Anonymous wrote:I understand that gays are not a 'protected class" in this situation. My opinion is that where the rental is in the owner's house, the homeowner should have more latitude in excluding tenants where the owner is uncomfortable with their lifestyle -- skinheads, neonazis, even gays.
You are in fact morally wrong, but legally right. According to the HUD site on Fair Housing at
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws/yourrights:
What Housing Is Covered?
The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.
What Is Prohibited?
In the Sale and Rental of Housing: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap:
Refuse to rent or sell housing
Refuse to negotiate for housing
Make housing unavailable
Deny a dwelling
Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling
Provide different housing services or facilities
Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental
For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting) or
Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing.
Even if the landlord in an owner-occupied residence was included, sexual orientation is not a covered or protected class. However, if they are a married couple, they might be covered under "familial status." That is providing that your local jurisdiction exempts owners with very few rental units.