Is Seeking a Religious Roommate a Civil Rights Violation?

[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?