Fined for Seeking Christian Roommate
By Raul Rivera
The effects of using church bulletin boards
A single 31-year-old Michigan woman, named Tricia, needed a roommate to share her home. One day she posted an ad on her church bulletin board stating that she was looking for a "Christian Roommate." Several weeks later, she found herself being investigated by the State of Michigan Department of Civil Rights for violation of civil rights laws. Tricia now faces several hundred dollars in fines and may be forced into "fair housing" training to learn how to not engage in religious discrimination. A representative from the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan said that the ad "expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths."
Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom and unabridged speech
The state says that several sections of Federal code were violated by using the phrase "Christian Roommate wanted." They cite Title VII of the US Fair Housing Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act. While the law as found in Subsection 3604 sounds good on paper, it has the unintended consequence of doing exactly what it was trying to combat; religious discrimination. In an effort to combat religious discrimination Congress did two things:
1. It discriminated against all religiously motivated practice and;
2. It abridged the freedom of speech.
How so? Congress failed to realize that people of faith do not practice their faith as a hobby to the degree that they can turn it on and off at will. Faith is the filter and lens through which 100% of all life is lived (Acts 17:28 For in him we live and move and have our being). Congress attempted put a stop to religious discrimination in the housing market by discriminating on all religions and making illegal any religious preference in advertising. In this case, Tricia, is being denied her constitutionally protected right to privately seek another Christian to share a home with her. It appears that the state is bent on limiting freedom of religion and doing it by regulating how and where people can freely live the precepts of their faith. Secondly, her free speech is being abridged because she is not allowed to publicly say or express freely her preferences.
The effects of legislation
This law proves the inability of government to legislate civil behavior. The intended results always produce more negative consequences than they do positive. We now live with a set of laws that do not allow people of faith to seek each other out and create communities that are aligned with their beliefs, culture and approach to life without facing government harassment.
The key question is whether this law, or any law that places a limit on religiously motivated practice, is constitutional. While I believe that the law is clearly unconstitutional, unfortunately, there is case law that has established precedence for the "constitutionality" of this law and others like it. Many courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled in favor of these types of laws citing that there is a "compelling state interest" at hand to protect certain classes of people.
In a Supreme Court case, United States v. Lee, the court ruled, "The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding government interest." In another court case, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, the court ruled, "When the State enacts legislation that intentionally or unintentionally places a burden upon religiously motivated practice, it must justify that burden by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest."
They justify their rulings using a legal doctrine called "strict scrutiny." This doctrine is often used by courts to determine necessity of a perceived "government interest" against a personal constitutional right, as found in the constitution.
Many legal scholars argue that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, yet fatal in fact." Did you know that more than 60% of the time, laws that restrict our religious liberty have been upheld by courts (Adam Winkler, UCLA School of law). Using this legal doctrine, many of our guaranteed constitutional rights have been infringed, and the court precedent continues to move in that direction. Where do you think it will end?
It makes me wonder what would happen if Tricia's ad read as follows: Single female, seeking roommate who is a fan of T.D. Jakes, Beth Moore and Andrew Womack. Just curious!
Word of encouragement
We live and work with an imperfect government. Jesus did make his promise that one day, He would return and establish his government here on the earth. That is a promise. In the meantime, we must do our best to live a quiet and peaceable life within the context of being wise as serpents and gentle as doves.