Conservatives Denied Housing Over Political Beliefs, Is This Illegal?

First topic message reminder :

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.

Didge wrote:If its based on prejudiced reasons, of course its wrong

But it's not "prejudiced".  Once again, there is no established, unlawful discrimination based on beliefs in the US.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:If its based on prejudiced reasons, of course its wrong

But it's not "prejudiced".  Once again, there is no established, unlawful discrimination based on ideas in the US.

I suggest you listen to the video again

As yes there certainly is based on political views

So yet again the left defend discrimination based on political beliefs

wow

Didge wrote:So what you would effectivelly do, is allow a loophole to happen, which would and could allow actualy racial discrimination, through the back door.

Racial discrimination is clearly outlawed in the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act. No need there. But there is no law against discrimination on the basis of beliefs.

Didge wrote: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.

Didge, shame on you.  Are you drunk again?  This whole two paragraphs make no sense.

A reminder: we were talking about discrimination in housing.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So what you would effectivelly do, is allow a loophole to happen, which would and could allow actualy racial discrimination, through the back door.

Racial discrimination is clearly outlawed in the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act.  No need there.  But there is no law against discrimination on the basis of beliefs.

Again I suggest you watch the video

It even says about Washington DC in the words posted

The fact is this and again racial discrimination would be allowed, through your warped views here, as all that needs to be done is to discriminate against them on their beliefs

Bravo

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote: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.

Didge, shame on you.  Are you drunk again?  This whole two paragraphs make no sense.

Oh dear, side tracking again when they make perfect sense to someone rational

Are you simple being a ignorant twat again?

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Racial discrimination is clearly outlawed in the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act.  No need there.  But there is no law against discrimination on the basis of beliefs.

Again I suggest you watch the video

It even says about Washington DC in the words posted

The fact is this and again racial discrimination would be allowed, through your warped views here, as all that needs to be done is to discriminate against them on their beliefs

Bravo

Racial discrimination is outlawed by federal law. So, no...it is not allowed, and would not happen anywhere lawfully.

We are talking about discrimination on the basis of belief, not race.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:


Again I suggest you watch the video

It even says about Washington DC in the words posted

The fact is this and again racial discrimination would be allowed, through your warped views here, as all that needs to be done is to discriminate against them on their beliefs

Bravo

Racial discrimination is outlawed by federal law.  So, no...it is not allowed, and would not happen anywhere lawfully.

We are talking about discrimination on the basis of belief, not race.

Of course it would be allowed under your view to allow discrimination against beliefs and you would never be able to prove otherwise

Hence you can always count on the left to yet again regress backwards on fighting discrimination

In this country, you are also not allowed to disacriminate against people on beliefs.

The same in the US

Didge wrote: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.

We are talking about discrimination on the basis of belief. Is it too difficult to stay on subject?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote: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.

We are talking about discrimination on the basis of belief.  Is it too difficult to stay on subject?

So you are saying its okay to discriminate against Muslims in the US now, based on their beliefs?

I wonder when you will actually stay on track with the debate

Seems like the US is miles behind the UK again

What is discrimination because of religion, belief or political opinion

It is against the law to discriminate against you because of your religion, belief or political opinion. If because of your religion or opinion you are treated worse than someone else in a similar position, you can challenge the treatment under the law.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/nireland/law-and-courts/discrimination/discrimination-because-of-race-religion-or-belief/discrimination-because-of-religion-belief-or-political-opinion/

Didge wrote: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.

I admire you advocating freedom of thought...it's just that housing discrimination on the basis of political belief is not codified in law in the US. Do you have a statutory citation to contradict me?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote: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.

I admire you advocating freedom of thought...it's just that housing discrimination on the basis of political belief is not codified in law in the US.  Do you have a statutory citation to contradict me?

Seems like the US is miles behind the UK again

What is discrimination because of religion, belief or political opinion

It is against the law to discriminate against you because of your religion, belief or political opinion. If because of your religion or opinion you are treated worse than someone else in a similar position, you can challenge the treatment under the law.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/nireland/law-and-courts/discrimination/discrimination-because-of-race-religion-or-belief/discrimination-because-of-religion-belief-or-political-opinion/

Didge wrote: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

No.  Discrimination is based on a specific act.  This thread is about alleged discrimination in housing on the basis of political belief.  That is the act.  If you read the DC housing code there is no such law.

There is no creep into other areas.  Laws are quite specific, and if someone starts talking about racial or age discrimination, or whatever, there is always the other lawyer to tell the court it's irrelevant.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote: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.  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.

No.  Discrimination is based on a specific act.  This thread is about alleged discrimination in housing on the basis of political belief.  That is the act.  If you read the DC housing code there is no such law.

There is no creep into other areas.  Laws are quite specific, and if someone starts talking about racial or age discrimination, or whatever, there is always the other lawyer to tell the court it's irrelevant.

That act can and is against people on beliefs, hence why for example people having religious beliefs are protected.

So you are again talking out of your arse

Hence laws are specific and again in this area, Washington, political beliefs are also protected

Start actually listening to the video and stop making the same dumb errors

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

Yes, it is a problem. We also do not have universal healthcare.

But the last time I was in London, I was out for an early morning walk and found a homeless person sleeping in the gutter. I called a Bobby over, and he totally dismissed it: Oh, right sir...we have 'em all over the place!

Apparently you have a housing problem too.

Original Quill wrote:

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

Yes, it is a problem.  We also do not have universal healthcare.

But the last time I was in London, I was out for an early morning walk and found a homeless person sleeping in the gutter.  I called a Bobby over, and he totally dismissed it:  Oh, right sir...we have 'em all over the place!

Apparently you have a housing problem too.  

Well the reason you do not, is because both the democrats and republicans suck at looking after the US people

I doubt you have ever been out of california

But hey, homelessness is a problem here, which I do not deny, hence why everyone should have a right to housing and again nobdoy should be discriminated against

Didge wrote:That act can and is against people on beliefs, hence why for example people having religious beliefs are protected.

What about the pediphile group I mentioned.  I can think of plenty of suburban housewives who would object to having them in the neighborhood.

Another example is the placement of registered sex offenders in a neighborhood.  The people scream holy hell when a paroled registered sex offender is placed in the neighborhood.  They even have on-line sites that track them.

Sex offenses are just a state of mind.  Could this landlord exclude them?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:That act can and is against people on beliefs, hence why for example people having religious beliefs are protected.

What about the pedifile group I mentioned.  I can think of plenty of suburban housewives who would object to having them in the neighborhood.

Another example is the placement of registered sex offenders in a neighborhood.  The people scream holy hell when a paroled registered sex offender is placed in the neighborhood.  They even have on-line sites that track them.

Sex offenses are just a state of mind.  Could this landlord exclude them?

Well considering there is a case for protection and safety, how is that discrimination. When already the law has people on the sex offenders register. So no discrimination there and a really dumb example

So there is a reason why people are the rtegister, which is based on acts they have committed

Which has zero relevance to political beliefs

That has to be the most retarded and stupidest thing you have come out with

Didge wrote:Of course it would be allowed under your view to allow discrimination against beliefs and you would never be able to prove otherwise

Hence you can always count on the left to yet again regress backwards on fighting discrimination

Race discrimination is already outlawed. If you fear that people will ignore that law, then your issue is with enforcement, not creation of another law.

Again, discrimination focuses on specific acts, not abstractions like beliefs or thoughts. If thought freedom could counter racial discrimination, it could also revive it. Thoughts go two ways.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Of course it would be allowed under your view to allow discrimination against beliefs and you would never be able to prove otherwise

Hence you can always count on the left to yet again regress backwards on fighting discrimination

Race discrimination is already outlawed.  If you fear that people will ignore that law, then your issue is with enforcement, not creation of another law.

Again, discrimination focuses on specific acts, not abstractions like beliefs or thoughts.  If thought freedom could counter racial discrimination, it could also revive it.  Thoughts go two ways.

You are just regurgitating the same shit you said before

I suggst you actually answer my points and stop repeating the same crap

Didge wrote:Well considering there is a case for protection and safety, how is that discrimination. When already the law has people on the sex offenders register. So no discrimination there and a really dumb example

So there is a reason why people are the rtegister, which is based on acts they have committed

You're the one who is arguing that thoughts or beliefs should be free and unfettered. What about freedom for the "beliefs and thoughts" of sex offenders and pedophiles?

So what if they are already outlawed. That just means that they are organizing to change the law. That is a legitimate goal in a free democracy.

I mean, your argument for free-and-open-thought could go anywhere, and support anything. Wasn't that your argument earlier?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Well considering there is a case for protection and safety, how is that discrimination. When already the law has people on the sex offenders register. So no discrimination there and a really dumb example

So there is a reason why people are the rtegister, which is based on acts they have committed

You're the one who is arguing that thoughts or beliefs should be free and unfettered.  What about freedom for the "beliefs and thoughts" of sex offenders and pedophiles?

So what if they are already outlawed.  That just means that they are organizing to change the law.  That is a legitimate goal in a free democracy.

I mean, your argument for free-and-open-thought could go anywhere, and support anything.  Wasn't that your argument earlier?

If you cannot see the contradiction in your statement based on them being offenders.

Then you truely are an idiot

Again this is already a measure based in law, that protects children etc, from known sex offenders

It has nothing to do with their beliefs, but acts

Doh

Again what has that got to do with discriminating against people based on political beliefs?

Take your time dummy

Didge wrote:You are just regurgitating the same shit you said before

I suggst you actually answer my points and stop repeating the same crap

You're afraid you've lost. I would be too if I were you. Your argument for freedom of belief could go anywhere, and support anything--many of which are already illegal, like racial discrimination.

That's the reason why legislators are loath to turn freedom-of-belief into an actual protected activity. Any criminal or immoral activity could form the basis of a belief, even anti-constitutionalism. Better to focus on acts.

Freedom of belief digs much deeper than freedom of speech. An advocate could stand on a street corner and advocate robbing banks, and people can yell back. But freedom of thought reaches much deeper, and protects/touches upon motives and evil thoughts...things we outlaw, like intentionally killing someone or robbing, fraud, etc. Talk is cheap; it's action that counts.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:You are just regurgitating the same shit you said before

I suggst you actually answer my points and stop repeating the same crap

You're afraid you've lost.  I would be too if I were you.  Your argument for freedom of belief could go anywhere, and support anything--many of which are already illegal, like racial discrimination.

Oh dear, now shouting victory, when again you stil conflating freedom of thought to acts of discrimination

So I am fine and dandy watching you struggle and advocate prejudice, based on beliefs

Didge wrote:Then you truely are an idiot

And that lends to the discussion....how??? You destroy your own credibility by living in the gutter. That's what Les was talking about, in the previous page.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Then you truely are an idiot

And that lends to the discussion....how???  You destroy your own credibility by living in the gutter.  That's what Les was talking about, in the previous page.

I rest my case

Your trash talk is hilarious and from the realms of primary school

personally I would suggest that these are left wing nazis....(ok so thats a contradiction...or is it)

Since.......if this was conservative types doing this to "liberal" types the air would be ringing to shouts of Nazi and comparisons with 1930's germany........

Its just another example of leftist dual standards.......

Didge wrote:If you cannot see the contradiction in your statement based on them being offenders.

No.  If the advocacy is not criminal, but the endgame is, your permissiveness would allow that.  In the real world that is called criminal conspiracy, but in your world that is freedom of belief.  If you made freedom of thought a constitutional provision, you would give absolute protection to that.

It's you who is being contradictory...you are arguing censorship of thought while arguing freedom of belief.  You say pedophilia is illegal, but someone had to make it illegal.  If that's ok, then it's ok to meet and talk about undoing the law.

And if it's ok to meet and talk about changing the law, then it's ok to meet and talk about why.  And if it's ok to meet and talk about how pedophilia is a natural and proper activity, suddenly you're into stuff that suburban housewives would not want.

If one of those suburban housewives is a landlord, I could see her discriminating against a prospective tenant, on the basis of his belief in pedophilia.

Lord Foul wrote:personally I would suggest that these are left wing nazis....(ok so thats a contradiction...or is it)

Since.......if this was conservative types doing this to "liberal" types the air would be ringing to shouts of Nazi and comparisons with 1930's germany........

Its just another example of leftist dual standards.......

+1

I shall leave you to the deranged lunacy of Quill

Not only does he keep contradicting himself, but he keeps regurgitating the same prejudiced nonsense

Great post and good luck, trying to reason with him.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:If you cannot see the contradiction in your statement based on them being offenders.

If one of those suburban housewives is a landlord, I could see her discriminating against a prospective tenant, on the basis of his belief in pedophilia.

Sorry, but it gets more ridiculous by the minute

In what word would a child sex offender advertise the fact they like to or want to sexually abuse children?

Do you think they would advertise this with a car bumper sticker?

You seriously continue to prove what an idiot you are

This is again about political beliefs

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:If you cannot see the contradiction in your statement based on them being offenders.

No.  If the advocacy is not criminal, but the endgame is, your permissiveness would allow that.  In the real world that is called criminal conspiracy, but in your world that is freedom of belief.  If you made freedom of thought a constitutional provision, you would give absolute protection to that.

It's you who are contradictory...you are arguing censorship of thought while arguing freedom of belief.  You say pedophilia is illegal, but someone had to make it illegal.  If that's ok, then it's ok to meet and talk about undoing the law.

And if it's ok to meet and talk about changing the law, then it's ok to meet and talk about why.  And if it's ok to meet and talk about how pedophilia is a natural and proper activity, suddenly you're into stuff that suburban housewives would not want.

If one of those suburban housewives is a landlord, I could see her discriminating against a prospective tenant, on the basis of his belief in pedophilia.

Hmm to what extent is freedom of opinion and freedom of thought different.....? I suggest they are not, and therefor over here we DO have guaranteed "freedom of thought", since we have freedom of opinion....we even have the right to "express and share those opinions (thoughts) EVEN THOUGH they may be offensive or unpopular.....(human rights act)....

Lord Foul wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No.  If the advocacy is not criminal, but the endgame is, your permissiveness would allow that.  In the real world that is called criminal conspiracy, but in your world that is freedom of belief.  If you made freedom of thought a constitutional provision, you would give absolute protection to that.

It's you who are contradictory...you are arguing censorship of thought while arguing freedom of belief.  You say pedophilia is illegal, but someone had to make it illegal.  If that's ok, then it's ok to meet and talk about undoing the law.

And if it's ok to meet and talk about changing the law, then it's ok to meet and talk about why.  And if it's ok to meet and talk about how pedophilia is a natural and proper activity, suddenly you're into stuff that suburban housewives would not want.

If one of those suburban housewives is a landlord, I could see her discriminating against a prospective tenant, on the basis of his belief in pedophilia.

Hmm   to what extent is freedom of opinion and freedom of thought different.....? I suggest they are not, and therefor over here we DO have guaranteed "freedom of thought", since we have freedom of opinion....we even have the right to "express and share those opinions (thoughts) EVEN THOUGH they may be offensive or unpopular.....(human rights act)....

I've chased didge off. Now it’s breakfast time, and I'm hungry. But I'll take your question:

Freedom of thought and opinion is always allowed here in the US as well. This isn’t an action of the government of any kind; rather it’s the action of a private individual(s), over a private lease contract. A private landholder is turning away a renter, over a private rental property, because of the renter’s opinion or belief system.

Without a law, nothing is illegal. All things are permitted unless a law prohibits it. The article appears to suggest that the Maryland Fair Housing laws do not apply, but there is no explanation. Although he is often unclear, didge had to be arguing for a law that would prohibit such private action against thought or belief. Otherwise there’s no question…it’s legal.

There is no law or constitutional provision that guarantees freedom of thought or opinion. There is a First Amendment provision prohibiting government from limiting freedom of speech and religion. But this incident is private action, not action of the government.

It would be impossible to prohibit freedom of thought or opinion. Thoughts are generally silent. But this potential renter (FOX News staffer) apparently did not keep her opinions to herself. She became persona non gratis and apparently they didn’t want her around. Since it was a private action, it wasn’t even a constitutional (First Amendment) issue.

I would like to hear more about Maryland law, but is DC even in Maryland? Wiki says:

Wiki wrote:The U.S. Constitution provided for a federal district under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress, and the District is therefore not a part of any state. The states of Maryland and Virginia each donated land to form the federal district, which included the pre-existing settlements of Georgetown and Alexandria.

If it's exclusive jurisdiction, than no state has authority over DC. But, discussion of this is avoided in the article.

Nope, still here, continuing to laugh at your ridiculous views Quill 

I see also you are continuing to regurgitate the same babble also and stil confused over freedom of thought to actual acts of discrimination

Again in this country you cannot discriminate based upon a persons belief

Hence if found that a landlord only rented property to people on the left, then there would be definately a case for discrimination, if people with right wing views had been turned down


Hence why the US is so backwards

The fact you miss here, is that it was stated why they decided to not allow this person to let

Hence blatant discrimination and why your points are as per usual idiotic

hmm...it seems your freedoms are guaranteed differently to ours, predicating soley upon govt.
here the freedoms and rights in the HRA are indeed aimed at govt and govt agencies BUT. they also impose the duty on the govt to deal with those individuals (who are NOT directly bound by the HRA) who should breach those rights
thus should the govt, via the courts fail to act upon a valid complaint against an individual then the govt has breached your human rights by failing to act.....

Article 14 of the Human Rights Act means there must be no discrimination when applying the other protections in the Act, on any grounds.

This includes grounds such as:

sex
race
colour
language
religion
political or other opinion
national or social origin
association with a national minority
property
birth
or any other status which would include sexual orientation, gender identity/reassignment status, marital status, pregnancy or maternity status or disability.

Article 14 does not provide for a free-standing right to non-discrimination, but requires that people are able to secure all other rights in the Convention without discrimination.

Thor wrote:Nope, still here, continuing to laugh at your ridiculous views Quill 

I see also you are continuing to regurgitate the same babble also and stil confused over freedom of thought to actual acts of discrimination

Again in this country you cannot discriminate based upon a persons belief

Hence if found that a landlord only rented property to people on the left, then there would be definately a case for discrimination, if people with right wing views had been turned down


Hence why the US is so backwards

The fact you miss here, is that it was stated why they decided to not allow this person to let

Hence blatant discrimination and why your points are as per usual idiotic

Adjectives are not arguments, didge. If there is "definitely a case for discrimination", cite the statute.

See? There is none.

Reasons notwithstanding, discrimination against left or right appears to pose no justiciable dispute as against a private citizen. It is discrimination, but not illegal discrimination. As I said, you're allowed to choose your marriage partner, even thought that's discrimination. You're also allowed to choose your friends and roommates. That's what happened here.

Vic wrote:Article 14 of the Human Rights Act means there must be no discrimination when applying the other protections in the Act, on any grounds.

Article 14 of what?  There are 50 states, several territories, and a federal government in the US.  The District of Columbia is a separate entity, subject to laws enacted only by Congress.

I suspect you are talking about Article 14 of the Human Rights Act of the United Kingdom.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:Nope, still here, continuing to laugh at your ridiculous views Quill 

I see also you are continuing to regurgitate the same babble also and stil confused over freedom of thought to actual acts of discrimination

Again in this country you cannot discriminate based upon a persons belief

Hence if found that a landlord only rented property to people on the left, then there would be definately a case for discrimination, if people with right wing views had been turned down


Hence why the US is so backwards

The fact you miss here, is that it was stated why they decided to not allow this person to let

Hence blatant discrimination and why your points are as per usual idiotic

Adjectives are not arguments, didge.  If there is "definitely a case for discrimination", cite the statute.  

  See?  There is none.

Reasons notwithstanding, discrimination against left or right appears to pose no justiciable dispute as against a private citizen.  It is discrimination, but not illegal discrimination.  As I said, you're allowed to choose your marriage partner, even thought that's discrimination.  You're also allowed to choose your friends and roommates.  That's what happened here.

What?

Because you say there is no discrimination?

Lord Foul has just ridiculed your entire argument, but hey, you have just proven again what is wrong with the extreme left

Their inherant need to discriminate

People also choose partners based on attraction, such that is not discrimination, when you cannot force yourself to be attracted to someone. You are not attracted to.

Or are you going to say next homosexual men are discriminating against women, by not finding them sexually attractive?

Do you now see why I think you are a complete idiot?

Didge wrote:Because you say there is no discrimination?

It's not just me. In the absence of a statute or other regulation or law, all things are legal to all people.

It's a universal maxim.

Didge wrote:Lord Foul has just ridiculed your entire argument, but hey, you have just proven again what is wrong with the extreme left

Vic has not cited any US law, either.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Because you say there is no discrimination?

It's not just me.  In the absence of a statute or other regulation or law, all things are legal to all people.

It's a universal maxim.

Is it legal though?
You keep claiming as such not based off any laws

Hence I show about as much conviction in your views, as I do the dodo

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Lord Foul has just ridiculed your entire argument, but hey, you have just proven again what is wrong with the extreme left

Vic has not cited any US law, either.

He did not need to, hence why you fucked up

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Because you say there is no discrimination?

It's not just me.  In the absence of a statute or other regulation or law, all things are legal to all people.

It's a universal maxim.

Is it legal though?
You keep claiming as such not based off any laws

Hence I show about as much conviction in your views, as I do the dodo

I think Quill's just trying to say that if there isn't a statute prohibiting something, you're allowed to do it. Kind of like designer drugs, where the law can't keep up with the innovation of the black market.

It certainly isn't right, though.

Didge wrote:People also choose partners based on attraction, such that is not discrimination, when you cannot force yourself to be attracted to someone. You are not attracted to.

Excuse me? Attraction is not discrimination? You are choosing someone to the exclusion of all others. That is discrimination...and it's not illegal.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Thor wrote:


Is it legal though?
You keep claiming as such not based off any laws

Hence I show about as much conviction in your views, as I do the dodo

I think Quill's just trying to say that if there isn't a statute prohibiting something, you're allowed to do it. Kind of like designer drugs, where the law can't keep up with the innovation of the black market.

It certainly isn't right, though.

You are correct as to what I'm saying.

But I will add, 'right' or 'wrong' is defined by law. A plurality of legislators determine what becomes law, based upon right and wrong.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:People also choose partners based on attraction, such that is not discrimination, when you cannot force yourself to be attracted to someone. You are not attracted to.

Excuse me?    Attraction is not discrimination?     You are choosing someone to the exclusion of all others.  That is discrimination...and it's not illegal.

Okay, tell me how you can force yourself to be attracted to someone you are not?

Tell me how a gay man can force himself to be attracted to a woman?

I have been attracted to many women and chose them in that instance. Hence how am I excluding anyone, unless you think people should be forced to be with me?

Again you talk utter shite and have zero understanding around the phsychology of attraction

Didge wrote:Or are you going to say next homosexual men are discriminating against women, by not finding them sexually attractive?

Isn't that obvious? Discrimination is not an inherently bad thing. It's just discrimination, over essentials, based upon arbitrary criteria, that is wrong.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Or are you going to say next homosexual men are discriminating against women, by not finding them sexually attractive?

Isn't that obvious?  Discrimination is not an inherently bad thing.  It's just discrimination, over essentials, based upon arbitrary criteria, that is wrong.

Its not discrimination, because again, how can you force yourself to be attracted to someone you are not?

Try again

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not just me.  In the absence of a statute or other regulation or law, all things are legal to all people.

It's a universal maxim.

Is it legal though?
You keep claiming as such not based off any laws

Hence I show about as much conviction in your views, as I do the dodo

Are you asking me if what is legal, is legal? I just said: "In the absence of a statute or other regulation or law, all things are legal to all people." What part of that don't you understand?