics classes?