Wednesday, June 26, 2024

Alleged violation sad, ridiculous

These are the first words of an advertisement posted in July by a 31-year-old Grand Rapids nursing student at her church:

“I am looking for a Christian.”

Instead of receiving responses from potential roommates also seeking to reduce personal expenses, she found herself in a legal battle with the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.

The organization has filed a civil rights complaint against the student, citing alleged housing discrimination.

The ad supposedly is in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968. Essentially, this act prohibits landlords and apartment complex owners from evaluating tenants based on certain criteria, including religious affiliation.

But should private homeowners be denied the right to choose who takes residence in their homes? American homeowners can apply any standard — religious or otherwise — to those with whom they share their private property. This is a simple freedom of living in this country.

Is a posting on a bulletin board — at a church no less — seeking a Christian roommate really illegal discrimination? I would argue that it merely is an exercise of constitutional rights.

Legally, the issue simply is not black and white. Interestingly enough, Michigan state law allows such an advertisement while the federal Fair Housing Act does not. Of course, posting an ad for any specific race would be discriminatory.

However, if we are to follow that same logic perhaps a woman could not seek out a female roommate? Can one post an ad seeking a “non-smoker” without discriminating against all the smokers seeking housing?

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech as well as the right to exercise one’s religion. The message from this legal battle defies this freedom by saying one cannot seek out a roommate based upon one’s own religious preference.

Nancy Haynes of the Fair Housing Center posed this question: “If you read it and you were not Christian, would you not feel welcome to rent there?”

Honestly, I would not feel welcome. But here is another dose of honesty: I am OK not feeling welcome. Almost every college student has endured the hassle of apartment hunting and knows it isn’t an exercise designed to increase self-esteem.

Living in close quarters with anyone is difficult, let alone with someone who disagrees on important issues, such as religion.

Why is it no longer politically correct to admit the obvious? Replace the word “Christian” in the ad with any other religion and the issue remains the same; one should be able to live with whom they choose.

Apparently, wanting a Christian roommate is not the problem. Expressing that desire in print is the real “issue.” Haynes said: “She can be a Christian and she can even use that as a criteria for who she wants to rent to. She just can’t state that.

“She can actually, in practice, not rent to a non-Christian. But she can’t make the statement. The statement alone is a violation of the act. What she can do in practice, she can’t make a statement about.”

Does this confuse anyone else?

This statement seems to negate the argument of refusing to rent to someone based on religion. Saying you want a Christian roommate supposedly is discriminatory, but actually choosing not to rent to someone because he or she is not a Christian is not discrimination.

Oh, how confusing America has become.

Interestingly enough, it has been proposed that the woman who posted the ad “get some training so that this doesn’t happen again,” as well as reimburse the Fair Housing Center for its investigation costs.

Support student media! Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.

This incident finds the politically correct agenda taking one great leap toward considerable control of our personal lives.

Haynes has summed up much of America’s attitude and political correctness in the statement: “What she can do in practice she can’t make a statement about.”

America’s obsession with political correctness and unwavering tolerance has been pushed to its limit. One still has the freedom to practice their beliefs, but if it might offend someone, he or she better not make a statement about it.

If one can no longer speak out, how much time do we have left before it is no longer acceptable to even practice our beliefs?

Or, if Haynes has her way, those with a voice will just “get some training.”

Kristen Kitti is a State News guest columnist. Reach her at kittikri@msu.edu.

Discussion

Share and discuss “Alleged violation sad, ridiculous” on social media.