Gay couple denied apartment

  • Thread starter Thread starter timwatt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
Then I take it you would be opposed to discriminating against renting to a single gay person since that would be similar to discrimination against a Black, Jew, old person, disabled individual, or pregnant woman based on who they are rather than their actions, even though the landlord doesn’t know whether they are celibate or sexually active?
Click to expand...
“Laws, people must learn, particularly laws stated in sweeping terms, are dangerous things.” – Lino A. Graglia, Professor in Constitutional Law, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas.
 
I’ve turned away renters for a number of reasons, none ever made known to them. We had multiple renters looking at places we rented, and I never had to tell them who or why we chose a couple. Our reasons were varied, and never made public.

Why did the landlord say anything, I wonder?
 
Bill_Martin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Would you apply this same reasoning regarding race? Could a landlord , under your proposition, refuse to rent to a minority?
 
He_Man said:
I’ve turned away renters for a number of reasons, none ever made known to them. We had multiple renters looking at places we rented, and I never had to tell them who or why we chose a couple. Our reasons were varied, and never made public.

Why did the landlord say anything, I wonder?
Click to expand...
He probably didn’t say anything until confronted about it. “Gay” activists do a lot of in your face confrontation now a days. They go looking for a fight so they can sue.
 
hannajomar said:
It seems to be a slippery slope to not rent to people who are openly engaging in sin. If we denied them because of homosexual behavior, should we also deny fallen-away Catholics who refuse to go to Sunday Mass? What about a woman who dresses immodestly, or someone who works at Planned Parenthood?

I do, however, believe the landlord should have the right to rent to anyone they choose and deny renting to anyone the choose for any reason. I’m in an interracial marriage, which is often compared to gay marriage for the purposes of discrimination. Personally, I wouldn’t want to rent from anyone who disagreed with my choice of who to be with. I wouldn’t want to buy a wedding cake from them either. They don’t deserve my money.
Click to expand...
In fact of course, a Sicilian man married to an Irishwoman is an interracial marriage. Certainly a black man from Alabama who is married to a white woman from Alabama of the same social class probably have more in common. 🙂
 
Slippery slope?


Prostitute wins right to work from motel
A fly-in fly-out prostitute has won the right to work from a central Queensland motel, even though the owners want her kicked out.
Click to expand...
The Civil and Administrative Tribunal has found the owners of Moranbah’s Drovers Rest Motel contravened the Anti-Discrimination Act by banning the prostitute from using the premises when they realised she was bringing clients back to her room.
Click to expand...
 
Linda_Marie said:
Slippery slope?


Prostitute wins right to work from motel
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
I agree. If we have freedom of speech in America, nobody should have the right to dictate who you have to rent to. It is your building. You should be able to rent it out to whoever you choose. Let’s be honest, who would want to rent from somebody who actually didn’t want them there?
 
Linda_Marie said:
Slippery slope?

%between%
From the linked article:
The Civil and Administrative Tribunal has found the owners of Moranbah’s Drovers Rest Motel contravened the Anti-Discrimination Act by banning the prostitute from using the premises when they realised she was bringing clients back to her room. … “Obviously we don’t condone any discrimination. But it does raise the question [of] whether or not someone can set up shop basically and stay for whatever period.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
WingsOfEagles said:
I agree. If we have freedom of speech in America, nobody should have the right to dictate who you have to rent to.
Click to expand...
What does freedom of speech have to do with the issue? Just asking.
… Let’s be honest, who would want to rent from somebody who actually didn’t want them there?
Click to expand...
Someone who wants to “stick it to” those who refuse to accept their “enlightened” morality.
 
sedonaman said:
From the linked article:

This is another example of non-discrimination being a moral imperative gone wild.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
There is a clause in my apt lease about illegal activity being grounds for immediate eviction, and that clause has been used on people caught selling drugs.
 
sedonaman said:
What does freedom of speech have to do with the issue? Just asking.
Click to expand...
Telling a landlord that he/she has to rent to anybody, regardless of their sexual preferences is a restriction on freedom of speech. A landlord should have the right to say, I don’t agree with your lifestyle and therefore, I will not rent to you. The building is the landlord’s property and he/she should be able to do with it what he/she wishes.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
Telling a landlord that he/she has to rent to anybody, regardless of their sexual preferences is a restriction on freedom of speech. A landlord should have the right to say, I don’t agree with your lifestyle and therefore, I will not rent to you. …
Click to expand...
There was a boss who claimed free speech rights when his secretary charged him with sexual harassment. He said something like, “Sleep with me or you’re fired.” So, I don’t see it as a free speech issue.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Did you know that the ACLU argued that the Boy Scouts is a public accommodation? Such distortions of the intent of a law are quite common.
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...
See my post #128.
 
sedonaman said:
There was a boss who claimed free speech rights when his secretary charged him with sexual harassment. He said something like, “Sleep with me or you’re fired.” So, I don’t see it as a free speech issue.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that’s a horrible comparison. The case of the employer is not a free speech right. He can’t tell an employee they have to do something outside the job description in order to keep her employment.

If I don’t want someone living on MY property, that is a free speech right. No one should be able to force my hand on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top