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

[exnihilo]

.
Because it involves the community.

Selling or renting a home only involves the owner and the lessee or buyer. The community isn’t involved at all.

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

What does tax support have to do with anything? Morality surely can’t be determined based on tax support. Besides, private property owners don’t receive tax support any more than a monastery.

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.

I’m pretty sure having a real estate agent has nothing to do with fair housing laws. You aren’t able to ignore the law by just not hiring a real estate agent.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Selling or renting a home only involves the owner and the lessee or buyer. The community isn’t involved at all.

It is if you list with an agent, or advertise publicly.

What does tax support have to do with anything? Morality surely can’t be determined based on tax support.

Of course it does. If all (including blacks) are obligated to pay taxes, then they can’t be excluded from the benefit of those taxes just because of their race or religion. It is not just, therefore not moral.

Besides, private property owners don’t receive tax support any more than a monastery.

No, but a community incorporated into a political unit does.

I’m pretty sure having a real estate agent has nothing to do with fair housing laws. You aren’t able to ignore the law by just not hiring a real estate agent.

Fair housing laws only affect sales that are advertised to the public. Sales that are contracted between private parties without involving any advertising are not.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Besides, private property owners don’t receive tax support any more than a monastery.

But they receive a tax deduction for the property taxes they pay and for the mortgage interest paid on a first and second home. So while theydon’t receive direct tax support - the government is subsidizing the purchase of their home by allowing them to deduct those personal expenses.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Rau]

…Therefore we have an obligation to provide housing to everyone.

“Housing” sounds a bit prescriptive…but, morally, we do indeed have an obligation to love our neighbour. And how does one love the person without shelter? And how could a decision to not let a property to a person of a particular skin colour, for no reason other than that, be consistent with the commandment to love one another?

We are custodians of our possessions, God is their ultimate owner.

The above are not legal prescriptions - but moral ones.

It it somewhat alarming to witness a Catholic argue that the great commandment can be so readily subordinated to a perceived right to arbitrarily deal in one’s property (eg. Deny a tenant based on skin colour alone).

 

[exnihilo]

But they receive a tax deduction for the property taxes they pay and for the mortgage interest paid on a first and second home. So while theydon’t receive direct tax support - the government is subsidizing the purchase of their home by allowing them to deduct those personal expenses.

So if you don’t itemize your taxes the law shouldn’t apply? Seems like the monastery would be even more obliged to not discriminate since it is likely escaping taxes most taxes other persons pay.

“Housing” sounds a bit prescriptive…but, morally, we do indeed have an obligation to love our neighbour. And how does one love the person without shelter? And how could a decision to not let a property to a person of a particular skin colour, for no reason other than that, be consistent with the commandment to love one another?

We are custodians of our possessions, God is their ultimate owner.

The above are not legal prescriptions - but moral ones.

It it somewhat alarming to witness a Catholic argue that the great commandment can be so readily subordinated to a perceived right to arbitrarily deal in one’s property (eg. Deny a tenant based on skin colour alone).

I never said what a person should do in a particular situation but only what the law should be. By the way discrimination based on skin color isn’t really what goes on. Skin color is just one of many ways for identifying different groups. People perceive a group to have some substantial difference. Skin color might be an identifier of that group, but it isn’t the reason people discriminate.