Complaint for Seeking a Christian Roommate (DECISION)

archer wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).

That has been the law for 42 years. What part of illegal do you not understand?

What part of I corrected myself didn't you understand? However, finances are not part of the protection, you can require a prospective renter to be financially sound, and the determination of that is largely up to the landlord.

The post was in reply to the OP and subsequent postings of outrage. If you are advocating using subversion to circumnavigate the law, then you could be guilty of violation of the Act which has penalties up to $16,000 for the first violation and up to $65,000 for the third act within 7 years. While the landlord can certainly require income histories, all it takes is a tester to show that discrimination occurred by renting to one individual having similar credentials to a protected class individual that was denied. That would be a prima facie case requiring extensive proof that discrimination did not occur.

have you ever seen two people that had "similar" financial credentials? Everyone is pretty unique in their financial history. I was not promoting fraud, I was simply pointing out what you can, and cannot use to distinguish between prospective renters.

Sheesh you're touchy.

Jus curious...can a landlord question a prospective renter's legal (immigration) status?

Something the Dog Said wrote: Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).

That has been the law for 42 years. What part of illegal do you not understand?

It's my understanding that this particular law applies to commercial entities. (a realtor cannot express such preferences, and a newspaper might be reluctant to print it).

That said - I think it's perfectly fine for a private individual to be selective about a housing arrangement.

If a woman prefers a female room-mate - that's fine by me. I also think it would be fine to say you prefer a Christian roommate.

I think someone is getting a little carried away with the law.

What Housing Is Covered?

The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.

(emphasis added)

Achmed wrote: So if I have millions of US dollars, you will rent to me? True?

Who cares what your religion is, how much money you have or where you come from? THe only thing that really matters is what kind of human being you are. At least that is where I like to start. The rest works itself out.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

Achmed wrote: So if I have millions of US dollars, you will rent to me? True?

Who cares what your religion is, how much money you have or where you come from? THe only thing that really matters is what kind of human being you are. At least that is where I like to start. The rest works itself out.

Thank you kind sir. Please inform when you have a room to let.

archer wrote: have you ever seen two people that had "similar" financial credentials? Everyone is pretty unique in their financial history. I was not promoting fraud, I was simply pointing out what you can, and cannot use to distinguish between prospective renters.

Sheesh you're touchy.

archer wrote:
What part of I corrected myself didn't you understand? However, finances are not part of the protection, you can require a prospective renter to be financially sound, and the determination of that is largely up to the landlord.

kettle, meet pot

The post was in reply to the OP and subsequent postings of outrage. If you are advocating using subversion to circumnavigate the law, then you could be guilty of violation of the Act which has penalties up to $16,000 for the first violation and up to $65,000 for the third act within 7 years. While the landlord can certainly require income histories, all it takes is a tester to show that discrimination occurred by renting to one individual having similar credentials to a protected class individual that was denied. That would be a prima facie case requiring extensive proof that discrimination did not occur.

Where do you find me advocating subversion of the law as the OP???? I asked questions of the forum to get replies, and never expressed any outrage. If you want to see outrage, believe me, I am capable of it. It is so nice that you seem to have a grasp of the law, but you don't take into consideration that this is a roommate situation not a rental unit and as such does not fall under the purview of the law you have so fondly quoted.

Nmysys wrote:

The post was in reply to the OP and subsequent postings of outrage. If you are advocating using subversion to circumnavigate the law, then you could be guilty of violation of the Act which has penalties up to $16,000 for the first violation and up to $65,000 for the third act within 7 years. While the landlord can certainly require income histories, all it takes is a tester to show that discrimination occurred by renting to one individual having similar credentials to a protected class individual that was denied. That would be a prima facie case requiring extensive proof that discrimination did not occur.

Where do you find me advocating subversion of the law as the OP???? I asked questions of the forum to get replies, and never expressed any outrage. If you want to see outrage, believe me, I am capable of it. It is so nice that you seem to have a grasp of the law, but you don't take into consideration that this is a roommate situation not a rental unit and as such does not fall under the purview of the law you have so fondly quoted.

I believe this was directed at me, not you. For some reason I ended up being accused of subverting the law because i suggested that financial considerations can be used to screen potential renters.....which it can be. Wow.....who knew that would start a firestorm, or that both my pot and kettle are now black because of it? I agreed that it's not right that a person cannot screen potential roommates for compatibility.....if true that you can't, then I would surely never consider advertising for a room mate. Who wants to share a house with someone you have nothing in common with, or might be afraid of, or even just don't like. Why I have been attacked for this view I have no idea.

Nmysys wrote:

The post was in reply to the OP and subsequent postings of outrage. If you are advocating using subversion to circumnavigate the law, then you could be guilty of violation of the Act which has penalties up to $16,000 for the first violation and up to $65,000 for the third act within 7 years. While the landlord can certainly require income histories, all it takes is a tester to show that discrimination occurred by renting to one individual having similar credentials to a protected class individual that was denied. That would be a prima facie case requiring extensive proof that discrimination did not occur.

Where do you find me advocating subversion of the law as the OP???? I asked questions of the forum to get replies, and never expressed any outrage. If you want to see outrage, believe me, I am capable of it. It is so nice that you seem to have a grasp of the law, but you don't take into consideration that this is a roommate situation not a rental unit and as such does not fall under the purview of the law you have so fondly quoted.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 does not apply to landlords with four or less rooms to rent EXCEPT that you are not allowed to advertise for a preference against or for a member of the protected class (religion, race, national origin, disablity, age, familial status, sex), except there is an exception for sex. You may advertise for a preference of sex if you are collecting a rent while living in the premises and have four or less rentals. If you advertise for a renter or roommate, then you are not allowed to advertise for a preference for or against regarding religion, race, national origin, disability, age, or familial status regardless of the number of rentals.

The post that was referenced was directed to Archer who jumped on me for my earlier post that was directed to the OP. The earlier post was directed to the OP in regard to the Fair Housing Act which does apply in part to those who rent rooms, as referenced above. The second post was to Archer who was indignant to the first post believing it was directed to her. In my second post, directed to Archer, not the OP, I did reference the implication in her post that if she was using "income history" as a subversion to discriminate against individuals in the protected class, that she could be liable for severe penalties as would anyone taking similar actions. The pot - kettle - black references was a reference to her earlier post that was indignant at me while accusing me of being "touchy", which also applies to her most recent post.

Is everyone clear now?