No, it is not. My point is that the owner should be able to decide what violates his conscience.You don’t make a moral point when you compare not being able to discriminate in housing with forcing a woman to allow the first qualified stranger to be around her child. That’s apples and oranges, not a moral point, and downright hyperbolic.
Not buying that for one minute. There is no reason a Catholic has to find another job because the state forces immoral activity on him/her. By that logic a Catholic can be pushed farther and farther from all work as the government controls every aspect of life.Because I know the industry, the laws, the history behind them, and plenty of real world cases and suits where people were caused real hardship because of housing discrimination. Up until a few weeks ago when I quit to attend law school I managed multifamily real estate for a living, both on site and in the corporate office. At a certain point if you feel that renting to certain types of people violates your conscience you need to find a new job. There are plenty of jobs that would require me to violate my conscience, so I don’t do them. Your rights end where another’s begin. And everyone deserves equal access to housing, just as they deserve equal access to stores and restaurants.
That is a civil issue, not a conscience issue. You are saying the government decides morality for us?Our democratically elected government. And they’ve been saying so for 45 years since Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed.
And what did you decide its real meaning is?Obviously your idea of charity is very different to its actual meaning…
To be Christ like.And what did you decide its real meaning is?
Yes they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason they want to. If they lose money by doing so because they turn away business, fine. If someone opens up an aparment complex across the street that accepts everyone and undercuts their business, fine. If there’s a major boycott of their housing facilities by whatever group they are rejecting, then fine. If they are able to stay in business despite all these things, then fine.Yeah, it is. You are protected from housing discrimination on the basis of things like gender, pregnancy, disability, race, religion, etc. (And no, this doesn’t just protect minorities, you can’t discriminate against white people or Christians either.). And this is a good thing. Communities should not get to keep people with clean backgrounds who can pay the rent out of certain neighborhoods based on skin color or age.
True…but Jesus generally did this in a gentle manner. He never condemned anyone for their personal sins.Can I point out that Jesus overturned the tables of the money collectors in the temple?
Being Christlike does not necessarily mean we don’t ever tell someone that his/her behavior is immoral. The ultimate act of love is showing someone the way to salvation.
Turning over a table is gentle?True…but Jesus generally did this in a gentle manner. He never condemned anyone for their personal sins.
Making a whip of cords and driving people out while kicking their tables over is not exactly gentle.True…but Jesus generally did this in a gentle manner. He never condemned anyone for their personal sins.
I live in a modest apartment; people on the other side of town live in mansions. I demand my equal access to a mansion.And everyone deserves equal access to housing, just as they deserve equal access to stores and restaurants.
Well fortunately that will never happen. No politician is foolish enough to try to repeal the Civil Rights Act because some people want to practice blatant discrimination.Yes they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason they want to. If they lose money by doing so because they turn away business, fine. If someone opens up an aparment complex across the street that accepts everyone and undercuts their business, fine. If there’s a major boycott of their housing facilities by whatever group they are rejecting, then fine. If they are able to stay in business despite all these things, then fine.
There is no justification for requiring me to let someone live on my own property if I don’t want them to.
I said generally. He never even raised his voice to the adulterous woman.Making a whip of cords and driving people out while kicking their tables over is not exactly gentle.
But we are all talking in the abstract here. I doubt many would say get off my property you deviants. Some would just state their position in a reasonable way and let God do the rest.To be Christ like.
In other words.(What does IOW mean?)
But you do have equal access to those things, you just can’t afford them. If you don’t see a real difference between someone not being able to afford to shop at Nordstrom and someine being kept out because they are black, Jewish, old, pregnant, etc then I suggest you really put some thought in to how you look at people.I live in a modest apartment; people on the other side of town live in mansions. I demand my equal access to a mansion.
I shop at Wa-mart; people on the other side of town shop at Nordstrom’s. I demand my equal access to Nordstrom’s.
I eat at McDonald’s; people on the other side of town eat at Chez Andre’s. I demand my equal access to eat at Chez Andre’s.
“The very purpose of law is to classify (discriminate among) people for different treatment; for example, burglary statutes distinguish burglars from non-burglars.” – Lino A. Graglia, Professor in Constitutional Law, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas.
“Political correctness is the denial of truth that conflicts with ideology. It requires us to pretend not to know things that we do.”
Chick Fil A is still in business and doing well.Sure, I can see that the renters don’t worship orgasms in any way at all.
But as per previous post, if they intend to rent to only others who do not worship orgasm, they may not find any renters.
Just something good for them to be aware of, of course, for business purposes and their financial numbers.
This is my point too. Our culture views discrimination and equality as super rights that can trump any all things. It is a type of indoctrination.I live in a modest apartment; people on the other side of town live in mansions. I demand my equal access to a mansion.
I shop at Wal-mart; people on the other side of town shop at Nordstrom’s. I demand my equal access to Nordstrom’s.
I eat at McDonald’s; people on the other side of town eat at Chez Andre’s. I demand my equal access to eat at Chez Andre’s.
“The very purpose of law is to classify (discriminate among) people for different treatment; for example, burglary statutes distinguish burglars from non-burglars.” – Lino A. Graglia, Professor in Constitutional Law, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas.
“Political correctness is the denial of truth that conflicts with ideology. It requires us to pretend not to know things that we do.”
We could offer you the same advice. You apparently do not see a difference among the groups you listed and persons who self identify by sexual conduct.But you do have equal access to those things, you just can’t afford them. If you don’t see a real difference between someone not being able to afford to shop at Nordstrom and someine being kept out because they are black, Jewish, old, pregnant, etc then I suggest you really put some thought in to how you look at people.
I could not care less if someone wants to discriminate against me. Their property, their rules.Well fortunately that will never happen. No politician is foolish enough to try to repeal the Civil Rights Act because some people want to practice blatant discrimination.
The government must decide fairness and equality, not morality in this instance, when people may have different moral values based on their particular religion or lack of religion.No, it is not. My point is that the owner should be able to decide what violates his conscience.
Not buying that for one minute. There is no reason a Catholic has to find another job because the state forces immoral activity on him/her. By that logic a Catholic can be pushed farther and farther from all work as the government controls every aspect of life.
That is a civil issue, not a conscience issue. You are saying the government decides morality for us?
I do not disagree with that. The poster claimed the government was issuing decrees on immorality.The government must decide fairness and equality, not morality in this instance, when people may have different moral values based on their particular religion or lack of religion.