• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • For Now, Government Still Lets You Pick Your Own Roommate

    The people of the United States ordained a Constitution of limited government.  As time passes, the people have more of the “government” and less of the “limited.”  Americans must work at maintaining their freedoms.  Defense of the constitutional freedom of association involved in choosing roommates to share housing illustrates the effort required.  Government has attempted to regulate our ability to choose a roommate, but efforts to resist that intrusion pay off in preserved liberty.

    Tricia Rowe, a 31-year-old single woman who owned a three bedroom, single-family house, wanted a roommate.  She posted on a church bulletin board a notice that said, “I am looking for a female Christian roommate.  Rent is $375/mo, which includes utilities.”

    On Thursday, July 15, 2010, an overcast day in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Elizabeth Vezino of an organization calling itself the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan filed a complaint stating under oath that she believed that Ms. Rowe’s roommate-wanted notice expressed “an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths.”  The Michigan Department of Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) went into high gear.

    Luckily for Ms. Rowe, the Alliance Defense Fund took up her cause and provided legal representation.  Ms. Rowe invoked her freedom of association under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a defense against the claim that her statement preferring “a female Christian roommate” illegally discriminated.  Ultimately, HUD ruled sensibly that “in light of the facts provided and after assessing the unique context of the advertisement and the roommate relationship involved in this particular situation potentially involving the sharing of personal religious beliefs, the Department defers to Constitutional considerations in reaching its conclusion” that “there is No Reasonable Cause to believe that the Act was violated in this matter.”

    In a separate case, Roommates.com provided a well-known roommate locator service over the Internet.  The service asked customers to create a profile identifying among other things their gender, sexual orientation, and whether children would live with them, and provided a space for “Additional Comments.”  Individuals could search the Roommates.com database for potentially compatible roommates.

    In California, organizations called the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego filed lawsuits against Roommates.com, alleging that questions seeking disclosure of gender, sexual orientation and familial status discriminate in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.

    Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Housing Council claims that Roommates.com had discriminated in violation of the Act in helping people find roommates to share housing.  The Court characterized the issue as follows:

    There’s no place like home.  In the privacy of your own home, you can take off your coat, kick off your shoes, let your guard down and be completely yourself.  While we usually share our homes only with friends and family, sometimes we need to take in a stranger to help pay the rent.  When that happens, can the government limit whom we choose?  Specifically, do the anti-discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) extend to the selection of roommates?

    The Court indicated that a roommate’s unfettered access to one’s home implicated considerations of safety, privacy, property protection, and the constitutional freedom of association.  Noting that it sought to avoid constitutional difficulties that would arise from government regulation of roommate selection, the Court construed the key term “dwelling” in the FHA to mean an independent housing unit and a not shared living unit.

    The Court held that “[b]ecause we find that the FHA doesn’t apply to the sharing of living units, it follows that it’s not unlawful to discriminate in selecting a roommate” and therefore “Roommate’s facilitation of discriminatory roommate searches does not violate the FHA.”

    Maintaining limited government and individual freedom requires Americans to stand up for their rights, fight to preserve them within our legal system, and to elect individuals committed to support and defend the Constitution.  The country needs more people like Tricia Rowe and more businesses like Roommates.com who exercise and defend their constitutional freedoms.  Their work to retain their freedom helps retain freedom for us all.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    15 Responses to For Now, Government Still Lets You Pick Your Own Roommate

    1. Brad says:

      Roommates.com does not ask for your sexual orientation, it simply asks for what you're okay with in your roommate's sexual orientation – big difference

    2. Eeagle Eye says:

      This is scary! When are people going to realize that gov't is the problem? Not a solution!

    3. Lloyd Scallan says:

      It's been said time and time again, "you will not recognize this country after four years under Obama". Today, can we not see this has come closer to the truth than any of us would have expected 3 years ago? Can we, in our wildest nightmares, conseive what this country will be if Obama is reelected?

      • mac says:

        In this case, Obama is not to blame. This intrusion into personal choice by "do-gooders" has been going on for too many years. I don't understand what drives the people who initiate these complaints.

        • nunnyah says:

          The people who initiate these travesty's of justice have deliberately made their own lives so bad, and are unwilling to do what it takes to live a happy life! So they think that they are obliged to make other people as miserable as they are just to feel some false sense of supremacy in their lives!!!

          Sad, but true! Avoid these people at all costs!!!

    4. Big Ugly says:

      The "federals" have no jurisdiction within your own private domicile.

      • Lloyd Scallan says:

        Big Ugly – Using your logic, why does the "federals" have "jurisdiction" over any neighborhood? Why should "federals" be involved with any decisions made by any group or local government's opinions
        when dealing with such absurdities as forced intergration? The answer: is it should not, but is does.
        Another prime example of how an out of control big government dictate how we are to live our lives.

    5. Chuck says:

      The Court held that “because we find that the FHA doesn't apply to the sharing of living units, it follows that it's not unlawful to discriminate in selecting a roommate” and therefore “Roommate’s facilitation of discriminatory roommate searches does not violate the FHA.”

      This is poor reasoning as well … because if the FHA had been written (or gets amended) to apply to ”the sharing of living units", then, at least in the unspoken opinion of this particular court, the FHA would trump the Constitution, that is, the Constitutional right of freedom of association!

    6. billstanley1 says:

      The Court held that “… it’s not unlawful to discriminate in selecting a roommate …” — However, your individual freedom is lost if you rent your house to selected people and you do not live there.

      • mac says:

        What's with the "However?" The subject of this article does not apply if you don't live there; different situation.

    7. Chris says:

      But these are still warnings, the left always prods away at these things trying to get the camels nose into the tent. To the Liberals, they won't be happy until they cannot only force you to take in any roommate they choose but also when they decide that Trica Rowe's 3 bedroom house could be used for more than just herself and force her to rent the other rooms to people they decide need quartered but also how much she can charge in rent.

    8. Sam says:

      In other words know your "rights". In addition it is not what an attorney tells us we may do, but what reason, justice and humanity tells us we ought to do.

    9. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Until it doesn't.

    10. SpaceChief says:

      Not even for a moment can we let our guard down! The attack on the US Constitution and personal
      property rights continues unabated from a government that has declared war of it's own citizens.
      The death of a thousand cuts times a thousand. How much more will we tolerate? Or have we reached
      the point where anything goes, and we no longer have any stomach to right the wrongs in America.
      Somehow we think the government can do a better job.

    11. Happiness says:

      comes to them who opens their door for small treats that life provides to them. So be happy and live longer!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.