Conservatives Denied Housing Over Political Beliefs, Is This Illegal?

Conservatives Denied Housing Over Political Beliefs, Is This Illegal?
After a story went viral of a woman's roommates searching her room after finding a MAGA hat people cried foul calling this clear political discrimination.

But a second story has emerged this time in Washington DC after a former Fox News staffer revealed she was denied housing twice over her job and her personal politics.

What made this interesting is that political affiliation is a protected human right in DC and this might actually be illegal.

For left wing and right wing activists, I think the issue is pointless as both probably would not want to live together anyway. But we do have evidence showing that Democrats and Republicans are more likely to mistrust each other over politics than over other factors such as race or gender.

Nowadays, Russo-Republicans are criminals, so there might be some corroboration or complicity theory, but that would be on the individual level.

I do recall once when a building owner wouldn't rent to a lawyer. Yep...and he checked it out, turns out there's no law against discriminating against lawyers.

Original Quill wrote:Nowadays, Russo-Republicans are criminals, so there might be some corroboration or complicity theory, but that would be on the individual level.

I do recall once when a building owner wouldn't rent to a lawyer.  Yep...and he checked it out, turns out there's no law against discriminating against lawyers.

What the fuckity fuck fuck, has that got to do with people discriminating against others based on their beliefs?

Ummm...  Think real hard about it and you'll get it, sweet-pea.

Original Quill wrote:Ummm...  Think real hard about it and you'll get it, sweet-pea.

Nothing to think about

What you posted was sheer bollocks

Try again

Gotta drum up business for your thread, eh? Yeah, you're probably in a slump.

Original Quill wrote:Gotta drum up business for your thread, eh?  Yeah, you're probably in a slump.

No, just waiting for you to actually tackle the points of the thread

Hence not going to allow you to ruin this, as you do other threads with your dumbfuckwittery

Absolutely, you shouldn't be able to discriminate this way. That's horrible.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Absolutely, you shouldn't be able to discriminate this way. That's horrible.

Thank you Ben, at least you see what is wrong here

Once the door is open to discrimination on beliefs, then countless people will suffer such poor discrimination

So, now the Dodger wants to remove a landlords' rights as to be selective about who they rent accommodation to ???

That should do wonders for the private rental property investment industry, if governments were to ever follow up on Dodger's extremist communistic views there..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

So, now the Dodger wants to remove a landlords' rights as to be selective about who they rent accommodation to  ???

That should do wonders for the private rental property investment industry, if governments were to ever follow up on Dodger's extremist communistic views there..

so you back the right of someone to deny a Muslim accomadation, based on them not liking their beliefs then?

Considering that is illegal to do here, shows I guess you would want people to have this ability to discriminate then.

wow

Agree with didge and Ben; major can of worms by allowing something like this.

We discriminate all the time.  We discriminate when we select friends.  We discriminate when we get married.  Shall we open those realms up too?

The original idea of unlawful discrimination was that people should not be classified according to arbitrary criteria, not of their own choice (which leaves out beliefs because they are elective).  There is no justification for arbitrary discrimination.  Most particularly, people were discriminating by race, which was patently arbitrary.

We can't do anything about private citizens who want to choose their friends or select a marriage partner.  But we can do something when governments discriminate.  Thus equal protection law arose.

As the law grew up around discrimination, courts delineated two particular categories that were to receive special scrutiny: discrimination according to certain fundamental rights, and discrimination according to suspect classifications (classes who have traditionally been discriminated against).

Under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, only these two areas receive strict scrutiny.  The Court decides which are fundamental rights, or involve suspect classifications, on a case-by-case basis.

So far political belief has not been declared a fundamental right.  Conservative judges are adverse to any matter that raises special scrutiny under Equal Protection analysis, so the current conservative court is not likely to add it to the list.

This is obviously limited to US Constitutional law.

Original Quill wrote:We discriminate all the time.  We discriminate when we select friends.  We discriminate when we get married.  Shall we open those realms up too?

The original idea of unlawful discrimination was that people should not be classified according to arbitrary criteria, not of their own choice (which leaves out beliefs because they are elective).  There is no justification for arbitrary discrimination.  Most particularly, people were discriminating by race, which was patently arbitrary.

We can't do anything about private citizens who want to choose their friends or select a marriage partner.  But we can do something when governments discriminate.  Thus equal protection law arose.

As the law grew up around discrimination, courts delineated two particular categories that were to receive special scrutiny: discrimination according to certain fundamental rights, and discrimination according to suspect classifications (classes who have traditionally been discriminated against).

Under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, only these two areas receive strict scrutiny.  The Court decides which are fundamental rights, or involve suspect classifications, on a case-by-case basis.

So far political belief has not been declared a fundamental right.  Conservative judges are adverse to any matter that raises special scrutiny under Equal Protection analysis, so the current conservative court is not likely to add it to the list.

This is obviously limited to US Constitutional law.

Discriminating in your life partner or friends is completely incomparable. People need a place to live and should not be barred from choosing where to live based on the contrary views of some prejudiced landlord. As someone who leans Left, I find it surprising you are OK with giving such power to the property owner in this case.

As with many other cases, I always look at these things while thinking 'what if everyone did the same'? In this case, what if EVERY landlord started denying people housing over opinions? We'd have massive problems, that's what. So no, laws should protect people from being discriminating against in housing due to their political views. It isn't the concern of the landlord.

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:We discriminate all the time.  We discriminate when we select friends.  We discriminate when we get married.  Shall we open those realms up too?

The original idea of unlawful discrimination was that people should not be classified according to arbitrary criteria, not of their own choice (which leaves out beliefs because they are elective).  There is no justification for arbitrary discrimination.  Most particularly, people were discriminating by race, which was patently arbitrary.

We can't do anything about private citizens who want to choose their friends or select a marriage partner.  But we can do something when governments discriminate.  Thus equal protection law arose.

As the law grew up around discrimination, courts delineated two particular categories that were to receive special scrutiny: discrimination according to certain fundamental rights, and discrimination according to suspect classifications (classes who have traditionally been discriminated against).

Under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, only these two areas receive strict scrutiny.  The Court decides which are fundamental rights, or involve suspect classifications, on a case-by-case basis.

So far political belief has not been declared a fundamental right.  Conservative judges are adverse to any matter that raises special scrutiny under Equal Protection analysis, so the current conservative court is not likely to add it to the list.

This is obviously limited to US Constitutional law.

Discriminating in your life partner or friends is completely incomparable. People need a place to live and should not be barred from choosing where to live based on the contrary views of some prejudiced landlord. As someone who leans Left, I find it surprising you are OK with giving such power to the property owner in this case.

As with many other cases, I always look at these things while thinking 'what if everyone did the same'? In this case, what if EVERY landlord started denying people housing over opinions? We'd have massive problems, that's what. So no, laws should protect people from being discriminating against in housing due to their political views. It isn't the concern of the landlord.

+1

Thor wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

So, now the Dodger wants to remove a landlords' rights as to be selective about who they rent accommodation to  ???

That should do wonders for the private rental property investment industry, if governments were to ever follow up on Dodger's extremist communistic views there..

so you back the right of someone to deny a Muslim accomadation, based on them not liking their beliefs then?

Considering that is illegal to do here, shows I guess you would want people to have this ability to discriminate then.

wow

A clever landlord simply wouldn't admit to discriminating on the basis of religion, ethnicity or sexual preferences...

If they had half a brain, they would create a legitimate reason for refusing to rent an apartment or house to someone they like the looks of..

Start demanding (through government legislation..) that landlords must rent out to anybody who applies,  and a lot more private investors will start looking to commercial and industrial properties in preference to residential real estate.

Great way to solve housing shortages there, Dodgie one..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thor wrote:

so you back the right of someone to deny a Muslim accomadation, based on them not liking their beliefs then?

Considering that is illegal to do here, shows I guess you would want people to have this ability to discriminate then.

wow

A clever landlord simply wouldn't admit to discriminating on the basis of religion, ethnicity or sexual preferences...

If they had half a brain, they would create a legitimate reason for refusing to rent an apartment or house to someone they like the looks of..

Start demanding (through government legislation..) that landlords must rent out to anybody who applies,  and a lot more private investors will start looking to commercial and industrial properties in preference to residential real estate.

Great way to solve housing shortages there, Dodgie one..

Well as seen its odd how the left try to argue how to make it possible to discriminate. When yet again we have laws that are in place to stop such discrimination

Its actually easy to prove, when someone is denied, if then they have allowed only a set group of people to then let their property.

Nobody said landlords have to let out to all who apply. Your words, not mine

What has been said, which you again avoid like the plague being the intolerant prejudice vile scum bag that you are. Is that no landlord should discriminate. Yet you look for loopholes and not want to address this issue

That speaks volumes of what a Toltalitarian vlie piece of shit you are

Thor wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thor wrote:

so you back the right of someone to deny a Muslim accomadation, based on them not liking their beliefs then?

Considering that is illegal to do here, shows I guess you would want people to have this ability to discriminate then.

wow

A clever landlord simply wouldn't admit to discriminating on the basis of religion, ethnicity or sexual preferences...

If they had half a brain, they would create a legitimate reason for refusing to rent an apartment or house to someone they like the looks of..

Start demanding (through government legislation..) that landlords must rent out to anybody who applies,  and a lot more private investors will start looking to commercial and industrial properties in preference to residential real estate.

Great way to solve housing shortages there, Dodgie one..

Well as seen its odd how the left try to argue how to make it possible to discriminate. When yet again we have laws that are in place to stop such discrimination

Its actually easy to prove, when someone is denied, if then they have allowed only a set group of people to then let their property.

Nobody said landlords have to let out to all who apply. Your words, not mine

What has been said, which you again avoid like the plague being the intolerant prejudice vile scum bag that you are. Is that no landlord should discriminate. Yet you look for loopholes and not want to address this issue

That speaks volumes of what a Toltalitarian vlie piece of shit you are

Except the Right did this first.

Remember the whole B&B and Bakery fiascos regarding gay customers?

I remember then many a RW commentator on these forums saying they should have just been denied for other reasons so as to avoid claims of discrimination.

And sad as it is, it really isn't something people could get around.

No one should be discriminated against for their views; if they are, that should be stopped.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well as seen its odd how the left try to argue how to make it possible to discriminate. When yet again we have laws that are in place to stop such discrimination

Its actually easy to prove, when someone is denied, if then they have allowed only a set group of people to then let their property.

Nobody said landlords have to let out to all who apply. Your words, not mine

What has been said, which you again avoid like the plague being the intolerant prejudice vile scum bag that you are. Is that no landlord should discriminate. Yet you look for loopholes and not want to address this issue

That speaks volumes of what a Toltalitarian vlie piece of shit you are

Except the Right did this first.

Remember the whole B&B and Bakery fiascos regarding gay customers?

I remember then many a RW commentator on these forums saying they should have just been denied for other reasons so as to avoid claims of discrimination.

And sad as it is, it really isn't something people could get around.

No one should be discriminated against for their views; if they are, that should be stopped.

Lets get the facts straight here

The case was based on the words on a cake

Not on discriminating against gay people

Whilst I disagree with the view not to make such a wedding cake. I do however agree, nobody should be forced against their will to promote something that goes against their beliefs.

He won the case because of a simple reason. He was not discriminating against homosexuals, but promoting gay marriage on a cake

So the right did not do this first, and that is a load of horseshit and what happened there should then not be an excuse to further discriminate

Is that really your argument here?.

Are you suggesting this started with the right?

Lets go back to communism shall we?

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well as seen its odd how the left try to argue how to make it possible to discriminate. When yet again we have laws that are in place to stop such discrimination

Its actually easy to prove, when someone is denied, if then they have allowed only a set group of people to then let their property.

Nobody said landlords have to let out to all who apply. Your words, not mine

What has been said, which you again avoid like the plague being the intolerant prejudice vile scum bag that you are. Is that no landlord should discriminate. Yet you look for loopholes and not want to address this issue

That speaks volumes of what a Toltalitarian vlie piece of shit you are

Except the Right did this first.

Remember the whole B&B and Bakery fiascos regarding gay customers?

I remember then many a RW commentator on these forums saying they should have just been denied for other reasons so as to avoid claims of discrimination.

And sad as it is, it really isn't something people could get around.

No one should be discriminated against for their views; if they are, that should be stopped.

Lets get the facts straight here

The case was based on the words on a cake

Not on discriminating against gay people

Whilst I disagree with the view not to make such a wedding cake. I do however agree, nobody should be forced against their will to promote something that goes against their beliefs.

He won the case because of a simple reason. He was not discriminating against homosexuals, but promoting gay marriage on a cake

So the right did not do this first, and that is a load of horseshit and what happened there should then not be an excuse to further discriminate

Is that really your argument here?

You completely forgot to mention to B&B situation. And regardless, in both cases the Right said that the owners should have just lied.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Lets get the facts straight here

The case was based on the words on a cake

Not on discriminating against gay people

Whilst I disagree with the view not to make such a wedding cake. I do however agree, nobody should be forced against their will to promote something that goes against their beliefs.

He won the case because of a simple reason. He was not discriminating against homosexuals, but promoting gay marriage on a cake

So the right did not do this first, and that is a load of horseshit and what happened there should then not be an excuse to further discriminate

Is that really your argument here?

You completely forgot to mention to B&B situation. And regardless, in both cases the Right said that the owners should have just lied.

Did I claim that?

I am on the right and many on the right did not support the B&B situation

Or have you forgotten that?

So dont use poor arguments where many on the right supported homosexual rights

Oh and I would also question your view on right and left wing

This was religious views, as you well know

I think the point raised is that some of the "leftys" on here are no better than the rabid right....and yet claim to be so...

the Lilly white left is the first to scream discrimination even (or especially) when it is seen to be applied to minority groups, even what the screaming lefty isnt a member of that group (it appears to "give them something to whinge about").....

and YET when it comes to that same discrimination being politically convenient its a different story

NO R/W would deny they can be discriminatory...even when they cant defend such actions/ideas

however the L/W er (who normally screams to blue heaven at the first sign of discrimination, real or imagined,) finds discrimination OK......when it suits them.

more damage to the leftist cause methinks, PROVING what many folks suspected and what some of us Know...that leftism is a policy of dual standards, both overt and covert....and cannot be trusted to be consistent and fair.....again contrary to its supposed core beliefs.

indeed yet more lefty "quantum thinking"

Lord Foul wrote:I think the point raised is that some of the "leftys" on here are no better than the rabid right....and yet claim to be so...

the Lilly white left is the first to scream discrimination even (or especially) when it is seen to be applied to minority groups, even what the screaming lefty isnt a member of that group (it appears to "give them something to whinge about").....

and YET when it comes to that same discrimination being politically convenient its a different story

NO R/W would deny they can be discriminatory...even when they cant defend such actions/ideas

however the L/W er (who normally screams to blue heaven at the first sign of discrimination, real or imagined,) finds discrimination OK......when it suits them.

more damage to the leftist cause methinks, PROVING what many folks suspected and what some of us Know...that leftism is a policy of dual standards, both overt and covert....and cannot be trusted to be consistent and fair.....again contrary to its supposed core beliefs.

indeed yet more lefty "quantum thinking"

+1

What gets me is Eilzel earlier rightly countered Quill, yet ignores wolfs blatant prejudice

You just made a mockery mate of your former post, to then come onto me on this, when I have stood in your courner every single time

It shows the blatant failings of the left

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Lets get the facts straight here

The case was based on the words on a cake

Not on discriminating against gay people

Whilst I disagree with the view not to make such a wedding cake. I do however agree, nobody should be forced against their will to promote something that goes against their beliefs.

He won the case because of a simple reason. He was not discriminating against homosexuals, but promoting gay marriage on a cake

So the right did not do this first, and that is a load of horseshit and what happened there should then not be an excuse to further discriminate

Is that really your argument here?

You completely forgot to mention to B&B situation. And regardless, in both cases the Right said that the owners should have just lied.

Did I claim that?

I am on the right and many on the right did not support the B&B situation

Or have you forgotten that?

So dont use poor arguments where many on the right supported homosexual rights

Two Lefties here have disagreed with discriminating based on political beliefs; yet in your response to Wolf you prattled on about 'the left' again. Most of the Right supported the B&B owners, and many who did said they have lied.

Lord Foul wrote:I think the point raised is that some of the "leftys" on here are no better than the rabid right....and yet claim to be so...

the Lilly white left is the first to scream discrimination even (or especially) when it is seen to be applied to minority groups, even what the screaming lefty isnt a member of that group (it appears to "give them something to whinge about").....

and YET when it comes to that same discrimination being politically convenient its a different story

NO R/W would deny they can be discriminatory...even when they cant defend such actions/ideas

however the L/W er (who normally screams to blue heaven at the first sign of discrimination, real or imagined,) finds discrimination OK......when it suits them.

more damage to the leftist cause methinks, PROVING what many folks suspected and what some of us Know...that leftism is a policy of dual standards, both overt and covert....and cannot be trusted to be consistent and fair.....again contrary to its supposed core beliefs.

indeed yet more lefty "quantum thinking"

Nobody claims no one on the Left can be as bad as some on the Right. Of course they can be. We've banned more LWers than RWers from this site to know that is the case

But RW 'I'm alright Jack' ideology is still inherently more selfish and therefore loathsome than LW ideology - which, while sometimes flawed and unrealistic, still aims to treat all people with respect.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Did I claim that?

I am on the right and many on the right did not support the B&B situation

Or have you forgotten that?

So dont use poor arguments where many on the right supported homosexual rights

Two Lefties here have disagreed with discriminating based on political beliefs; yet in your response to Wolf you prattled on about 'the left' again. Most of the Right supported the B&B owners, and many who did said they have lied.

Did most of the right agree?

Seriously?

Where is the evidence for that?

Where is the change in law?

How is it they lost their case?

You are full of shit and again still have not countered his views

That shows you are two faced

Again it was religious views here, which sort to discriminate against homosexuals and you place this on the right

How is it again how the right in this country supported the gay couple?

Take yourt time commie

Eilzel wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I think the point raised is that some of the "leftys" on here are no better than the rabid right....and yet claim to be so...

the Lilly white left is the first to scream discrimination even (or especially) when it is seen to be applied to minority groups, even what the screaming lefty isnt a member of that group (it appears to "give them something to whinge about").....

and YET when it comes to that same discrimination being politically convenient its a different story

NO R/W would deny they can be discriminatory...even when they cant defend such actions/ideas

however the L/W er (who normally screams to blue heaven at the first sign of discrimination, real or imagined,) finds discrimination OK......when it suits them.

more damage to the leftist cause methinks, PROVING what many folks suspected and what some of us Know...that leftism is a policy of dual standards, both overt and covert....and cannot be trusted to be consistent and fair.....again contrary to its supposed core beliefs.

indeed yet more lefty "quantum thinking"

Nobody claims no one on the Left can be as bad as some on the Right. Of course they can be. We've banned more LWers than RWers from this site to know that is the case

But RW 'I'm alright Jack' ideology is still inherently more selfish and therefore loathsome than LW ideology - which, while sometimes flawed and unrealistic, still aims to treat all people with respect.

Bullshit

Name the posters

You are proving to me what an idiot you are

Right wing posters banned

Smelly
Stormie
Dibs husband
Allakka

Left wing

Phil again
Scrat

You are a lying piece of shit

now then didge...no need for the inflammatory remarks, Eil is the least offensive poster on here.
to be mistaken is one thing, to lie is another and deliberate act.....I dont see Eil as being that kind of Lefty.......

Lord Foul wrote:now then didge...no need for the inflammatory remarks, Eil is the least offensive poster on here.
to be mistaken is one thing, to lie is another and deliberate act.....I dont see Eil as being that kind of Lefty.......

He is a lying twat, end of

Lets see if he admits to be wrong and I will apologise

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I think the point raised is that some of the "leftys" on here are no better than the rabid right....and yet claim to be so...

the Lilly white left is the first to scream discrimination even (or especially) when it is seen to be applied to minority groups, even what the screaming lefty isnt a member of that group (it appears to "give them something to whinge about").....

and YET when it comes to that same discrimination being politically convenient its a different story

NO R/W would deny they can be discriminatory...even when they cant defend such actions/ideas

however the L/W er (who normally screams to blue heaven at the first sign of discrimination, real or imagined,) finds discrimination OK......when it suits them.

more damage to the leftist cause methinks, PROVING what many folks suspected and what some of us Know...that leftism is a policy of dual standards, both overt and covert....and cannot be trusted to be consistent and fair.....again contrary to its supposed core beliefs.

indeed yet more lefty "quantum thinking"

Nobody claims no one on the Left can be as bad as some on the Right. Of course they can be. We've banned more LWers than RWers from this site to know that is the case

But RW 'I'm alright Jack' ideology is still inherently more selfish and therefore loathsome than LW ideology - which, while sometimes flawed and unrealistic, still aims to treat all people with respect.

Bullshit

Name the posters

You are proving to me what an idiot you are

Right wing posters banned

Smelly
Stormie
Dibs husband
Allakka

Left wing

Phil again
Scrat

You are a lying piece of shit

So I was wrong lol

Though smelly was never banned, so it's 3-2

Anyway, since insults are your thing, fuck yourself, knobhead.

(Sorry Vic, I know you're trying to help, but I lose patience with the guy).

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Bullshit

Name the posters

You are proving to me what an idiot you are

Right wing posters banned

Smelly
Stormie
Dibs husband
Allakka

Left wing

Phil again
Scrat

You are a lying piece of shit

So I was wrong lol

Though smelly was never banned, so it's 3-2

Anyway, since insults are your thing, fuck yourself, knobhead.

(Sorry Vic, I know you're trying to help, but I lose patience with the guy).

So you lied

Smelly was banned as well for a time

I see humility is not one of your best traits

I maybe a nob, but at least I am not a two faced wanker like you

Oh and still waiting for you to counter Wolfs points Eilzel

Or is this further proof you are two faced?

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Bullshit

Name the posters

You are proving to me what an idiot you are

Right wing posters banned

Smelly
Stormie
Dibs husband
Allakka

Left wing

Phil again
Scrat

You are a lying piece of shit

So I was wrong lol

Though smelly was never banned, so it's 3-2

Anyway, since insults are your thing, fuck yourself, knobhead.

(Sorry Vic, I know you're trying to help, but I lose patience with the guy).

So you lied

Smelly was banned as well for a time

I see humility is not one of your best traits

I maybe a nob, but at least I am not a two faced wanker like you

Difference between being wrong and lying.

Veya is right, you do ruin this forum at times, I seriously hope that is not why he hasn't posted in a while

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

So you lied

Smelly was banned as well for a time

I see humility is not one of your best traits

I maybe a nob, but at least I am not a two faced wanker like you

Difference between being wrong and lying.

Veya is right, you do ruin this forum at times, I seriously hope that is not why he hasn't posted in a while

Oh so I ruin this forum and use him to get at me. What a poor pathetic low life scum bag you are

How about you simple admit to being wrong instead of using others to excuse why you are a lying wanker?

I mean if you want me to leave Eilzel, in order that Veya returns. Just say so.

For you to use that, shows what a vile human being you are

I want Veya to be here, but for you to use that. Shows you will go to any lengh to get at people

The point here, was you lied

You could not even be humble, but threw this back in my face

As far as I am concerned, you are not worthy of respect

This proved this when you used Veya

Of course I want him here, but to claim I am the reason, shows to me you are scum

Thor wrote:I mean if you want me to leave Eilzel, in order that Veya returns. Just say so.

For you to use that, shows what a vile human being you are

I want Veya to be here, but for you to use that. Shows you will go to any lengh to get at people

The point here, was you lied

You could not even be humble, but threw this back in my face

As far as I am concerned, you are not worthy of respect

This proved this when you used Veya

Of course I want him here, but to claim I am the reason, shows to me you are scum

1. I didn't lie, I made an error.
2. I didn't start with the insults, you did.
3. Fuck your dramatics.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:I mean if you want me to leave Eilzel, in order that Veya returns. Just say so.

For you to use that, shows what a vile human being you are

I want Veya to be here, but for you to use that. Shows you will go to any lengh to get at people

The point here, was you lied

You could not even be humble, but threw this back in my face

As far as I am concerned, you are not worthy of respect

This proved this when you used Veya

Of course I want him here, but to claim I am the reason, shows to me you are scum

1. I didn't lie, I made an error.
2. I didn't start with the insults, you did.
3. Fuck your dramatics.

1) So you have no humility
2) Yes you did
3) Again no humility, which proves you are scum

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thor wrote:

so you back the right of someone to deny a Muslim accomadation, based on them not liking their beliefs then?

Considering that is illegal to do here, shows I guess you would want people to have this ability to discriminate then.

wow

A clever landlord simply wouldn't admit to discriminating on the basis of religion, ethnicity or sexual preferences...

If they had half a brain, they would create a legitimate reason for refusing to rent an apartment or house to someone they like the looks of..

Start demanding (through government legislation..) that landlords must rent out to anybody who applies,  and a lot more private investors will start looking to commercial and industrial properties in preference to residential real estate.

Great way to solve housing shortages there, Dodgie one..

At least it would stop house prices rising to an extent.

Are you saying that someone should be allowed to refuse to rent to a gay person as long as they lie about it?

Over here, there are landlords who won't rent to benefit claimants and that's perfectly legal. Their reasoning is that they're less likely to pay their rent.

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:We discriminate all the time.  We discriminate when we select friends.  We discriminate when we get married.  Shall we open those realms up too?

The original idea of unlawful discrimination was that people should not be classified according to arbitrary criteria, not of their own choice (which leaves out beliefs because they are elective).  There is no justification for arbitrary discrimination.  Most particularly, people were discriminating by race, which was patently arbitrary.

We can't do anything about private citizens who want to choose their friends or select a marriage partner.  But we can do something when governments discriminate.  Thus equal protection law arose.

As the law grew up around discrimination, courts delineated two particular categories that were to receive special scrutiny: discrimination according to certain fundamental rights, and discrimination according to suspect classifications (classes who have traditionally been discriminated against).

Under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, only these two areas receive strict scrutiny.  The Court decides which are fundamental rights, or involve suspect classifications, on a case-by-case basis.

So far political belief has not been declared a fundamental right.  Conservative judges are adverse to any matter that raises special scrutiny under Equal Protection analysis, so the current conservative court is not likely to add it to the list.

This is obviously limited to US Constitutional law.

Discriminating in your life partner or friends is completely incomparable. People need a place to live and should not be barred from choosing where to live based on the contrary views of some prejudiced landlord. As someone who leans Left, I find it surprising you are OK with giving such power to the property owner in this case.

Guaranteed housing is a British thing. I said at the end that the US Constitution is geared for the US. There is no guaranteed housing in the US. Why do you think there are so many homeless?

I would love to agree with you, but right now I'm all tied up with getting universal healthcare, which is also not guaranteed in the US. People have a right to live.…then we’ll talk about putting a roof over their heads.

Les wrote:As with many other cases, I always look at these things while thinking 'what if everyone did the same'? In this case, what if EVERY landlord started denying people housing over opinions? We'd have massive problems, that's what. So no, laws should protect people from being discriminating against in housing due to their political views. It isn't the concern of the landlord.

There are plenty of laws against discrimination in housing. The issue in this case is, 'what is discrimination'? Skin color is arbitrary and fixed, and not of one's choosing. Political beliefs are elective.

Frankly, I find the attack on freedom of thought, like freedom of speech, to be offensive. But discrimination requires that the victim can't do anything about it...e.g., skin color. Otherwise, discrimination blends into real illegality.

One example: in the quirky world of San Francisco, a population that has developed into a movement is pedophile advocacy organizations. To my knowledge they don't go out and kidnap children, or anything like that. They just exchange information and advocate for more permissive laws...in other words, they advocate ideas. They hold meeting and discuss the issues. If a landlord prohibits renting to one of them, is that really unlawful discrimination?

So Quills objectioon is based on universal health care?

WTF

The reality is this Quill, if you allow beliefs to be discriminated against. This opens the door to anyone with beliefs. Whether that person be a believer in "Black lives matter" or even a democrat. So what you would effectivelly do, is allow a loophole to happen, which would and could allow actualy racial discrimination, through the back door.

That is what you fail to grasp, but do not worry, I am sure the little weasel will be more concerned that I take issue with you and Wolf being left. Over you both advocating prejudice and discrimination on beliefs. That is is more a problem to him, than your actual discrimination. Hence his movement of the goalposts to bring up about homosexuality.

He seems to live under a constant case of amnesia, thinking the left are never prejudiced, even though. History is littered with their prejudiced. One being against the rich for example. It just simple proves prejudiced happens, both on the left and right in different formats.

But hey, me speaking out against the left here, when I stand and always have against discrimination, is a cue for the weasel to instead bring up about the right. Even when many on here defended the position of homosexuals from discrimination.

Like I say, people have a right to freedom of thought. That does not then translate to freedom to discriminate, which you are conflating the two different issues. Even to discriminate against people with criminal records is wrong. As you are then advocating a further sentence onto the individual to then discriminate against them. What you have is measures to ensure they are not a harm to others in society, like for example children.

The view that freedom of though t should allow people to discriminate as seen, would allow then widespread discrimination, based off who people are by actually using their beliefs. You then open the door to minority groups like homosexuals, religious groups, ethnic groups ect to suffer discrimination. All that the prejudice person now needs to do based on your reasoning is advocate against that persons beliefs, even though its who they are, as to why they would be discriminating against them

Didge wrote:I mean if you want me to leave Eilzel, in order that Veya returns. Just say so.

So you want me to leave Quill

Thanks for being honest

I however do not wish anyone to leave and that is the difference between us

The fact that Eilzel brought up Veya, shows to me, how pathetic he can be, when shown to be wrong.

He lacks humility

Didge wrote:So Quills objectioon is based on universal health care?

Objection? I'm merely stating that housing isn't a right in the US.

As usual, you are ducking into a rabbit-hole to avoid a valid point.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So Quills objectioon is based on universal health care?

Objection?  I'm merely stating that housing isn't a right in the US.

As usual, you are ducking into a rabbit-hole to avoid a valid point.

Of course hosuing is a basic right

Unless of course you think all children should be homeless?

I mean based on your reasoning, why should the US border control house illegal immigrants in facilities?

Surely you must then believe they should be kept in open camps without shelter?

Didge wrote:The reality is this Quill, if you allow beliefs to be discriminated against.

Actually, you are allowing right to contract to go unimpeded. The landlord doesn't want to enter into a contract with the person. Is that so horrible?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:The reality is this Quill, if you allow beliefs to be discriminated against.

Actually, you are allowing right to contract to go unimpeded.  The landlord doesn't want to enter into a contract with the person.  Is that so horrible?

If its based on prejudiced reasons, of course its wrong

Nobody should be denied based on discrimination around their beliefs

Hence again you open the door to a landlord denying someone based on race, due to their beliefs

So yes its very horrible, as where does this then stop, when housing is provided by local authorities?

Is that what you really want to see happen, is a position of the past?

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Objection?  I'm merely stating that housing isn't a right in the US.

As usual, you are ducking into a rabbit-hole to avoid a valid point.

Of course hosuing is a basic right

Unless of course you think all children should be homeless?

I mean based on your reasoning, why should the US border control house illegal immigrants in facilities?

Surely you must then believe they should be kept in open camps without shelter?

I know a lot of laws assisting in housing.

But I know of no law in the US that absolutely mandates a right to housing...again, in the US. To repeat, if such a law exists why are all these people (including children) homeless?

Why aren't they filing lawsuits if the government guarantees housing?

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:


Of course hosuing is a basic right

Unless of course you think all children should be homeless?

I mean based on your reasoning, why should the US border control house illegal immigrants in facilities?

Surely you must then believe they should be kept in open camps without shelter?

I know a lot of laws assisting in housing.

But I know of no law in the US that absolutely mandates a right to housing...again, in the US.  To repeat, if such a law exists why are all these people (including children) homeless?

Why aren't they filing lawsuits if the government guarantees housing?

So you want to see illigal immigrants left out in the cold then

Interesting to know

The fact you do not have a right to housing in the US, is the problem