Guess there are still lots of homophobes in OC (rental, house)

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by sean1the1

Wow, I really thank you for putting it in a realistic perspective.

As soon as you sell the house you have no control.

But until then you do, and some people have some consideration for their neighbors not just how much they can put in their wallet. Too many self centered people any more.

[Socalpal]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

how would you know that the buyer wont sell later on to somebody you don't like?


a house you sell is not something you cant put conditions like your estate into a will

You can actually deed restrict a property.. obviously not for a protected class but it is possible to put "conditions" on a property

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Good for you. If it is only about money, the person has a lousy sense of what is decent and good for their neighbors and are totally self focused.

Sorry, when it comes to selling a house, it's only about money.

My neighbor didn't pay my mortgage.

My neighbor isn't going to help fund my retirement.

My neighbor may or may not stay in their own house.

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by Socalpal

You can actually deed restrict a property.. obviously not for a protected class but it is possible to put "conditions" on a property

i am not a lawyer so dont know if there is a law allowing it. mind if you cite a law?

you can put conditions until it is fully paid like a mortgagor requiring you to buy insurance or as a parent requiring some conditions before an heir can have his inheritance.

maybe in a subdivision where there is an HOA or the city requiring homeowners to mow their front lawn but an individual seller imposing conditions on a buyer? possible if you are the mortgagor too

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by ringwise

Sorry, when it comes to selling a house, it's only about money.

My neighbor didn't pay my mortgage.

My neighbor isn't going to help fund my retirement.

My neighbor may or may not stay in their own house.

Yep your neighbors are meaningless to you. No wonder they won't ... help.


I just sold one of my homes for $20,000.00 less and told the buyer I would up front. Why, he had a family member who needed help and my house fit the needs for the family. Helping others is rare anymore. Too many are self centered and if a few thousand makes a difference, you have saved to little to begin with.

[Socalpal]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

i am not a lawyer so dont know if there is a law allowing it. mind if you cite a law?

you can put conditions until it is fully paid like a mortgagor requiring you to buy insurance or as a parent requiring some conditions before an heir can have his inheritance.

maybe in a subdivision where there is an HOA or the city requiring homeowners to mow their front lawn but an individual seller imposing conditions on a buyer? possible if you are the mortgagor too

https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deed-restrictions/

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by Socalpal

https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deed-restrictions/

ok.. but we are going too far with the original thread which is about choosing not to sell to gays or to people with "character"

would you buy a house where the seller imposes restrictions on how to use your property? (except those imposed by the HOA)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by amokk

“Every homeowner should be able to make a decision not to sell their home to someone (if) they don’t agree with their lifestyle,”


https://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/2...t-of-realtors/

Yeah so?

Why do gays get to dictate market decisions? If people don't want to sell their house to gays, that's their house and their decision. They get to live with the consequences of it too.

[LuvSouthOC]

Ok. I'll play. This is basically an academic discussion because there is no right under California law to discriminate against gays in this way. In fact, in light of Obergefell (same sex marriage), it is more likely that in the future gays will gain still more protections in this area.

Obviously, Jim Crowe and slavery were the driving forces behind the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the states provided additional protections to buyers to ensure that restrictive covenants and other practices were ended.

Well intentioned, obviously the Civil Rights Act impacted more than just housing: businesses. I do think that forcing business owners to serve anyone warped society in strange ways and took away liberties that previously existed. Southern States argued that the right to free association was taken away too. That is true. However, obviously, few wanted to consider the societal consequences of the Act because of the legacy of discrimination in the United States. And detractors of the Act are very few in number, anyway. To the extent there are detractors, few could advocate for returning to a system that is truly laisez faire in such a Balkanized, fragmented society as our own is. That said, the Act and its related legalization that spread to states throughout the Union, was extended well beyond race, including to gays. I do not support just any extension of the Act. For example, I oppose forcing private bakeries to provide wedding cakes for gay people because cakes are not a fundamental requirement of life. However, I do not support Vons, Gelsons, Ralphs et al having the right to not sell groceries to gay people.

When it comes to housing; however, people have fewer choices as housing is a fundamental need. That said, although my strong Libertarian leaning is offended by forcing people to restrict to whom they sell (or rent) property, due to the fundamental nature of housing, I support the status quo as it relates to housing.

In the realm of doing business, I note that a recent court held that Trump supporters could be barred from a business. Interesting.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Ok. I'll play. This is basically an academic discussion because there is no right under California law to discriminate against gays in this way. In fact, in light of Obergefell (same sex marriage), it is more likely that in the future gays will gain still more protections in this area.

Obviously, Jim Crowe and slavery were the driving forces behind the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the states provided additional protections to buyers to ensure that restrictive covenants and other practices were ended.

Well intentioned, obviously the Civil Rights Act impacted more than just housing: businesses. I do think that forcing business owners to serve anyone warped society in strange ways and took away liberties that previously existed. Southern States argued that the right to free association was taken away too. That is true. However, obviously, few wanted to consider the societal consequences of the Act because of the legacy of discrimination in the United States. And detractors of the Act are very few in number, anyway. To the extent there are detractors, few could advocate for returning to a system that is truly laisez faire in such a Balkanized, fragmented society as our own is. That said, the Act and its related legalization that spread to states throughout the Union, was extended well beyond race, including to gays. I do not support just any extension of the Act. For example, I oppose forcing private bakeries to provide wedding cakes for gay people because cakes are not a fundamental requirement of life. However, I do not support Vons, Gelsons, Ralphs et al having the right to not sell groceries to gay people.

When it comes to housing; however, people have fewer choices as housing is a fundamental need. That said, although my strong Libertarian leaning is offended by forcing people to restrict to whom they sell (or rent) property, due to the fundamental nature of housing, I support the status quo as it relates to housing.

Good answer.

In the realm of doing business, I note that a recent court held that Trump supporters could be barred from a business. Interesting.

Leftist often do not consider the consequences of their actions. This could have further reaching consequences than just Trump supporters or bars.