Officials Say No Discrimination In Seeking 'Christian Roommate'

Cami Reister
The Grand Rapids Press/Religion News Service

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (RNS) A Michigan woman did not violate fair housing law when she posted a flier at her church seeking a "Christian roommate," federal officials have ruled.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. But officials from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights saw more than one constitutional issue.

"When it comes to a federal law, the individual's constitutional rights trump all," HUD spokeswoman Laura Feldman said. "That's the highest power."

The case started this summer when someone saw the ad at a local church and anonymously filed a complaint with the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan. That was sent to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, which handles investigations of fair housing complaints for HUD.

Maurice McGough, deputy regional director for fair housing and equal opportunity in HUD's Chicago office, said they were concerned about the individual's right to freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of intimate association, among other issues.

The fact that it was a roommate situation and that the woman posted her ad in a church -- as opposed to a general circulation newspaper, for example -- came into play, HUD officials said.

"We looked at those general protections and, without trying to draw too fine of a distinction between them, we erred on the side of the Constitution," McGough said. "This is the federal government. We have to be (careful) about how we enforce our authority."

Nancy L. Haynes, executive director of the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan, said HUD's determination was based on this specific case.

"It's unique and specific to this case," Haynes said. "It's not that there is some new exception to the law."

The woman, who has not been identified, was represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group in Scottsdale, Ariz., which sent a letter to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights asking for dismissal.

Comments

[ChaCubed]

09:47 PM on 11/14/2010

I have not read all 738 comments, so apology in advance if this has already been asked, but is someone discriminating if/when they post "seeking white roomate"? That would also fall under the exceptions of "the individual's right to freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of intimate association", but wouldn't it be determined to be disciminatory and not allowed?

Does anyone know the answer?

[been2there]

10:22 PM on 11/14/2010

As I think the article made clear, the situation is right on the edge. Reasonable people might disagree. The fact that the flier was posted where no one who would be excluded was likely to see it, and that the room was not a public apartment, so to speak, tip the scales, but only just.
On a personal note, how would a non-Christian ever get to see the good part of Christianity if all Christians exclude non-Christians from their lives? It seems to me that this is a good example of the kind of exclusionary tactic that besmirches religion and insults God.

[ChaCubed]

07:18 PM on 11/15/2010

I agree that the spokewoman made it clear that the decision was on the edge; but I don't agree that that should have been the case: the decision should have been that an individual can share their their living space with whom they choose, and that they have the right to post/advertise their preference.

In response to your final comments, I agree that we should all be exposed to people who think and live differently - primarily to learn that we aren't that different, there are good and bad people in every group, and because someone is a member of a group doesn't mean they will be a good person or a bad person - but I don't think sharing a living space with one person will tell you anything except what the one person is like.

[DeuxExMachina]

12:44 AM on 11/17/2010

You can be exposed to people of different beliefs without having to live with them.

[markpkessinger]

05:32 PM on 11/15/2010

As a general rule, I think, anti-discrimination laws apply to government agencies, businesses offering goods and services to the general public and places of public accommodation. A landlord offering an apartment would fall under the category of a business offering a service, application for which must be open to the general public. A private individual, however, seeking to share his or her living quarters with another individual, is not operating a business, but seeking to share a service (apartment, room, whatever) he or she has already acquired from the business owner (landlord). Although I think you would have a hard time finding a newspaper to run an ad saying "seeking white roommate," and someone may well try to bring suit based on it, if it were actually challenged, it's pretty hard to conceive of any court saying that private individuals, seeking to share private quarters and expenses with another compatible individual, are not entitled to hold out any criteria they wish when looking for a roommate.

[ChaCubed]

07:00 PM on 11/15/2010

Thanks for your reply, Mark. I think you're right, and I agree that individuals have the right to determine the criteria for who they will share their living space. What concerns me is that was not the basis of the HUD ruling stated by their spokesperson.

Listing all the reasons they ruled as they did; clarifying that this didn't mean they would rule this way in another situation; and the comment, "we erred on the side of the Constitution", to me, means that when it suits them, they will NOT err on the side of the Constitution, and will rule differently; and that they based their decision on critieria which are not addressed in the law, leaving far too much space for their PERSONAL feelings or beliefs to be the deciding factor.

Enjoyed "talking" with you. F&F

[davcrock]

07:38 PM on 11/14/2010

We're talking about a roommate.  Freedom of association is clearly a right and rooming is pretty close form of association.  It's this person's right to say what kind of roomie she wants.  Freedom is a two-way street.

[rgilley]

07:59 PM on 11/13/2010

If there were no religion there would be far less litigation in the US and worldwide. We need to get over this psychosis that is killing literally millions of people every year that passes. It is an epidemic of global proportions, if it were seen as a virus we would be seeking to kill it.

[mggwa]

06:38 PM on 11/14/2010

"We need to get over this psychosis"

So you admit to being part of this psychosis?

I am certainly not part of the "we" that needs to get over a psychosis.

[brokerthanu]

10:48 PM on 11/12/2010

Why would anyone who isn't xtian want to be roommates or housemates with someone who specifically wants a xtian one? That's a recipe for disaster or at the very least unhappiness. No, keep them together, that way they can get on each other's nerves and spare the rest of us.

[timm553]

07:50 PM on 11/12/2010

The moment you decide to put an adjective before the word "roommate", you have effectively shown discrimination. Whether any malice was intended is known only to the publisher.

[mggwa]

06:39 PM on 11/14/2010

Of course. I discriminate every time I go to a restaurant -- I choose what I eat. I discriminated very carefully choosing a spouse. I discriminate choosing my employment.

Before I was married, I discriminated very carefully about choosing roommates.

So do you, I am sure.

[timm553]

09:36 PM on 11/14/2010

Mggwa: See my response to "davcrock" below for a clarification of my position on this topic.

[davcrock]

07:40 PM on 11/14/2010

Not every "discrimination" is illegal.  Freedom would end if it were.

[timm553]

09:35 PM on 11/14/2010

I agree with you, davcrock, and that's what I was alluding to when I said "Whether any malice was intended is known only to the publisher." Discrimination is something that we all engage in, me included, but when it's directed toward denying someone justice, or equal opportunity it's a negative undertaking. The roommate situation put forth in the article is not, in my view, one of those negative occurances, as it just speaks to an individual who would prefer to have a Christian roommate.

[CT Woman]

08:52 AM on 11/12/2010

If this ad was posted on a CHURCH bulletin board, then it wasn't necessary for the person to specify that she wanted a Christian roommate. Who else is going to read this ad but other Christian churchgoers? It was redundant.

[Meladi Crane]

10:28 PM on 11/11/2010

Saying "Seeking Christian roommate" is not discriminatory, and not punishable by law.

Saying "Seeking roommate, Muslims need not apply" is.

[Oblongato]

05:20 AM on 11/13/2010

But why, actually? Let's assume that the person seeking the roommate does not find Islam palatable, but has no problem with other religions. Actually, excluding only Muslims is *less* discriminatory than specifically seeking a Christian. Are you saying that broad discrimination is acceptable, but specific discrimination is illegal?

Should laws prevent discrimination only against aspects of a person that are not chosen, such as ethnicity, sex, etc.? Or should they also prevent discrimination against ideologies, such as religion, political affiliation and so on?

[mggwa]

06:42 PM on 11/14/2010

"Are you saying that broad discrimination is acceptable, but specific discrimination is illegal?

Exactly right.

The First Amendment protects a "right of association". You can choose who you associate with, and you can have whatever basis of choice you like.

Choosing *against* a religion is not right of association; it might be 'right of non-association" which is perhaps implied but not specified.

Housing laws pertain ONLY to publicly advertised housing "on the market" so to speak.

This issue was settled long ago at BYU where they require segregated (by gender) student dormitories. It was quite a battle of course by do-gooders but the Constitution finally won that battle as well.

[rgilley]

08:01 PM on 11/13/2010

And saying "seeking Atheist roomate is what?

[mggwa]

06:43 PM on 11/14/2010

"And saying "seeking Atheist roomate is what?"

Yes, same difference, same rules. First Amendment.

[DevonTexas]

01:40 PM on 11/11/2010

"The case started this summer when someone saw the ad at a local church and anonymously filed a complaint with the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan."

I suspect the ADF executed the original complaint just to get the publicity. Why would someone at the church report it?

[Poorsarah]

03:03 AM on 11/09/2010

...someone made a personal decision to want a Christian roommate...STOP THE PRESS!!!

[GreetingsFromBugTussle]

01:15 AM on 11/09/2010

Geez, this seems like a no-brainer. If someone's going to live with you, you have a right to specify, I'd guess ANYTHING, whether wicca or strict veganism or burning incense for all the gods you want. (If your religion requires human sacrifice or 'purification', I doubt you'll be supported by most zoning rules, but the South may still have exceptions). I, unfortunately, now live in the South, so I can say that, with mostly humor. Mostly.

Now, which brand of "Christian" will she get? They can fight about it, and if they do it in a pool of jello, they can webcast it and make some cash, just like the religion industry.

[Angie Daniels]

05:11 PM on 11/08/2010

What idiot reported this woman? I mean really... it's not like she's talking about a business or a school, she's looking to live with someone compatible. For me, I'd put no Christians and no atheists :) But we should all have the right to have who we want living in our own space.

[Windfish]

12:39 AM on 11/09/2010

Heh, I'd report you. ;>)

[mggwa]

06:45 PM on 11/14/2010

To whom, and for what purpose? I suppose you could find someone in a city park that might be interested in your report.

[RedRat]

04:37 PM on 11/08/2010

Here I must agree that a person's right to associate with whomever they wish, is a basic and fundamental right. The government can no more force me to have a Christian roommate any more than it can force me to have an atheistic one. If indeed the government can do this, they can force any kind of association with any group of people that I may basic abhorrence to. I cannot exclude certain people from a school or other government activity, but forcing a roommate on someone is very much an attack on personal liberty. While I wouldn't want a Christian roommate, when you are living in tight and very personal quarters, there are many things that I would want in a roommate. Along the same lines, if indeed you can force a roommate on someone else based on religion, what about sex. What happens to the devout religious person who feels he or she must not live with one of the opposite sex unless your are married--remember no discrimination based on sex either. In point of fact, perhaps some religions have requirement that you must share the space with one of the same religion or sect.

[RedRat]

04:43 PM on 11/08/2010

You know on second reading of this article, I really do not know exactly how they ruled. This is very poorly written article, in need of an editor. The article states: "Maurice McGough, deputy regional director for fair housing and equal opportunity in HUD's Chicago office, said they were concerned about the individual's right to freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of intimate association, among other issues." This does really answer how they went. Did they say it was OK to put requirements of religion on a potential roommate? It is just not clear. Anyone know more about this case.

[wandering girl]

05:12 PM on 11/08/2010

first paragraph: A Michigan woman did not violate fair housing law when she posted a flier at her church seeking a "Christian roommate," federal officials have ruled.

[hackerblaster]

03:56 PM on 11/08/2010

Good grief. Someone should be able to advertise for whatever 'roommate' they want. The problem comes when a landlord does this. I am an Atheist and I damned sure wouldn't want to roommate with a bible thumper. Think about that. ugh.

[cornel]

02:07 PM on 11/08/2010

So much fuzz about nothing, she just wanted Jennifer Knapp for roommate !

[olmossy]

12:19 PM on 11/08/2010

Of course the Court was right . We all have the right to choose our own friends and roomates.
Had this been a case of a 'dorm' or barracks where the Government was footing the bill , I would see it differantly.
I could see Loud Radio, smoking, or like a guy like I met up in Mass a few months ago who boasted he hadn't taken a shower or bath in 7 years.
I worked with a guy in the Oilpatch for 3 years we spent a lot of nights in the same truck on site.
It took us allmost 3 years to discover we were both nonbelievers. We were both being so carefull NOT to offend the others "religion".