Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If all of the tenants are helping to pay for pool maintenance, which most likely they are, then all of them should be able to use the pool. The stupid landlord could have simply put up a sign stating that people's hair must be free of any chemicals before entering the pool.
That wouldnt work either, unless she's going to stand there and inspect everyones hair. She was clearly wrong and she violated numerous laws.
A sign which says please shower first, with shower facilities would work, but as an owner of a swimming pool, I've never experience any chemical problems from people jumping into our pool. Chlorine and pool filters clean almost anything
Cincinnati is solidly Republican. Do you think you can just make up your own facts and get away with it? You can't deal with the fact that she is a Republican... admit it.
The mayor is a black Democrat, so if Cincinnati is solidly Republican, wouldnt this disprove your bs garbage that Republicans are racist?
But its not actually public use, if its on private property and there is a sign restricting access to African Americans.
I find what this landlord has done to be terrible. I think that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race. But in a free country, we've got to allow racisim to exist, but that doesn't mean we can't fight it with our consumer dollars.
The landlords excuse is bogus, they are racist, plain and simple. But the government shouldn't legislate morallity in a free country. Forced morallity doesn't help anyone.
If it was never intended to be public use, then it should never have been advertised as such. The discrepancy arises when you simultaneously proclaim that your facilities are available to the public and discriminate against certain segments of that public when it comes to accessing those facilities. Also complicating matters is the fact that the girl's parents were tenants at the property at the time of the act. So in effect the sign served to prohibit their access to the pool as well, an even more egregious violation of the Ohio Code.
The problem with racial discrimination is that it is the very antithesis of the project of freedom. Speech is one thing, but unlawful actions that lead to the restriction of the freedom of others in the public sphere simply cannot go uncontested in a just society.
If it was never intended to be public use, then it should never have been advertised as such. The discrepancy arises when you simultaneously proclaim that your facilities are available to the public and discriminate against certain segments of that public when it comes to accessing those facilities. Also complicating matters is the fact that the girl's parents were tenants at the property at the time of the act. So in effect the sign served to prohibit their access to the pool as well, an even more egregious violation of the Ohio Code.
The problem with racial discrimination is that it is the very antithesis of the project of freedom. Speech is one thing, but unlawful actions that lead to the restriction of the freedom of others in the public sphere simply cannot go uncontested in a just society.
But by putting up a sign like this, means that it is no longer public, despite whats advertised.
And if the family were tenants, probably were, then they have legal recourse by going to small claims court and to get their rent back because they were denied access to facilities that were promised them in the lease.
But the government telling this land lord what they must do with their property is wrong. If they lied in a contract, then there is legal recourse for that. You could sue them for false advertising.
My point is, there are legal options, beyond forcing people to do things they don't want to do on their own land.
My point is, there are legal options, beyond forcing people to do things they don't want to do on their own land.
Just to be clear, the property might not actually be hers.. She could be the manager of the apartment complex for someone else, at which point she should be immediately fired.
But by putting up a sign like this, means that it is no longer public, despite whats advertised.
And if the family were tenants, probably were, then they have legal recourse by going to small claims court and to get their rent back because they were denied access to facilities that were promised them in the lease.
But the government telling this land lord what they must do with their property is wrong. If they lied in a contract, then there is legal recourse for that. You could sue them for false advertising.
My point is, there are legal options, beyond forcing people to do things they don't want to do on their own land.
Small Claims Court
That would not be the procedure for a violation of the Fair Housing Act...but this is.....
[SIZE=+0]The Administrative Hearing:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]If your case goes to an administrative hearing HUD attorneys will litigate the case on your behalf. You may intervene in the case and be represented by your own attorney if you wish. An Administrative Law Judge (ALA) will consider evidence from you and the respondent. If the ALA decides that discrimination occurred, the respondent can be ordered:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]To compensate you for actual damages, including humiliation, pain and suffering.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]To provide injunctive or other equitable relief, for example, to make the housing available to you.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]To pay the Federal Government a civil penalty to vindicate the public interest. The maximum penalties are $16,000 for a first violation and $65,000 for a third violation within seven years.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]To pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Federal District Court[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]If you or the respondent choose to have your case decided in Federal District Court, the Attorney General will file a suit and litigate it on your behalf. Like the ALA, the District Court can order relief, and award actual damages, attorney's fees and costs. In addition, the court can award punitive damages.[/SIZE]
Just to be clear, the property might not actually be hers.. She could be the manager of the apartment complex for someone else, at which point she should be immediately fired.
But by putting up a sign like this, means that it is no longer public, despite whats advertised.
And if the family were tenants, probably were, then they have legal recourse by going to small claims court and to get their rent back because they were denied access to facilities that were promised them in the lease.
But the government telling this land lord what they must do with their property is wrong. If they lied in a contract, then there is legal recourse for that. You could sue them for false advertising.
My point is, there are legal options, beyond forcing people to do things they don't want to do on their own land.
All those strands of legal recourse eventually fall back on the landlord's decision to discriminate on the basis of race. In this case, it is precisely the act of racial discrimination that renders a pursuit of a false advertising or breach of contract claim tenable in the first place.
The government guarantees you no rights. The amendments granted you certain "rights".
I assume you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which isn't an official document of these United States. Where we believe that all men were created equal, with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is granted to him by the creator.
But, as I said, this has nothing to do with the US constitution that was written and ratified in 1788.
Where is it written that a man or woman can't discriminate on their land and property?
I can tell you this, when I was in Detroit, there were certain neighborhoods in which I was not welcome after a certain time of day. And the only reason, was the color of my skin.
But do you know what I did? I didn't go down there, I waited until day time or until I had protection to work down there.
If I walked into a black club down there with my 6 foot tall redneck ass, what do you think would happen to me? Minding my own business I'd be assaulted, robbed, killed, or all three.
But if the owner wants to deny me entry, then thats his/hers business. I would respond and leave quietly, and quickly, and I wouldn't be back. They obviously don't want my business, why would I want to give my money to someone that doesn't want me there?
It is not the governments job to protect you from bigots and racists. There is a man down here in FWB with a sign, with rebel flags, and saying "Hussein Obama" and dark day for America, country stolen, etc. But you know what, thats his constitutional right, and he doesn't allow African Americans into his trailer park. But thats his business. I would never buy anything from him, or help him in anyway, but I'm not going to tell him what he has to do with his property. Maybe next time someone will want to take my right to tell who I have to allow on my property. And I don't want to allow racists and bigots into my place of business.
Well, to me it seems inconsistent. After all, one is not allowed to segregate against a certain race when renting apartments in one's own private apartment complex, either.
Maybe it is not so much the property, but the relationship whose nature matters. If I rent an apartment that belongs to me to anyone who is not a family member or friend, it is an interaction between me and the public so to speak.
I am no legal expert, so I don't know those laws and regulations. But it simply seems wrong to me to do anything that is aimed against someone just because of their looks. By do I mean an action, something that affects the other person in a material way, unlike mere racist statements etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
