Federal fair housing law protects LGBT couples, court rules for first time

[Rau]

Ah, fair enough. Here, weighing candidates against each other like that is prohibited because people specifically do it to skirt anti discrimination laws. Historically, the US has had enormous problems with housing discrimination and races have been systematically kept out of entire neighborhoods. That’s a big part of why the law and enforcement is so stringent. Even seemingly innocuous things are prohibited; for instance, you can’t advertise your proximity to a church as a selling point. Or, if someone asks you about crime on the property, you can’t answer, not even honestly about the break ins you’ve had or your lack of reported crime. If a lonely old widow wants a 1 bedroom and you have three available, you have to let her pick solely on location. You can’t indicate that one of the apartments is on an especially quiet floor with several other older widows. I’m an (American) liberal, and it blows my mind how far housing anti discrimination goes. I’m not offended by it, and I see where it comes from, but it is really…intense, for lack of a better word.

Employment isn’t like that though, because unlike housing, there are a lot of soft, intangible, subjective factors that make one candidate better for a workplace than another, even if the other candidate has more experience or education. But with selling and renting homes, the idea is that anyone who can afford it and doesn’t have a record is just as qualified as the next guy to cut you a check.

I can see how US issues influence the law. But I don’t think your last sentence is quite accurate as not all candidates are equal in the capacity to pay, likelihood of looking after the property, etc. I think the issue is one of balance, and in the US they (you) have seen fit to tilt the field as you have to counter-balance the risk of unreasonable discrimination given that is judged a larger concern. Living in societies always involves someone surrendering some freedoms.

 

[Thorolfr]

3.) This whole thing presumes that people are actually “gay” and that that is part of the intrinsic identity of the person, like being black or Jamaican. But that’s not true at all! Being “gay” is entirely a choice just as being “emo” or a “hipster” or a “swinger”. It’s a lifestyle choice, not an intrinsic identity. There are MANY people with same-sex attraction who simply refuse to identify as “gay” and indeed, are NOT “gay”.

What you call the condition of being sexually attracted to others of the same sex is certainly a choice. But the attraction itself (whatever you call it) is not a choice. Someone doesn’t have to identify as “gay,” but that doesn’t mean that they are any different from someone who does identify as “gay” except in what they call this sexual attraction.

 

[Finite]

So you are okay with Jews being forced to bake a Nazi cake?

What is a nazi cake? Is that like a “gay” cake? I’ve personally seen a “gay” wedding cake up close, and I gotta be honest…did not see a difference. Granted, I don’t discriminate when it comes to cake. They’re all delicious. I suspect this nazi cake you speak of is also yummy.

 

[SuperLuigi]

What is a nazi cake? Is that like a “gay” cake? I’ve personally seen a “gay” wedding cake up close, and I gotta be honest…did not see a difference. Granted, I don’t discriminate when it comes to cake. They’re all delicious. I suspect this nazi cake you speak of is also yummy.

This comment does a great job of avoiding the question.

So what it’s gonna be if the Nazi wants his cake from a Jewish cake business?

I’d hate to think the left would be yet again exercising double standards…

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’ll buy that argument when all of these anti-gay people start a campaign to make race, religion, and disability all grounds for discrimination.

Ironically, most of the REAL anti-gay people are getting ultimate cover fire from those who CLAIM on paper to care about GLBTQ persons…

Also, opposing so-called gay “marriage” or noting the government should not tell businesses who they have to do business with is not anti-gay.

It’d be great just once if the atheist secular left focused on places where GLBTQ persons are executed if they “cared” so much…

BTW, I happen to have a disability and ID as more than one race, and yet here I am amidst all of the virtue-signaling making the argument that businesses don’t have to cater to me if that is their wish.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Ah, fair enough. Here, weighing candidates against each other like that is prohibited because people specifically do it to skirt anti discrimination laws. Historically, the US has had enormous problems with housing discrimination and races have been systematically kept out of entire neighborhoods. That’s a big part of why the law and enforcement is so stringent. Even seemingly innocuous things are prohibited; for instance, you can’t advertise your proximity to a church as a selling point. Or, if someone asks you about crime on the property, you can’t answer, not even honestly about the break ins you’ve had or your lack of reported crime. If a lonely old widow wants a 1 bedroom and you have three available, you have to let her pick solely on location. You can’t indicate that one of the apartments is on an especially quiet floor with several other older widows. I’m an (American) liberal, and it blows my mind how far housing anti discrimination goes. I’m not offended by it, and I see where it comes from, but it is really…intense, for lack of a better word.

Employment isn’t like that though, because unlike housing, there are a lot of soft, intangible, subjective factors that make one candidate better for a workplace than another, even if the other candidate has more experience or education. But with selling and renting homes, the idea is that anyone who can afford it and doesn’t have a record is just as qualified as the next guy to cut you a check.

Most Americans live in *de facto *segregation by choice. Though one does wonder why, as Jason Lewis notes, “liberals don’t live next to the people they want to give welfare to”.

 

[mVitus]

Businesses should be able to make their own decisions without interference from the government.

Okay. I run the local water company and gay people don’t deserve my water. How do like that logic now?
So there is certainly merit to anti-discrimination laws in general. Specifics is where it can tricky though.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Okay. I run the local water company and gay people don’t deserve my water. How do like that logic now?
So there is certainly merit to anti-discrimination laws in general. Specifics is where it can tricky though.

While it would do well for there to be more than one utlility provider in town, the above example is a function of local government.

Otherwise, I can pretty much promise that policing gay people getting water (a dumb idea) would the very least concern.

Oh, and I should point out: big difference between a private business and something paid for by taxpayers. Just another argument for smaller government.

 

[Rau]

Okay. I run the local water company and gay people don’t deserve my water. How do like that logic now?
So there is certainly merit to anti-discrimination laws in general. Specifics is where it can tricky though.

Those objecting to supplying something, be it water or flowers or cakes or videography services, to certain parties typically object not to the customers themselves but the purposes to which the goods are to be put, and consequently to the “enrerprise” to which they feel supplying goods makes them a party. But I agree specific cases will often be debatable.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Those objecting to supplying something, be it water or flowers or cakes or videography services, to certain parties typically object not to the customers themselves but the purposes to which the goods are to be put, and consequently to the “enrerprise” to which they feel supplying goods makes them a party. But I agree specific cases will often be debatable.

Just don’t fall for the left-wing wedge technique. They think if they find one marginal case that they can use the federal government to drag the other 99% of a nation of 330 million people through the mud because it feels right or something.

Keep in mind that water supply is a local government issue and the subject at hand is federal.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Most Americans live in *de facto *segregation by choice. Though one does wonder why, as Jason Lewis notes, “liberals don’t live next to the people they want to give welfare to”.

Ha! You mean like the welfare culture, for lack of a better term, in the rural Midwest?

Don’t get me wrong, we should be doing more across the board to lift people out of poverty. But having lived in both a small rural town and a couple major cities, one of them especially poor and dangerous, I’m totally over the illusion of self-sufficiency and cultural superiority of poor white towns vs poor urban areas. It’s just laughable.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Living in a gay relationship is an arrangement the state chooses to support as one of a number of perfectly fine options (though morally we disagree).

The state is not merely “supporting” gay marriage. It has essentially declared that marriage is a fiction that can be changed by the state. The state used to RECOGNIZE marriage. Now it defines it and legally declares a false “right” to marriage along with authentic marriage. As Catholics, we should not be okay with the state declaring a same-sex sexual union marriage. Marriage and the family are the fundamentals of society.

“Gay Marriage” is not just another option. It is one of the PRIMARY ways in which the radical atheist humanist activists are attacking and undermining Christianity. You simply are not allowed to even suggest you don’t approve of same-sex marriage, lest you risk your livelihood and social standing.

If I owned a rental property (and I don’t mean a granny flat in my back yard), I would find it hard to find a basis to rule out gay couples because they’re gay. The people need to live somewhere.

What if it was a father and daughter having an incestuous relationship? Or a polyamorous group, were the whole group, men and women were sleeping with each other?

Yes, people need to live somewhere, and I personally would probably not bar someone from renting my property because they lived a homosexual lifestyle. But being gay is a CHOICE. And if a landlord simply doesn’t like someone, he has a natural right to deny that person the use of his property. Now, if there were only one or two properties in town- that would be a different matter. That would fall into monopolistic behavior.

Anyway, good ruling mostly. I have a gay son and he and his husband have run into minor issues before but nothing crazy.

I say this respectfully and charitably: Your son is gay because he chooses to be gay. It is a choice. He may not be able to choose his disordered attraction, but he can choose to reject it and travel the better path. As his father, it is your job to spiritually support your son, no matter what age, which also means letting him know that his current lifestyle is wrong and will being him great suffering and negative emotional, psychological and spiritual consequences. That doesn’t mean turning him away. I don’t think a parent should ever turn a child away. But if you truly believe in a moral God that is anything like the Christian God, then it is your duty to at least advise him and lend him support to get on the right path towards God.

I don’t believe any business has the right to discriminate against anyone (a baker shouldn’t be able to deny service to a gay couple, since the wedding cake they order is just a wedding cake, not a gay wedding cake).

If your a business owner and a customer with a bad attitude walks in the door and demands a cake, do you have to make it? What if he has a nice attitude, but just wants you to contribute to something you want no part in, like the Planned Parenthood Abortion Milestone Party, which wants a cake with little baby parts decorating it and a a pair of forceps sticking out from it.

Most business owners want business and they aren’t eager to reject customers without reason, including those who live the homosexual lifestyle. However, there is a line that conscientious people don’t cross: When you’re asked to use your skills to put out a message you fundamentally, morally disagree with. It’s not the cake. It’s how its decorated. And its about your simple freedom as an individual, as a business, especially a small business which reflects the owner a lot more than big businesses, to reject service for whatever reason to whoever you don’t want to serve.

Serving customers is not compulsory, it’s a right- a right that is violated when certain groups say “No, you MUST serve me, whether you like it or not- otherwise I will have the government shut you down, fine you or put you in jail!” This is an aggressive and uncalled for use of force. You are forced by the government to start a bakery. If the government has no moral or legal right to force you to open a bakery, or any other business, at all, then what on Earth gives it the moral right to force you to serve any particular group, make any particular pastry or decorate in any particular way??

Not the same as businesses, which remain operational thanks to tax dollars that fund the infrastructure, water and electricity that the local citizens pay for, including LGBT ones.

So your argument is that because business receive benefits from the taxes that they and others pay that they should be forced to adhere to the government’s business ideology and serve products the way in which, and to whom which, the government feels they should? In that case, then wouldn’t that apply to everyone, since we all “benefit” from general government welfare? But then, that means that the government gets to control you just because they manage all the resources. I suggest you rethink this argument.

 

[SecretCatholic]

What you call the condition of being sexually attracted to others of the same sex is certainly a choice. But the attraction itself (whatever you call it) is not a choice. Someone doesn’t have to identify as “gay,” but that doesn’t mean that they are any different from someone who does identify as “gay” except in what they call this sexual attraction.

It makes all the difference. Some people have a tendency towards violence, but control themselves. Others do not control themselves and harm others. We ALL have disordered passions. But it is in our FREE WILL in which we choose our path- towards or away from God. God will not condemn anyone because they have attractions that they cannot control. But a person condemns himself when he chooses to indulge in those temptations rather than to seek the grace of God and the help of others to choose the better path.

There are many with same-sex attraction who do not choose to identify as “gay” and do not seek false “gay rights”.

 

[lemongrass80]

This comment does a great job of avoiding the question.

So what it’s gonna be if the Nazi wants his cake from a Jewish cake business?

I’d hate to think the left would be yet again exercising double standards…

Because it was a poor comparison. A better one would be, should a rascist baker be forced to bake a cake for a black couple. And the answer is yes.

 

[Otar_Mendes]

Marriage and the family are the fundamentals of society.

Gay people contribute to building this society and they give birth and raise children too.

But being gay is a CHOICE

Ah, so you being heterosexual is a choice? How interesting. Do tell more, please.

suffering and negative emotional, psychological consequences

Because of the likes of you and your propaganda?

PS I find it extremely ironic that Christians don’t mind having religion (a pure social myth\construct) protected by non-discrimination laws yet demand to remove sexual orientation(a biological trait) from the same list.

And if we add to that the fact that the history of Christians and gay people is the same as the history of Nazis and Jews (burning alive, executions, tortures, prisons, persecution for hundreds and hundreds of years etc) then it starts to look really ugly.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Gay people contribute to building this society and they give birth and raise children too.

Yes, but one does wonder how so-called gay “marriage” could ever be “equal” since people in a practicing homosexual relationship cannot have a child without a third party.

Also, their lifestyle requires all of this attention and support.

Very unequal to say the least.

PS I find it extremely ironic that Christians don’t mind having religion (a pure social myth\construct) protected by non-discrimination laws yet demand to remove sexual orientation(a biological trait) from the same list.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Ha! You mean like the welfare culture, for lack of a better term, in the rural Midwest?

While this is clearly an ad hominem, there are many cultures in the USA that depend on welfare. The one thing they all have in common is their policies are more post-modern leftists on the economic side.

The rural Midwest was the difference in electing Barack Obama. They have been in many instances voting against their better nature and that comes with not practicing the faith or taking it very seriously-----and/or voting on the basis of getting a farm or wind subsidy which is far more than anyone on welfare (well, who isn’t scamming the system anyways) is receiving.

Don’t get me wrong, we should be doing more across the board to lift people out of poverty. But having lived in both a small rural town and a couple major cities, one of them especially poor and dangerous, I’m totally over the illusion of self-sufficiency and cultural superiority of poor white towns vs poor urban areas. It’s just laughable.

I’m not a fan of the word “superior” when it comes to cultures. In fact, many minorities in the DNC base are more socially conservative than young white people.

The best way to lift people out of poverty is to lower taxes and regulations on businesses so they can hire people.

 

[Rau]

…The best way to lift people out of poverty is to lower taxes and regulations on businesses so they can hire people.

It’s likely that the economy of the future will simply not need a workforce of the scale we typically call “full employment”, or anything like it. Distribution of wealth will become “the” political issue.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

Because it was a poor comparison. A better one would be, should a rascist baker be forced to bake a cake for a black couple. And the answer is yes.

More aptly, a racist couple wants a cake from an african-american baker. One emblazoned with the confederate flag and the words “Desegregation was a mistake.”

I believe it was Amazon that refused to sell people confederate flags any more. They can do that, presumably because folks can take their business elsewhere, but Christian bakers cannot. Odd, that.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

While this is clearly an ad hominem, there are many cultures in the USA that depend on welfare. The one thing they all have in common is their policies are more post-modern leftists on the economic side.

The rural Midwest was the difference in electing Barack Obama. They have been in many instances voting against their better nature and that comes with not practicing the faith or taking it very seriously-----and/or voting on the basis of getting a farm or wind subsidy which is far more than anyone on welfare (well, who isn’t scamming the system anyways) is receiving.

I’m not a fan of the word “superior” when it comes to cultures. In fact, many minorities in the DNC base are more socially conservative than young white people.

The best way to lift people out of poverty is to lower taxes and regulations on businesses so they can hire people.

Question, SL:

Do you agree with the idea that corporations are people? Because that is problematic from certain POVs.

Asking because earlier in the thread you made a comment that led me to think you agreed with the idea, like the SCOTUS did so many years ago.
Thanks in advance.