Gay couple denied apartment

  • Thread starter Thread starter timwatt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WingsOfEagles said:
…
If I don’t want someone living on MY property, that is a free speech right. …
Click to expand...
:dts: It might be some other kind of right, but not one of free speech. You can say it, of course, but so what? It wouldn’t be enough to keep them out.
 
sedonaman said:
:dts: It might be some other kind of right, but not one of free speech. You can say it, of course, but so what? It wouldn’t be enough to keep them out.
Click to expand...
Really, you can’t say it because if you turn them away stating that as your reason, that can be used as grounds to sue you.
 
Bill_Martin said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thankfully you are not in a position to effect such a policy.

Much of the South was a ugly place for Black prior to the Civil Rights Movement.

Does “No Blacks, No Jews, No Catholics,” ring a bell?

Even today there are thousands and thousands of people who might prefer a “whites only” pool for their kids. I suppose this would be an OK situation for you. Despicable.
 
ringil said:
Thankfully you are not in a position to effect such a policy.

Much of the South was a ugly place for Black prior to the Civil Rights Movement.

Does “No Blacks, No Jews, No Catholics,” ring a bell?

Even today there are thousands and thousands of people who might prefer a “whites only” pool for their kids. I suppose this would be an OK situation for you. Despicable.
Click to expand...
Yes it would be okay with me because A.) they would only be hurting their own business since there would be mass boycotts, B.) it isn’t very good business practice to reject a large portion of your customer base, and most importantly C.) the government has no business telling me who I have to allow on my private property. I do not want to force a private business to serve me if they do not want to.

The country has changed a lot since the 1960’s. If you really think that allowing people to decide who they want to serve would lead to the Jim Crow south, then you aren’t being very realistic. Besides all the outrage in the media if a business did decide to exclude blacks or any other racial group, a competitor could just open up a business across the street that does not discriminate. The free market would crush any business who trid to enact such a policy.

The Civil Rights Act was not well thought out. It was necessary as a temporary solution, but gave the government too much power to dictate to private property owners and private businesses who they are forced to serve. The evidence of its poor design is the fact that now it is being used to prevent discrimination based on behavior, not just race as was its original intent. It would be better if it was just deleted and people were allowed to have their private property rights back. Once you give the government an opening even if it feels good at the time, it WILL be abused down the road. Now we’re seeing it with the Civil Rights Act.
 
ringil said:
…
Much of the South was a ugly place for Black prior to the Civil Rights Movement.
…
Click to expand...
I think the South suffers from a lot of stereotyped images.
  • A friend’s father owned a car dealership in the Deep South, and whenever he got a black customer, he would say, “Yes, sir” just the same as he would address his white customers.
  • Another friend told of living in the South and seeing some white girls playing with a black girl who lived in their neighborhood. On hot days, an old lady would invite them all in for lemonade. When the black girl’s family moved up North, she said nobody ever invited her in for lemonade, or any thing else.
 
sedonaman said:
I think the South suffers from a lot of stereotyped images.
  • A friend’s father owned a car dealership in the Deep South, and whenever he got a black customer, he would say, “Yes, sir” just the same as he would address his white customers.
  • Another friend told of living in the South and seeing some white girls playing with a black girl who lived in their neighborhood. On hot days, an old lady would invite them all in for lemonade. When the black girl’s family moved up North, she said nobody ever invited her in for lemonade, or any thing else.
Click to expand...
There are millions of decent folks in the South and I have my own stories of wonderful people without a racist bone in their bode. Unfortunately, I also have stories of overt racism exhibited on a personal and institutional level. Certainly racism is universal in the US. However the manifestation of racism is different in the South in that it tends to be more overt.

The phenomena of “white flight” occurred in urban ares throughout the US leaving decrepit downtown areas. And why did “white flight” occur? Mostly because white parents didn’t want their kids going to school with black kids.

BTW I am bron and bred in Richmond, VA and lived in NC as well. I then lived in MA and now live in NY. Yes, there are stereotypes of the South but there is also some truth that the South continues to suffer as a result of continued racism.

In any case, much of the South is really developing as a technological and educational powerhouse. Some Southern states are experiencing an influx of folks from the NE. It takes time.

But one day the Confederate flags will no longer fly over state capitals and the romance over the antebellum South will pass away, and the sooner the better as far as I am concerned.
 
Bill_Martin said:
The Civil Rights Act was not well thought out. It was necessary as a temporary solution, but gave the government too much power to dictate to private property owners and private businesses who they are forced to serve. The evidence of its poor design is the fact that now it is being used to prevent discrimination based on behavior, not just race as was its original intent. It would be better if it was just deleted and people were allowed to have their private property rights back. Once you give the government an opening even if it feels good at the time, it WILL be abused down the road. Now we’re seeing it with the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...
i agree ,and i agree with the following also,(it wouldn’t matter if i agreed with or not,its the truth)
Catechism of the Catholic Church “1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:
Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design”
Click to expand...
the Catechism does not say we cannot justly discriminate on the basis of same sex attraction.and the civil rights act is too far reaching,and the assumption is always that the discrimination is always unjust.if i have a store and a white male enters with his pants riding below his butt , as is the fashion in some areas and i tell him to pull them up or leave.there probably will not be any repercussions .now if it were a black male,i not sure that would be the case.and given it is well nigh impossible to prove a negative,and the lawyer fees would kill me. i’m a motorcyclist,and i use to be a member of the a.m.a (american motorcyclist association ) until it started a effort to try to introduce legislation to force establishments to let people enter who were wearing colors or leather jackets.thats were this ends up.
 
april32010 said:
sorry,as a life member of the nra and someone who has no problem with someone killing an armed robber,the prime case cited in that article is not one i would use to advance the argument .the pharmacist executed that guy.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t the reason I referenced it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The laws regarding non-discrimination can be written in such a way as to preclude this wild scenario while still maintaining all the protections that were originally intended by such legislation. In particular the disallowed grounds for discrimination are (or should be) explicity spelled out: race, religion, gender, and maybe a few that I have forgotten. But grounds like operating an illegal business can certainly be used to deny service. We don’t have to go to the opposite extreme of saying everyone has the absolute right to refuse to rent to anyone for any reason whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Prostitution is not illegal in Australia, so the hooker was not operating an illegal business.

Immoral? yes,
Illegal? no.

It is the same scenario.
 
I would say that if such a law prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation, we should see an end to discrimination based on pro-family values, like having children. Thus, if we wished to treat families as well as homosexuals, we would also have no all adult communities.

It would make retirement communities more interesting.

If I was the landlord though, I would honor the law and rent it.
 
pnewton said:
I would say that if such a law prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation, we should see an end to discrimination based on pro-family values, like having children. …
Click to expand...
On the contrary, we will see more hostility to pro-family values.
To the Modern Liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. Because an act of discrimination is a reflection of personal bigotry, the only way to be moral is not to discriminate, not even between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated.
…
Click to expand...
When we fail to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong, and the behaviors that lead to success and those that lead to failure, we do not end up objective, neutral, tolerant, or even indifferent; we end up hating what is good, right, and successful. We have seen this pattern over an over. The idea that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter has led to a resurgence of anti-Semitism; a successful person is not a testimony of the opportunities in America; it is an indictment of American greed; the belief that America is no better than any other country has led to hatred of America… So, the idea that same-sex partners should be allowed to marry will lead, not to tolerance, objectivity, neutrality, or even indifference, but to hatred of heterosexual couples and heterosexual marriage. – The Closing of the American Mind
Click to expand...
 
Bill_Martin said:
Slippery slope indeed. This is what happens when people let the “feel goodness” of a law override critical thinking. Anti discrimination laws sound nice, but when you give the government the power to dictate who you have to allow on your own property and who you have to serve, then you’ve opened up a can of worms and set it precariously on an ice covered slope to ruin.
Click to expand...
Slippery slope doesn’t apply to this case. Apples and oranges. The modern “tolerant” view of prostitution is what led here, not the fact that you can’t discriminate against blacks. All the more reasons to keep prostitution wholly illegal.

In common law you can refuse to rent to someone in who uses the property for illegal acts. (In Canada you can be evicted if you run a grow-op in your flat.) Then again, this is the problem with activist judges and “human rights” laws. Keep in mind, though, that this instance wasn’t dealing with a real court of law, but a kangaroo “human rights” tribunal.

I’m all for non-discrimination that says you can’t say “no blacks”, but prostitution is quite different, as is someone who is overly messy, loud, etc. One is intrinsic and unable the change, the latter is not.

But when “non-discrimination” becomes licence for anything and everything, that’s a problem. (If this is what you were trying to say I misunderstood.)
sedonaman said:
To the Modern Liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. Because an act of discrimination is a reflection of personal bigotry, the only way to be moral is not to discriminate, not even between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. … When we fail to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong, and the behaviors that lead to success and those that lead to failure, we do not end up objective, neutral, tolerant, or even indifferent; we end up hating what is good, right, and successful.

The Closing of the American Mind.
Click to expand...
That is an excellent book written by a very talented and knowledgeable man. The world needs more uni professors like him. Of course, its message is applicable to the West as a whole and not just the States.
Bill_Martin said:
The evidence of its poor design is the fact that now it is being used to prevent discrimination based on behavior, not just race as was its original intent.
Click to expand...
Bingo. So the concept of discrimination based on race being illegal is something that is good. If the law is flawed, fix it. Behaviour is not, and never should be, protected. If not, I’ll go into some activist judges courtroom dressed as I please and will act as I please. Will he be a hypocrite and have the nerve to judge my behaviour? (Of course he will! It’s okay as long as it’s not in his backyard.)
Linda_Marie said:
Prostitution is not illegal in Australia, so the hooker was not operating an illegal business.
Click to expand...
So here’s your problem. If you want to stop this stuff, ban prostitution.

Then again, who has the right to run a business inside someone else’s place of business? That seems absurd. I’m not allowed to run a jiffy mart in a hotel room, why should a prostitute be able to run a brothel?
 
It’s funny, because I doubt she’d do the same to someone who was an atheist, deist, pantheist or a religion she didn’t approve of.
 
Linda_Marie said:
Prostitution is not illegal in Australia, so the hooker was not operating an illegal business.

Immoral? yes,
Illegal? no.

It is the same scenario.
Click to expand...
However, the article does imply that the prostitute’s business practices were eroding the amenities of the motel to the degree that other guests were complaining. That, in my mind, would put her business activities in the same category as a tenant who was making a lot of late night noise (maybe that was the issue, but I’m not going there) or otherwise making the motel a less attractive stop for guests who might otherwise have stayed there. Such a result would affect the motel owners’ business.

Personally, I have no idea what I’d do if I were a landlady of multiple rental units and a homosexual couple presented themselves to look at and rent one of the units. It would cross my mind that perhaps I was “aiding and abetting” a sinful lifestyle, but then again so would renting to a cohabitating straight couple. The realities of business would dictate that my rental criterion would be based on ability to pay the rent, as well as maintaining a standard of behavior that would not damage my property beyond normal wear and tear or disturb the neighbors. An argument could be made in favor of not renting to a single person with a hedonistic lifestyle (meaning continual traffic of different people on a nightly basis,) etc, etc, and these are all real considerations.

I lived in rental housing in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan for a good part of my adult life, and had a roommate, sometimes two, of the same gender. We were all straight. We knew each other pretty well, because we were all co-workers. With the price of rental property in that neighborhood, someone who didn’t have an extremely lucrative job had to have roommates, and these scenarios were very common, as well as cohabitating couples of either sexual orientation. On two occasions we had to ask particular roommates to find other accommodations because of promiscuity: We didn’t want to have the latest “Mr.Goodbar” type potentially rifling through our stuff, and it did happen once.

I guess my experience with living in apartments with other people is part of the reason why today I’m a happy homeowner of a single family house, and never did catch the “rental bug” during the real estate boom! When my husband suggested we purchase a two family house and rent the other apartment, I was horrified. He is a truck driver, meaning it would be I who had to deal with the problems of having tenants most of the time! No, no, NO!
 
Bill_Martin said:
…
The Civil Rights Act was not well thought out. It was necessary as a temporary solution, but gave the government too much power to dictate to private property owners and private businesses who they are forced to serve. The evidence of its poor design is the fact that now it is being used to prevent discrimination based on behavior, not just race as was its original intent. …
Click to expand...
Paraphrasing Justice Benjamin Cardozo, “There is a tendency of a principle to expand itself beyond the limit of its logic.” [Emphasis mine]
 
fix said:
How is that comparable?
Click to expand...
Because out of all the people who’s beliefs/actions you would disapprove of, homosexuals seem to get the worst treatment. Of course, that may be because it’s easier to spot a gay couple than an atheist couple, so I guess it isn’t fair to compare them.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Because out of all the people who’s beliefs/actions you would disapprove of, homosexuals seem to get the worst treatment. …
Click to expand...
I would hope convicted criminals and terrorists would get the worst treatment by society.

I believe the perceived bad treatment of homosexuals is based on a couple of isolated cases that got extrapolated into a whole universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top