Morally-just reason for supporting California's Proposition 14 in 1964?
- Status
W
Wesrock
Guest
I’m no expert, but I don’t think this is a non-negotiable issue, and as such their can be just reasons for support of such a measure, though certainly there can be unjust motivations and applications of it by individualas
S
ShrodingersCat
Guest
If it’s purpose was racial discrimination, I don’t see how.
But also it wouldn’t necessarily be sinful depending on why someone was supporting it. Might just have been ignorance. I’m thinking of people who might have opposed it because “we won’t be able to keep troublemakers out” rather than “we won’t be able to keep black people out”.
B
BCole
Guest
I don’t see how violating the human right of free association could ever be moral. As punishment in prison, perhaps.
U
Usige
Guest
Just reading the text there is nothing overtly racist in the text. One could have supported it purely as a matter of property rights. As I read the proposed amendment text, it basically says that the government has no say in who you chose to sell your property to.
B
Brendan
Guest
I would say that ‘it depends’.
More specifically, a Catholic could not oppose denying people just housing on the basis of race or religion.
BUT, a Catholic landlord could justly deny accommodations to an unmarried, cohabitating couple.
More specifically, a Catholic could not oppose denying people just housing on the basis of race or religion.
BUT, a Catholic landlord could justly deny accommodations to an unmarried, cohabitating couple.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
U
Usige
Guest
Reading the Rumford Act and it would be illegal for a Catholic landlord to do so. The act prohibited refusing for marital or familial status among other things. Now obviously that is legal and not a moral basis, but it is one instance why a Catholic might have supported the proposition for non-racial reasons.
G
GEddie
Guest
Is this really an issue?
The vote took place more than two generations ago and we cannot place ourselves in the minds of those who voted on it. Judging the past by the present seldom bears positive fruit.
JMINWHO.
ICXC NIKA
The vote took place more than two generations ago and we cannot place ourselves in the minds of those who voted on it. Judging the past by the present seldom bears positive fruit.
JMINWHO.
ICXC NIKA
B
Brendan
Guest
My thoughts exactly, I too had read that it prohibited a landlord from restricting their property to only single person or married couples. Thus a Catholic could have justly opposed the Rumford Act on those grounds.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Are you sure about that? If a Catholic landlord cannot deny accommodations based on religion, then on what basis can he deny accommodations to someone whose religion does not condemn unmarried cohabitation?
Consider that living together is only an occasion for sin, not the sin itself. Making a couple sleep outside in the rain is not the way to show them the kingdom of God.
What’s next? A grocery store denying food to cohabitating couples to discourage their sin?
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
How would a Catholic landlord prohibiting an unmarried couple cohabitating be any different than a landlord prohibiting a porn shop in his retail space?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is different because:
- The primary purpose of housing is a good one: to shelter people from the elements. It is only secondarily a near occasion for sin for an unmarried couple, and even then it is used mostly for a good purpose. The primary purpose, indeed the only purpose, of porn is a bad one.
- Housing is a necessity. Selling porn is not.
E
exnihilo
Guest
A faithful Catholic could and should support it. The proposition was a protection of the most essential of property rights. Besides it is imprudent to allow the state to intrude into such intimate details of our lives. In order for the state to have such authority we have to surrender our privacy and be ready to legally justify our decisions about who to rent or sell our homes to. I don’t know why anyone who has any knowledge of the dangers of the modern nation sate would advocate such powers be granted to it. The surrendered of this most basic right has resulted in Christians being sued for not supporting and promoting same sex marriage and soon transgenderism.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Property rights do not trump the right to life.
You mean like when a woman wants to get an abortion? That is a pretty intimate detail.
E
exnihilo
Guest
No, property rights do not trump the right to life. But the right to life has nothing to do with whether you sell or rent your home to a particular person. They are not here in contest with one another.
Abortion is an act that murders a person. Murder isn’t an intimate detail.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Try living without a roof over your head for a few weeks and then tell me how it is irrelevant to life. To refuse a service that you give to everyone else just because of someone’s religion is an abomination.
It is a very intimate detail when that other person is living inside you. Face it. Your “intimate detail” defense of discrimination is just as faulty as an “intimate detail” defense of abortion.
B
BCole
Guest
There is no monopoly on shelter.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
I would have thought that any faithful Catholic would have had great pause in supporting it–as they should have remembered the signs they used to see in windows that said “No Catholic Need Apply.” And remembered that just four years before a certain candidates Catholic faith almost disqualified him from being president. We should remember that even those who do not believe as we do, or live as we think they should–have a right to shelter. For those who think it a justifiable to refuse to rent to a cohabitating (sp) couple because you think you are cooperating with their sin–are you saying that you believe it is not sinful or at least less sinful to make them sleep on the street than to provide them shelter, provide them a place to sleep?
The peace of Christ,
Mark
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
The proposition was not the supporting of our most basic property rights–it was the supporting your right to deny selling or renting your property to someone whose skin color or religion you didn’t like–your right to sell or rent your property was not in jeopardy–just you right to say I won’t sell or rent to that blankety blank Catholic even though he can afford the rent and would be a good tenant–I think it’s probably a good thing your right to do that was not affirmed. But hey that’s just me – I’m glad my Catholic faith is no longer an issue with my finding a job or housing and I don’t think someone else’s faith, or lack there of or skin color should be a reason that they are unable to find employment or housing.
Christians are being sued for refusing to sell a cake–I think it could be argued simply selling a cake is not showing approval for or support for whatever activity the cake is being used for. County clerks issuing marriage licenses is a little more problematic–their job duties now require them to do something that they can not support–issuing the license for what they believe to be an invalid marriage–not sure what the answer is here. Where the government is trampling our rights–it seems to me–is when they try to tell a store owner–such as the owner of a pharmacy what drugs they must stock–i.e. the abortion pill or contraception. This seems an overreach.
The peace of Christ,
Mark
- Status