Sorry, she should not be obligated to rent to someone she is not comfortable with or does not like regardless of the reason. People do have the freedom to rent if they want. Are you saying the renter should be able to force themselves on the OWNER of a property regardless of the owners wishes?FEOS wrote:
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.
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.
On a similar note, should a restaurant have the freedom to ban blacks from their restroom?lowing wrote:
Sorry, she should not be obligated to rent to someone she is not comfortable with or does not like regardless of the reason. People do have the freedom to rent if they want. Are you saying the renter should be able to force themselves on the OWNER of a property regardless of the owners wishes?FEOS wrote:
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.
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.
Nope a restaurant is a business serving the public. An owner of a private residence is just that, private.Jenspm wrote:
On a similar note, should a restaurant have the freedom to ban blacks from their restroom?lowing wrote:
Sorry, she should not be obligated to rent to someone she is not comfortable with or does not like regardless of the reason. People do have the freedom to rent if they want. Are you saying the renter should be able to force themselves on the OWNER of a property regardless of the owners wishes?FEOS wrote:
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.