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.
OK. I am not going to argue with you. You are wrong and that is all there is to it.
Please argue with me. I've read the proposed law 6 or 7 times, and I'm pretty damn sure I've read it correctly. If I'm wrong, please point out why by pointing to the language in the law I'm misunderstanding. I'd like to have the correct understanding, so if you're picked up on something I've missing, I'd like to know.
As a landlord I have to deal with city and county ordinances concerning not discriminating against minority when renting.
Where I live, gay people are "protected" just like other minorities based on color, ethnicity, age, sex, religion, etc. In fact, because of discrimination the City of Philadelphia kicked out the local Boy Scout leadership from a city owned building of which they were paying a token nominal rent on.
Anyway, as a landlord I have discovered there are discreet and legal ways other landlords use to discriminate, without it appearing like discrimination. Gay people, by the way, make excellent tenants.
I know in NYC if a landlord owns a building with 4 units or less and/or lives in the building, they can discriminate all they want. It is a loophole because a landlord could own a hundred units in buildings that are four units or less and be as discriminating as they want. I am usually against laws like this, but I think it is important for homeowners to decide who they want living in their building, though I think the law should be changed to only work for those landlords that actually live within their building.
Exactly how big a problem was this that it required a change in state law?
None according to the proponents. They did this in reaction to a recent ruling in New Mexico where the New Mexico supreme court ruled in favor a gay couple who, in 2006, were refused the services of a photographer for their wedding. They are being proactive so they say. The "problem" is just pandering to the wingnuts who vote in Republican primaries. AZ has a long history of this kind of junk getting passed in the legislature. There are all kinds of thing outlawing abortion, requiring teachers to carry sidearms, etc. In happier times, they always got vetoed by more sane governors like Babbitt, Mofford, Symington, and Napolitano. But when Nappy joined Obama, we got a tea party queen in the governor's office. She rode the anti-illegal immigration sentiment which is very real in AZ to re-election. Nevertheless, Brewer is mostly about small government and not a staunch social conservative. She's a Lutheran, not a Mormon or an Evangelist. She is also a tool of the business community and the business community is pulling out all the big guns to kill this bill.
Here is the bottom line folks. Gays should not get preferential treatment. What makes them so special that they deserve it?
Huh? What preferential treatment do gays get without this law?
This proposed Arizona law, however, gives special rights to the religious. It lets religious people legally discriminate, but does not allow non-religious people to discriminate in the same way.
I know in NYC if a landlord owns a building with 4 units or less and/or lives in the building, they can discriminate all they want. It is a loophole because a landlord could own a hundred units in buildings that are four units or less and be as discriminating as they want. I am usually against laws like this, but I think it is important for homeowners to decide who they want living in their building, though I think the law should be changed to only work for those landlords that actually live within their building.
Here in Philly it's similar, but if the building has 3 units or less you can discriminate; 4 units if the landlord lives in the building.
My point was that there are legal ways to get around anti-discrimination laws.
Please argue with me. I've read the proposed law 6 or 7 times, and I'm pretty damn sure I've read it correctly. If I'm wrong, please point out why by pointing to the language in the law I'm misunderstanding. I'd like to have the correct understanding, so if you're picked up on something I've missing, I'd like to know.
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that Federal law trumps state law where there is a conflict.
Note: Sexual orientation or whatever it is to be called is not covered.
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that Federal law trumps state law where there is a conflict.
Note: Sexual orientation or whatever it is to be called is not covered.
When I took law back a kazillion years ago, my law professor hammered into us that there are always 2 sides to every law: (1) the letter of the law and (2) the spirit of the law. Lawyers love to only look at the letter of the law and ignore the spirit of the law whenever it serves their purpose.
Many people believe that the spirit of the Federal Civil Rights Act covers sexual orientation and whatever else the writer did not think of. Furthermore, the point of this law is to ensure people's rights, not discriminate against a particular group.
Why is it that religious people get a hard-on discriminating against other people?
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.
