lol, c'mon now imortal. You're smarter than that.imortal wrote:
No smokers, please
Prefer someone with a strong Christian background
Women only, please
Homosexual male desired
...or should they all just be written in some sort of code?
you sound like a hippie lowing...thats surprising. go hug a tree and "stick it to the man"lowing wrote:
Yup I am, I am not in favor of govt. telling people who they can and can not rent to. I am certaionly not a fan of govt. telling people what they can and can not express on their own property.Flecco wrote:
Jeez.
Wonder if lowing knows about that. He'd be pissed. Big government strikes again!
Last edited by destruktion_6143 (2009-03-23 18:41:48)
But in this case, the 1st amendment is modified by the 14th amendment and subsequent federal law the prohibits her from the racist advertising.Wreckognize wrote:
Freedom of speech does not protect the speech you love, it protects the speech you hate. The women is a cunt though.
Sounds like you will miss racist old women.Diesel_dyk wrote:
But in this case, the 1st amendment is modified by the 14th amendment and subsequent federal law the prohibits her from the racist advertising.Wreckognize wrote:
Freedom of speech does not protect the speech you love, it protects the speech you hate. The women is a cunt though.
But, that doesn't seem to stop people from thinking "I can do what I want with my property."
ROFL I just envisioned this woman sitting in a rocker, with a jug, a coach shot gun and confederate flag. OMG its Ma Boggs from "Every Which Way But Loose."
AgreedWarhammer wrote:
Sounds like you will miss racist old women.Diesel_dyk wrote:
But in this case, the 1st amendment is modified by the 14th amendment and subsequent federal law the prohibits her from the racist advertising.Wreckognize wrote:
Freedom of speech does not protect the speech you love, it protects the speech you hate. The women is a cunt though.
But, that doesn't seem to stop people from thinking "I can do what I want with my property."
ROFL I just envisioned this woman sitting in a rocker, with a jug, a coach shot gun and confederate flag. OMG its Ma Boggs from "Every Which Way But Loose."
We do live in a multicultural society let her have her fun.
Like they dictate you can't have separate "whites" and "coloreds" restrooms/entrances/water fountains/etc?lowing wrote:
By OWNING her own property she should be allowed the FREEDOM to rent to who she wants. Who is the govt. to decide who people should or should not like. It is not the govts. job to dictate preference to anyone.FEOS wrote:
By saying she will only rent to whites, she is using a form of discrimination. By choosing to rent only to whites, she is now illegaly choosing who to rent to.Tehremos wrote:
but as long as she doesn't use any form discrimination, she can legally choose who she rents/sells to.
THat is on public property. Public property is for the people, private property is for the owner, see the difference?FEOS wrote:
Like they dictate you can't have separate "whites" and "coloreds" restrooms/entrances/water fountains/etc?lowing wrote:
By OWNING her own property she should be allowed the FREEDOM to rent to who she wants. Who is the govt. to decide who people should or should not like. It is not the govts. job to dictate preference to anyone.FEOS wrote:
By saying she will only rent to whites, she is using a form of discrimination. By choosing to rent only to whites, she is now illegaly choosing who to rent to.
Businesses are private property as well. See the similarity?lowing wrote:
THat is on public property. Public property is for the people, private property is for the owner, see the difference?FEOS wrote:
Like they dictate you can't have separate "whites" and "coloreds" restrooms/entrances/water fountains/etc?lowing wrote:
By OWNING her own property she should be allowed the FREEDOM to rent to who she wants. Who is the govt. to decide who people should or should not like. It is not the govts. job to dictate preference to anyone.
First and foremost, My usual disclaimer that discriminating against someone based soley on their race, skin color, or religion is an abhorant thing, and responsible for a lot of the troubles here in the world, and no goverment run or controlled agency or facility should be allowed to do it.Spearhead wrote:
lol, c'mon now imortal. You're smarter than that.imortal wrote:
No smokers, please
Prefer someone with a strong Christian background
Women only, please
Homosexual male desired
...or should they all just be written in some sort of code?
Saying that you will or will not conduct business with someone because of their race is completely different than saying "Hey I'm an old lonely woman and would prefer not to rent out my house to a bunch of 20 year old males who could rob me blind"
Businesses pick and chose who they will serve all the time, also businesses cater to the public in general. They will take anyones money, this does not mean they have to be part of their lives, like a renter becomes.FEOS wrote:
Businesses are private property as well. See the similarity?lowing wrote:
THat is on public property. Public property is for the people, private property is for the owner, see the difference?FEOS wrote:
Like they dictate you can't have separate "whites" and "coloreds" restrooms/entrances/water fountains/etc?
When you make the choice to provide goods or services to the public (like renting someone a place to live), you fall under a set of laws. Those laws are different than the laws you fall under when not providing goods/services to the public. One of those laws is a prohibition against discrimination based solely on race, religion, creed, sex, culture, etc.lowing wrote:
Businesses pick and chose who they will serve all the time, also businesses cater to the public in general. They will take anyones money, this does not mean they have to be part of their lives, like a renter becomes.FEOS wrote:
Businesses are private property as well. See the similarity?lowing wrote:
THat is on public property. Public property is for the people, private property is for the owner, see the difference?
Last edited by FEOS (2009-03-25 06:42:57)
Nah. People let their true feelings come out at some ripe old age. No sense to keep it bottled-up to the end of existence.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
many old people are racist, theres a shock
Maybe you are right about that. Ever wonder what you would be like if you were raised with different values than you have now?Man With No Name wrote:
good thing you people werent around in the 60's
I agree that, that is how the laws are written. I disagree that, that is proper for a govt. to dictate.FEOS wrote:
When you make the choice to provide goods or services to the public (like renting someone a place to live), you fall under a set of laws. Those laws are different than the laws you fall under when not providing goods/services to the public. One of those laws is a prohibition against discrimination based solely on race, religion, creed, sex, culture, etc.lowing wrote:
Businesses pick and chose who they will serve all the time, also businesses cater to the public in general. They will take anyones money, this does not mean they have to be part of their lives, like a renter becomes.FEOS wrote:
Businesses are private property as well. See the similarity?
The lady has every right to be a racist--but her right to be a racist ends when she starts infringing on another person's rights. She has no right to discriminate based solely on race when renting. She can certainly find other reasons to prevent someone she doesn't like from renting...putting up the sign is just stupid.
segregation now, segregation forever.imortal wrote:
Maybe you are right about that. Ever wonder what you would be like if you were raised with different values than you have now?Man With No Name wrote:
good thing you people werent around in the 60's
Was that how you would feel?Man With No Name wrote:
segregation now, segregation forever.imortal wrote:
Maybe you are right about that. Ever wonder what you would be like if you were raised with different values than you have now?Man With No Name wrote:
good thing you people werent around in the 60's
Without getting into whether or not it's fair, lots of old landladies have been stung by black people with missed payments and destruction of property, so it's not hard to imagine why they revert to old ways.Flecco wrote:
Imo, yes.
She might be a crazy old woman but putting signs up on her property is her right isn't it?
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-03-25 18:41:39)
Then you have a problem with the basic tenets of the Constitution: you have gobs of rights, but they end when your exercising of those rights infringes on another's rights.lowing wrote:
I agree that, that is how the laws are written. I disagree that, that is proper for a govt. to dictate.FEOS wrote:
When you make the choice to provide goods or services to the public (like renting someone a place to live), you fall under a set of laws. Those laws are different than the laws you fall under when not providing goods/services to the public. One of those laws is a prohibition against discrimination based solely on race, religion, creed, sex, culture, etc.lowing wrote:
Businesses pick and chose who they will serve all the time, also businesses cater to the public in general. They will take anyones money, this does not mean they have to be part of their lives, like a renter becomes.
The lady has every right to be a racist--but her right to be a racist ends when she starts infringing on another person's rights. She has no right to discriminate based solely on race when renting. She can certainly find other reasons to prevent someone she doesn't like from renting...putting up the sign is just stupid.
It is her property to do with as she sees fit. If she does not want to live next to black people it should be well within her right NOT to do so. She should be able to sell or rent her personal property to anyone she sees fit.
Her rental property is not publically traded
In this case I view it as the govt. infringing on an individuals right to choose. IT is HER property, it is not for someone else to decide who she has to take on as a tenant.FEOS wrote:
Then you have a problem with the basic tenets of the Constitution: you have gobs of rights, but they end when your exercising of those rights infringes on another's rights.lowing wrote:
I agree that, that is how the laws are written. I disagree that, that is proper for a govt. to dictate.FEOS wrote:
When you make the choice to provide goods or services to the public (like renting someone a place to live), you fall under a set of laws. Those laws are different than the laws you fall under when not providing goods/services to the public. One of those laws is a prohibition against discrimination based solely on race, religion, creed, sex, culture, etc.
The lady has every right to be a racist--but her right to be a racist ends when she starts infringing on another person's rights. She has no right to discriminate based solely on race when renting. She can certainly find other reasons to prevent someone she doesn't like from renting...putting up the sign is just stupid.
It is her property to do with as she sees fit. If she does not want to live next to black people it should be well within her right NOT to do so. She should be able to sell or rent her personal property to anyone she sees fit.
Her rental property is not publically traded
That's what's happening here. Her exercising her right to be a racist infringes on a black person's right to be free from discrimination.
I don't think the govt should be telling someone what they can or can't do with their personal property either...unless whatever they choose to do with that property infringes on another's basic rights/endangers others.
No, because others don't have a RIGHT to enter your house. People in the US have a RIGHT to rent a property regardless of their skin color. You are not providing goods or services to the public by having someone visit...she is by renting a room/house. Once she crosses that line, it's a different set of rules.lowing wrote:
In this case I view it as the govt. infringing on an individuals right to choose. IT is HER property, it is not for someone else to decide who she has to take on as a tenant.FEOS wrote:
Then you have a problem with the basic tenets of the Constitution: you have gobs of rights, but they end when your exercising of those rights infringes on another's rights.lowing wrote:
I agree that, that is how the laws are written. I disagree that, that is proper for a govt. to dictate.
It is her property to do with as she sees fit. If she does not want to live next to black people it should be well within her right NOT to do so. She should be able to sell or rent her personal property to anyone she sees fit.
Her rental property is not publically traded
That's what's happening here. Her exercising her right to be a racist infringes on a black person's right to be free from discrimination.
I don't think the govt should be telling someone what they can or can't do with their personal property either...unless whatever they choose to do with that property infringes on another's basic rights/endangers others.
I live in a good size house, I have the right to let anyone I want in my house, and keep out anyone I do not want. By doing so, am I now hindering someone elses rights? A weak argument.
Tbh, getting stung by renters is not a race thing. It's a class/education thing. You get silly young selfish bastards amongst all races.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Without getting into whether or not it's fair, lots of old landladies have been stung by black people with missed payments and destruction of property, so it's not hard to imagine why they revert to old ways.Flecco wrote:
Imo, yes.
She might be a crazy old woman but putting signs up on her property is her right isn't it?
And on the other face of the coin, there are some places where it's unwritten law that white people are not welcome.
As to the OP, probation and community service for that? Meh.