Morally-just reason for supporting California's Proposition 14 in 1964?

[Maxirad]

Um, did any of the ads supporting Proposition 14 explicitly play on racial fears?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There is no monopoly on shelter.

Right. We can insist that those people with dark skin just move to the poor side of town. Not.

 

[BCole]

Right. We can insist that those people with dark skin just move to the poor side of town. Not.

That’s fine for you, but you have no right to unjust taking of other’s property or their right of association.

God doesn’t want a kingdom of force, he wants a kingdom of the heart. Laws forcing association and coercing exchange do nothing to build God’s kingdom. In fact, it is a sin to promote such laws.

 

[BCole]

Right. We can insist that those people with dark skin just move to the poor side of town. Not.

You know, that’s a gratuitous assertion and is really very racist. The most racist thing about it is that you are presuming “people with dark skin” are incapable of doing anything to improve their lives or finances. It’s unnecessary for me to point to examples because if you aren’t racist, you already are aware of the great successes of people from anywhere you can think of.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You know, that’s a gratuitous assertion and is really very racist.

Exactly. And that is why I am surprised that you take that position.

The most racist thing about it is that you are presuming “people with dark skin” are incapable of doing anything to improve their lives or finances.

Oh, the guy with dark skin could be a successful neurosurgeon with millions of dollars. But if the landlords on the “rich side of town” don’t want to see any dark skinned people in their neighborhood, Proposition 14 would allow them to do just that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s fine for you, but you have no right to unjust taking of other’s property or their right of association.

You can associate with whomever you want. But if you rent rooms as a business, you cannot refuse someone because of the color of their skin or their religion. It is not “taking your property”. It is just making sure you use your property justly.

God doesn’t want a kingdom of force, he wants a kingdom of the heart. Laws forcing association and coercing exchange do nothing to build God’s kingdom. In fact, it is a sin to promote such laws.

Why do you object to using laws to coerce some behavior (like renting fairly) but you don’t object to using laws to coerce other behavior (like abortion)? The fact is, laws can legitimately be used to discourage any bad behavior that affects other people.

 

[Rhubarb]

… but you have no right to unjust taking of other’s property or their right of association.

#whitepeopleproblems

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

That’s fine for you, but you have no right to unjust taking of other’s property or their right of association.

God doesn’t want a kingdom of force, he wants a kingdom of the heart. Laws forcing association and coercing exchange do nothing to build God’s kingdom. In fact, it is a sin to promote such laws.

Just to expand on what LeafByNiggle correctly stated, you do have complete free association when choosing a roommate. That’s personal and not business. If a person wants to share a place with someone with only certain beliefs (or even possessing a certain melanin content) they are more than welcome to do so.

It’s why in my “roommate wanted” ads I always specify rich supermodels with low standards who can cook

 

[MarkInOregon]

That’s fine for you, but you have no right to unjust taking of other’s property or their right of association.

God doesn’t want a kingdom of force, he wants a kingdom of the heart. Laws forcing association and coercing exchange do nothing to build God’s kingdom. In fact, it is a sin to promote such laws.

Come on. Unjust taking of your property simply because you can’t refuse to sell or rent to an equally qualified renter/purchaser based on race or religion? What’s really unjust their?

In no way did the proposition have anything to do with anyone’s ability to associate with anyone they chose to.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

That’s fine for you, but you have no right to unjust taking of other’s property or their right of association.

God doesn’t want a kingdom of force, he wants a kingdom of the heart. Laws forcing association and coercing exchange do nothing to build God’s kingdom. In fact, it is a sin to promote such laws.

Please read the law-there is no coercion of association or exchange

 

[exnihilo]

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.

Sounds like you support socialism where everybody has a house because houses are an essential requirement for life. Sounds like you support any law the government proposes because no area of life is beyond the control of the state. I’ll just say I strongly disagree.

 

[exnihilo]

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.

Property rights means ownership. Ownership means control. Control means doing with it what I wish. If you can’t sell your property to whomever you want, for whatever reason then you don’t really own it. So yes these laws do deprive you of rights.

What you support makes it illegal for Catholics to form a community where only Catholics live. Let’s say some Catholics want to have a good Catholic neighborhood to raise their children in. You say that should be illegal and is a great immorality. I find that frankly incredible. Or let’s say a Catholic widow has a guest house on her property. You say she can’t decide she only wants to rent it to a good Catholic because she doesn’t want immoral things taking place on her property. What you propose and support is actually one reason for why we have the gross immorality we have today. Individuals can no longer support morality with their private property because that power has been stripped from them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sounds like you support socialism where everybody has a house because houses are an essential requirement for life. Sounds like you support any law the government proposes because no area of life is beyond the control of the state. I’ll just say I strongly disagree.

Strawman argument. We are talking about people who can afford to buy or rent a house and being denied because of their religion. We are not talking about giving houses to people who cannot afford them.

 

[exnihilo]

Strawman argument. We are talking about people who can afford to buy or rent a house and being denied because of their religion. We are not talking about giving houses to people who cannot afford them.

No, you said a house is required as part of the right to life and we can’t deprive anyone of the right to life. Therefore we have an obligation to provide housing to everyone. That is what logicially follows from your position.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Property rights means ownership. Ownership means control. Control means doing with it what I wish. If you can’t sell your property to whomever you want, for whatever reason then you don’t really own it. So yes these laws do deprive you of rights.

Doing what you want with your own property in the context of your privacy is one thing. But when you publicly advertise a business of renting or selling homes, the way you use your property is subject to community rules. And one of those rules is that you cannot be a public business without serving the public without regard to their race or religion.

What you support makes it illegal for Catholics to form a community where only Catholics live.

You mean like a monastery, where the Church owns the entire complex, which is operated for the religious? Sure. No problem. But to establish “Catholicville” as a suburb of Las Vegas would be illegal, because cities and towns benefit from state and federal government as cites and towns, and therefore cannot discriminate against certain races or religions.

Or let’s say a Catholic widow has a guest house on her property. You say she can’t decide she only wants to rent it to a good Catholic because she doesn’t want immoral things taking place on her property.

Strawman. Anti-discrimination laws are for businesses that operate as businesses. They are not for private arrangements to rent a spare room in your house.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, you said a house is required as part of the right to life and we can’t deprive anyone of the right to life. Therefore we have an obligation to provide housing to everyone. That is what logicially follows from your position.

If you trace back in our exchange you will see this started from your more general comment that:
A faithful Catholic could and should support it. The proposition was a protection of the most essential of property rights.
which places property rights at the top of the moral ladder, above the right to life. In response to this more general position, my response was more general - about the supremacy of the the right to life over property rights. And housing is a necessity of life. From this you falsely inferred I was advocating taking private property to give people homes. I was not. Those who truly cannot afford any kind of home, for them we have a duty in charity to help them. And for those who can afford a home, we have a duty in justice to allow them to buy one.

 

[exnihilo]

Doing what you want with your own property in the context of your privacy is one thing. But when you publicly advertise a business of renting or selling homes, the way you use your property is subject to community rules. And one of those rules is that you cannot be a public business without serving the public without regard to their race or religion.

Sort of like how you can practice your religion at home but can’t bring it into the public square? If the community controls your property it isn’t private property anymore. Why would the act of selling your property suddenly subject you to ‘community rules’?

You mean like a monastery, where the Church owns the entire complex, which is operated for the religious? Sure. No problem. But to establish “Catholicville” as a suburb of Las Vegas would be illegal, because cities and towns benefit from state and federal government as cites and towns, and therefore cannot discriminate against certain races or religions.

A monastery should be illegal and immoral based on these principles. To not be is to rely on special pleading. Establishing a monastery is establishing Catholicville in some city or county.

Strawman. Anti-discrimination laws are for businesses that operate as businesses. They are not for private arrangements to rent a spare room in your house.

The fair housing law has been ruled to exclude roommate situations in the same space. This wasn’t based on any solid principle but just carving out a narrow exception because the principle of the law is offensive to decency. But so far as I know it doesn’t apply to a separate house on the same property. So the Catholic widow would have to rent a guest house to a young, single male, atheist. There is no distinction of a business from a person. There is just persons (corporations are legal persons) engaging in commerce or transactions.

 

[exnihilo]

If you trace back in our exchange you will see this started from your more general comment that:
A faithful Catholic could and should support it. The proposition was a protection of the most essential of property rights.
which places property rights at the top of the moral ladder, above the right to life. In response to this more general position, my response was more general - about the supremacy of the the right to life over property rights. And housing is a necessity of life. From this you falsely inferred I was advocating taking private property to give people homes. I was not. Those who truly cannot afford any kind of home, for them we have a duty in charity to help them. And for those who can afford a home, we have a duty in justice to allow them to buy one.

Stating the nature of a right doesn’t by itself place it in any position among other rights. You are advocating for taking property from people by obligating them to sell it to someone they don’t want to.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sort of like how you can practice your religion at home but can’t bring it into the public square?

No, its nothing like that. These are all specious analogies that you are using instead of reason.

If the community controls your property it isn’t private property anymore. Why would the act of selling your property suddenly subject you to ‘community rules’?

Because it involves the community.

A monastery should be illegal and immoral based on these principles. To not be is to rely on special pleading. Establishing a monastery is establishing Catholicville in some city or county.

No, a monastery does not receive tax support from state and federal government. A city does.

The fair housing law has been ruled to exclude roommate situations in the same space. This wasn’t based on any solid principle but just carving out a narrow exception because the principle of the law is offensive to decency. But so far as I know it doesn’t apply to a separate house on the same property. So the Catholic widow would have to rent a guest house to a young, single male, atheist. There is no distinction of a business from a person. There is just persons (corporations are legal persons) engaging in commerce or transactions.

Just because we feel sorry for the widow with the guest house, that does not mean we must let the owner of a 100-room apartment building exclude blacks.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Stating the nature of a right doesn’t by itself place it in any position among other rights. You are advocating for taking property from people by obligating them to sell it to someone they don’t want to.

If they put their house on the market in a public manner, they must abide by public rules. Now if someone was thinking to himself, “I would like to sell my home to Joe over there”, and Joe was willing to buy, the transaction could be conducted without ever being in the public realm. If you really wanted to sell to Joe and to no one else, you could do that, and fair housing laws would not prevent the sale. But once you list with a real estate agent, you have to abide by public laws.