On a Woman's Right to Choose (Part II)

Well, she won the case. But the problem remains:

...HUD acknowledged that statements suggesting a preference for one religion are prohibited, but it concluded that the woman in this case didn't violate the law.

"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. Accordingly, the Department finds that there is no reasonable cause to believe that the Act was violated in this matter," HUD said....

In short--"She broke the law. We got bad press. We didn't push it."

But preferring a roommate of the same religion is against the law. Again--what does this mean for religious communities? For people who have specific dietary laws governing them which preclude sharing a room/housing with someone else? This would seem to indicate that they must set aside their religion in the name of equal access to accomodation--which means people do not have equal access to accomodations.