|
Post by sadie1263 on Oct 28, 2010 14:15:50 GMT
People are idiots anymore. So if she had advertised for a devil worshipping, snake loving, gun toting, goat eating roommate....that probably would not have made the news......but OMG......she wanted a Christian roommate so that is an outrage.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Oct 28, 2010 15:12:56 GMT
As a non-believer myself I find the whole situation farcical.
Why on earth should she NOT be able to advertise for a Christian roommate if that was her preference?
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Oct 28, 2010 15:35:36 GMT
Really.....shouldn't you be able to list some preferences just so that you have a roommate that you get along better with? You certainly don't want to have to deal with one that you hate or will have constant conflict with.....that can't be good for everyone around you or for the housing place to have deal with on a non-stop basis!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2010 17:48:57 GMT
My guess is that it is one of those laws that got drafted and passed without anyone thinking it through properly.
With any luck, now they will.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 28, 2010 21:43:01 GMT
It took legislation to stop people advertising rooms with the proviso No Blacks.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Oct 28, 2010 22:13:44 GMT
True...no one wants it to go back to anything like that......but somehow you should be able to list preferences without it becoming a case like this.........
Seriously......how do you match up people as roommates? Are dating sites not allowed to ask preferences next?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 29, 2010 4:21:58 GMT
True...no one wants it to go back to anything like that......but somehow you should be able to list preferences without it becoming a case like this......... Seriously......how do you match up people as roommates? Are dating sites not allowed to ask preferences next? Searching for a roommate is certainly a lot more personal than running a hotel! Why should this woman be forced to put up a general ad like "Roommate Wanted" and wait til a person sharing her faith answers it, while others just wasted their time applying. The big fat government, which is really too big should just buzz off!
Next thing you know people won't be able to place a partnership ad with specific wishes!
You're very correct Sadie! Dating prefences are next if this overblown big government isn't stooped! Image this!!
"Looking for a loving relationship with a ..... CENSORED BY GOVERNMENT DICTATE!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2010 5:12:07 GMT
It took legislation to stop people advertising rooms with the proviso No Blacks.And I'm sure the law was widely publicised, so hotel owners were left in no doubt. But all three people on Anna's video link agree that this woman was quite within the law to place the advert in her church. She was quite within her rights to choose a Christian to share her home. So how was she supposed to know that she wasn't meant to speficy "Christian" in her notice?
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Oct 29, 2010 12:45:02 GMT
It took legislation to stop people advertising rooms with the proviso No Blacks.I don't believe the two things are remotely comparable, Jean. In the first place Christians of every ethnicity and skin colour are found all over the world so clearly advertising for a Christian roommate is NOT a racist step. Secondly, she placed her ad within a church where one would expect it to be read by fellow-Christians. As a non-believer myself I find the whole thing rather sad It's a classic example of the fascist side of the political left IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 29, 2010 13:04:34 GMT
I don't believe the two things are remotely comparable, Jean. They are comparable in that they exemplify different grounds on which people may wish to discriminate. The one is obviously something that should be legislated against; the other is equally obviously not. But exactly where the line is to be drawn between what's acceptable discrimination and what isn't is never going to be easy.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Oct 29, 2010 17:57:52 GMT
It took legislation to stop people advertising rooms with the proviso No Blacks.But then, why shouldn't a racist person be free to only share their room with a fellow white person? If we are talking about 'private life' or 'personal' space-sharing rather than an owner letting out rooms that they do not personally reside in as part of a business, that is. But the standard distinction that gets made is between innate and 'chosen' characteristics. People cannot choose their skin colour but one's religion is more of a behavioural choice, and more about 'character'. If you wanted a principled distinction for allowing one kind of discrimination but not the other.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2010 18:41:35 GMT
If the racist advertised in the US equivalent of the BNP newsletter or website, it appears they would not be breaking the law; that would only happen if they worded the advert to say "whites only". I presume that is how the Indian adverts escape censure, anyway.
The justification for the rule seens to be that someone might feel offended if they saw an advert saying "Christians only", even though they must be aware that someone advertising for a house share may well - in practice and in law - exclude non Christians , non Indians, heterosexuals or whatever.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 30, 2010 5:06:45 GMT
I don't believe the two things are remotely comparable, Jean. They are comparable in that they exemplify different grounds on which people may wish to discriminate. The one is obviously something that should be legislated against; the other is equally obviously not. But exactly where the line is to be drawn between what's acceptable discrimination and what isn't is never going to be easy. Dearest Jean! The law is such that only male or female gender can be a prerequiste for renting a room. Thus the YMCA can have it's all male housing and the YWCA has only females in their rooms. If you followed the video that i posted you'll notice that one of the experts said that "gender orientation or preference" for instance can't be a prerequisite for getting a room. Thus ads seeking a gay roommate or organisations excluding non-homosexuals seeking rooms such as this www.roommateclick.com/Gay-Roommate/michigan/detroit-area-roommate are also violating this "understanding" of the law. I think this government offical is primarily interested in targeting Christians and not interested in targeting gays, immigrants from India, or other groups that aren't on her hate list!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2010 6:49:44 GMT
Anna, I've already explained why the Indian and gay websites may be okay under the law: provided none of the individual adverts specify the race or sexual orientation requirements, they probably don'e breach the rule I found browsing on line:
"It's a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement,"
But I share your uncomfortable feeling that this woman may have been targetted as the "soft option".
On the other hand, it may just be that hers is the first advert to be brought to the housing center's attention. I suppose somebody complained; how else would the center have known about it?.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Oct 30, 2010 11:00:55 GMT
Anna
If Christians are being targeted as a 'soft option' (which, I agree with you, is unfair), what is it about Christians that has pissed off so many people do you think?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 30, 2010 16:37:57 GMT
Anna If Christians are being targeted as a 'soft option' (which, I agree with you, is unfair), what is it about Christians that has pissed off so many people do you think? I suppose the PC spirit of the times is negative towards Christianity and religion. Another obstacle to creating a "unified mind set" among the populace.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Oct 30, 2010 17:50:33 GMT
Anna If Christians are being targeted as a 'soft option' (which, I agree with you, is unfair), what is it about Christians that has pissed off so many people do you think? I suppose the PC spirit of the times is negative towards Christianity and religion. Another obstacle to creating a "unified mind set" among the populace.But why Anna? You keep posting stories where Christians have been discriminated against, and you're obviously angry about that. Fair enough. I see your point. But I think 'the pc spirit of the times' is really not an answer to my question as to what it is about Christians that non-Christians find so obnoxious. "The PC spirit of the times", whatever that means, didn't come from nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2010 18:20:21 GMT
If Christians are being targeted, it could have nothing to do with dislike, but rather more to do with an idea that there will be far less fuss made about it.
Firstly, they can't claim persecution as a religious minority.
Secondly, Christians are typically peacemakers, and perhaps were considered less likely to raise merry hell about a law that was brought in by legislators who are (I suppose) also predominantly Christian . Though if that was the perception, someone got it wrong, for Housing Centre bringing the action claim they are getting death threats.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Oct 30, 2010 19:10:03 GMT
Skylark, how could anyone in current-day USA think of Christians as passive or easy touches, when they're always battling away in court for their right to be counsellors, or to advertise for room-mates, or whatever?
I don't buy that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2010 19:55:26 GMT
Skylark, how could anyone in current-day USA think of Christians as passive or easy touches, when they're always battling away in court for their right to be counsellors, or to advertise for room-mates, or whatever? Ah well. If they posted on here they would know better, wouldn't they?
|
|