Personally, I don't think that this sort of thing should be illegal.
But isn't it a blatant example of housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation that last year's "gay civil rights" bill was designed to prevent?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 09, 2007 04:14 PM | Email ThisWhy yes!.....yes it is.
(But do THEY realize that?)
Ding - Dong
That was the ACLU at the door already.
Posted by: JCM on July 9, 2007 06:35 PMThe gays win. Everyone else is intimidated to the point of being afraid to speak up.
At least this isn't the typical marketing to children of their "lifestyle".
Posted by: Independent Voter on July 9, 2007 06:59 PMAs I understand the law, a landlord cannot discriminate.
So what is this endeavour? A private club, or an apartment complex subject to anti-discrimination laws?
Posted by: Obi-Wan on July 9, 2007 10:07 PMThere has got to be a reasonableness test that applies to all of this. You can poke fun at some of the new law's potential side effects, but it is clear to most people that this really modest change in civil rights law, is pretty reasonable and does more good than harm.
Posted by: thor on July 9, 2007 10:23 PMThere has got to be a reasonableness test that applies to all of this. You can poke fun at some of the new law's potential side effects, but it is clear to most people that this really modest change in civil rights law, is pretty reasonable and does more good than harm.
Posted by: thor on July 9, 2007 10:24 PMI reject all the rationalized gay - straight marriage comparisions as just being stilted and self serving. Some of the worst bigots on the plant are gay people who refuse to recognize polygamy as an egually or even more so desirale social more. Polygamy has a much stronger history than gay marriage.
Also, morally then prostitution should also be legal. It would be strange living in a city where I could could legally have anal sex with a man , but not pay a woman for sex? something is Bass Ackwards there.
you can have your gay marriage, but then I also want polygamy and prostitution legalized. They are all connected to my puritan background. Throw one out, throw them all out. Gay marriage would be my last choice to legalize.
And my last useless point. Genetics are just suggestion and habit over birth cycles. Only like 3 percent of people are genetically gay. The rest are there from suggestion and from power/sex relationships. A dominatrix or a hypnotist can prove that point.
Posted by: JD on July 9, 2007 10:35 PMLesbians should definitely be able to choose to live among their own kind. The left in general, and the gay community in specific, has not thought this issue through. They love anti-discrimination legislation and lack the foresight to see how it will be used against them. Fools.
Posted by: Gay Guy on July 9, 2007 11:50 PMHowever the current laws and climate of PC have eliminated that right for property owners.
If you can't discriminate.
YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE.
The left come up with the friggin' rule, they better damn well be ready to live with their own rules.
Posted by: JCM on July 10, 2007 07:41 AMNo! And that's the point. The RULES are YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE.
So if I have an apartment build and I say no un-married couples and no same sex couples, the media, ACLU, code enforcement etc.. would be all over me. My property, my choice, let the market punish me or reward me.
Why is a Lesbian Only Co-housing arrangement suddenly discrimination is just peachy-keen.
Let's just apply the rules to everyone. No exceptions!
OR
Scrap the rules and let the market work.
Are you going to sue retirement communities or nursing homes for age discrimination because you can't live there unless your 65+? What about Apt. complexes that ban people with kids? Legal discrimination goes on all the time (ask smokers in this state).
I fail to see the issue here. People can plan communities however they want. Free market will dictate if they are successful or not.
Hey if you want to hang out in a community of white people, be my guest. There is a demand and the free market is filling it.
Hey if you want to sell heroin, be my guest. There is a demand and the free market is filling it.
Hey if you want to engage in child sexual slavery, be my guest. There is a demand and the free market is filling it.
See, Cato, there are certain things that aren't justified by "capitalistic economics," and housing discrimination is just one of them.
Now, if you and your homosexual partner want housing, I don't know that your sexuality should be at issue.
But being straight should never be an impediment to any right; much like your choice to be homosexual should not grant you any exclusive right.
But then, you're at least KINDA bright, ain't you? So, in reality, I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know.
Clearly, you on the left are all ABOUT discrimination... just as long as it's the right kind.
And that's one of the more hypocritical aspects of your particular fringe, but you feel free to enjoy it, little cowboy.
Posted by: Hinton on July 10, 2007 12:47 PMBut being straight should never be an impediment to any right
No one said it was.
much like your choice to be homosexual should not grant you any exclusive right.
Is being old an exclusive right? Maybe you should start suing for age discrimination in nursing homes.
Clearly, you on the left are all ABOUT discrimination... just as long as it's the right kind.
I'm not on the left. I just don't see any problems with retired lesbians setting up a retirement home. Heck, lets open up the VFW and Walter Reed to everyone. They discriminate against people based on choice.
"capitalistic economics," and housing discrimination is just one of them.
So by your definition Section 8 housing is economic discrimination.
you would be perfectly fine if they planned a "heterosexual only" community then, right?
They have that already, it's called US Military housing.
Way to avoid the question. Let's say a private developer wanted their community to be hetero's only. You're fine with that, right?
Posted by: Palouse on July 10, 2007 01:34 PMHow's it dodging the question? It's true, right?
Let's say a private developer wanted their community to be hetero's only.
Be hard to prove/sort out who is Hetro and who is not. Likely be sued for discrimination.
Besides it says 'will serve as a home for elderly women only'. Last I checked you can have same sex housing (see dorms/frat row). It's just run by lesbians, I doubt it says in the charter you need to be one to join.
One expects a place like this will appeal to a certain clientèle and free market forces will take care of the rest. Being a lesbian here seems like an added bonus and not a requirement.
1. There is a case where a community wanted to
limit itself to only married heterosexual
couples with children. An unmarried co-habiting
couple with children wants to move in. The
reason for the inititial restriction was the
community wanted people to espouse the value
that the best unit for raising children was
a married heterosexual couple. Should the
ACLU be successful in this suit?
2. Suppose the community of Ava Maria in Florida
wants to set up a community based upon
Christian principles and they would not allow
certain types of activities or businesses
within their borders. Should the ACLU be
successful in this suit?
I have to agreed with Gay Guy, a lot of secular progressive legislation is not that well thought out.
Posted by: WVH on July 11, 2007 07:12 AM