>>>>>>The law says that it's illegal to discriminate others because of race, sexual preference and religion. What's the point of having a law, if the law is not enforced?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/22/civil-rights-complaint-filed-christian-roommate-advertisement/
>>>>>
>>>>>We have laws that target people entering the US illegally - ask the local bleeding-heart liberals if the laws should be enforced.
>>>>>
>>>>>This person put up an ad in her church looking for a christian ROOMMATE. The government is saying you can't pick who you will live with.
>>>>
>>>>Please be forgiving, but I have trouble explaining exactly what I mean here, but I'll try. The law says that you can't discriminate "officially", meaning for instance in advertising. What this lady should have done, was NOT to mention religion at all in the ad, this subject should have been brought up in a subsequent conversation. This lady has crossed a line here, and must answer for it.
>>>
>>>No. She is asking for a roommate and she has preferences.
>>
>>I don't want to start a debate, I only explained why I thought that the woman should have to answer for being discriminative.
>
>OK.
>
>>
>>One thought which came to mind, and I confess that I am only speculating now. What if this ad was posted to create a debate? We have many of those over the years. "Let's see how far we can stretch this elastic".
>>
>>>Take a few more steps - no preferences allowed if you want to get married. The government will pick someone appropriate.
>>
>>Why do you bring the government into this?
>
>Because it is a law of the government that is being used against her, and the government is pressing it. This is something the government has absolutely no business being involved in.

I think you missed one of my points, so I'll repeat: One thought which came to mind, and I confess that I am only speculating now. What if this ad was posted to create a debate? We have many of those over the years. "Let's see how far we can stretch this elastic".

I agree that the law should be limited compared to what it is, and a case like this may actually give exactly that result. So the result of this may be much closer to what I guess both you and I would want it to be.

My first comment was meant to express that standpoint, namely that the law is the law. Is the law a good law? Not necessarily.


>>
>>>>
>>>>I think both you and I are old enough to remember the racial conflicts in your country in the 60s and the 70s. What sounded absurd then is considered natural today. Here in Norway we have had many cases similar to the one you refer to over many years. When the first cases were brought up, my reaction was similar to yours. However, seeing more and more similar cases, my attitude, and most other people's attitude, has changed totally. Nobody now would even think about mentioning religious preferences in an ad, not even an ad in a church. If an ad is placed on a message board in a church, nobody who did not belong to this church would see it, so mentioning religious preferences would be redundant.
>>>>
>>>>The most weird case I can remember was a shop that sold lingerie, they were not allowed to specify that they wanted a woman as a salesperson. The law is the law....!