why aren't we allowed to do this in america (usa)?

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
It's wrong and often foolish to discriminate against race, gender, etc.

It's also wrong to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their property beyond the basic need to keep them from causing direct harm with it.

I dunno what to do about it. *shrug*

If you're offering a service to the public, even in your own home, you can't say "no blacks allowed."

Like someone said above, you can accept all applications and quietly only agree to board white people.

This isn't that complicated.

 

[Modelworks]

If you read the article they did not force her to take the signs down, they pressured her into doing it.
What she did is actually protected under the FHA rules. If she went to court she would win. The police were more concerned with the public response than they were the FHA law.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
If you read the article they did not force her to take the signs down, they pressured her into doing it.
What she did is actually protected under the FHA rules. If she went to court she would win. The police were more concerned with the public response than they were the FHA law.

Really? The Fair Housing Act says that both you and she are wrong.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Modelworks
If you read the article they did not force her to take the signs down, they pressured her into doing it.
What she did is actually protected under the FHA rules. If she went to court she would win. The police were more concerned with the public response than they were the FHA law.

Really? The Fair Housing Act says that both you and she are wrong.

Actually it doesn't, read the act.

b) Exemptions
Nothing in section 3604 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to -

(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any one time

2) rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence.

If I live in a home and rent out a room, they cannot force me to live with anyone that I don't want to live there, regardless of if I'm racist or not.

The FHA only applies to people renting many homes and apartments, not to the person who rents out 1 or 2 houses.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: FuryofFive

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: loki8481
not hiring someone or not renting to someone on the basis of race is very illegal.

Unless there is a business necessity (e.g. Chinese restaurant only hiring Chinese employees to maintain authenticity).

Funny thing is, i see lots of mexicans working in chinese restaurants these days

..and chinese people running fried chicken restaurants..

or mexicans cooking italian food.... 🙂 rocky balboa woot!!!

but seriously i knew a kid who was mexican who said his brother worked at our local italian restaurant.. when i was young i couldnt wrap my head around that.. (young as in like middle school) fast forward, i realized. most likely a dishwasher

LOL. Immigrants from Central and South America work in the kitchens of all but the most ethnic restaurants. Go to any fancy restaurant and you'll see "Mexicans" in the kitchen. Some as dishwashers, but also some cook.

I know you don't think you're a racist, but you are. You wouldn't assume that a White American working in the kitchen of an Italian restaurant was a dishwasher, but you made that assumption about a Mexican. I hope you label your building "Whites Only," so I can know where not to go.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Modelworks
If you read the article they did not force her to take the signs down, they pressured her into doing it.
What she did is actually protected under the FHA rules. If she went to court she would win. The police were more concerned with the public response than they were the FHA law.

Really? The Fair Housing Act says that both you and she are wrong.

Actually it doesn't, read the act.

b) Exemptions
Nothing in section 3604 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to -

(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any one time

2) rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence.

If I live in a home and rent out a room, they cannot force me to live with anyone that I don't want to live there, regardless of if I'm racist or not.

The FHA only applies to people renting many homes and apartments, not to the person who rents out 1 or 2 houses.

So I stand partially corrected, but she still can't put a sign out that explicitly states her race preference, unless I'm reading everything incorrectly.

(b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--

(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any one time: Provided further, That in the case of the sale of any such single-family house by a private individual owner not residing in such house at the time of such sale or who was not the most recent resident of such house prior to such sale, the exemption granted by this subsection shall apply only with respect to one such sale within any twenty-four month period: Provided further, That such bona fide private individual owner does not own any interest in, nor is there owned or reserved on his behalf, under any express or voluntary agreement, title to or any right to all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale or rental of, more than three such single-family houses at any one time: Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-family house shall be excepted from the application of this subchapter only if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 804(c) of this title; but nothing in this proviso shall prohibit the use of attorneys, escrow agents, abstractors, title companies, and other such professional assistance as necessary to perfect or transfer the title, or

So, sure she can be discriminatory, but she can't post a sign that says "whites only," which basically boils down to the original point -- people are free to make their own choices behind closed doors regarding who to accept to live in their home, they just can't publicly state that preference.

edit: I'm exhausted and can barely read straight, so if I misread that, just let me know 😉

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Linflas
The linked story regards a woman living in upstate New York and I guarantee that most of the posters in this thread live somewhere other than the south yet I knew that it was inevitable that some worthless asshole would somehow bring the south into this and it only took 11 posts.

The OP specifically asked about the constitutionality of laws like this one and why we have them. In examining these sorts of laws, the context of why they came to exist in the first place is of paramount importance; after all, the law was presumably made to address a problem, and understanding that problem will help us judge whether the law was an effective solution. In the case of civil rights legislation, much of it rose from the wake of Brown v. Board of Education about segregation in schools in Kansas. The anti-segregation laws that followed in regards to housing, restaurants, retail stores, poll taxes, and other such racially motivated laws were almost all specifically about laws that existed in Southern states, but not in the North. Just because this particular story comes to us from New York does not change the fact that this legislation came as a response to policies in Southern states.

 

[FuryofFive]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: FuryofFive

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: loki8481
not hiring someone or not renting to someone on the basis of race is very illegal.

Unless there is a business necessity (e.g. Chinese restaurant only hiring Chinese employees to maintain authenticity).

Funny thing is, i see lots of mexicans working in chinese restaurants these days

..and chinese people running fried chicken restaurants..

or mexicans cooking italian food.... 🙂 rocky balboa woot!!!

but seriously i knew a kid who was mexican who said his brother worked at our local italian restaurant.. when i was young i couldnt wrap my head around that.. (young as in like middle school) fast forward, i realized. most likely a dishwasher

LOL. Immigrants from Central and South America work in the kitchens of all but the most ethnic restaurants. Go to any fancy restaurant and you'll see "Mexicans" in the kitchen. Some as dishwashers, but also some cook.

I know you don't think you're a racist, but you are. You wouldn't assume that a White American working in the kitchen of an Italian restaurant was a dishwasher, but you made that assumption about a Mexican. I hope you label your building "Whites Only," so I can know where not to go.

If you insist my friend. It's funny how we all think the white man is a racist.. but never the minorities.. In 20 years minorities will populate over half of the US. then what? Minorities populate this country at an alarming rate. average white family has what. 1-2 kids? whats the average of a black/spanish family?

and i never said white people couldnt dishwash. i said i had a friend that his brother worked as a dishwasher. give it a break already.

were gonna need about 5-10 more black presidents to end this so called racism.. Racism at its best... ask a black person why they voted for obama, most of them will tell you "because he's black" now tell me thats not racist.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles


(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any one time: Provided further, That in the case of the sale of any such single-family house by a private individual owner not residing in such house at the time of such sale or who was not the most recent resident of such house prior to such sale, the exemption granted by this subsection shall apply only with respect to one such sale within any twenty-four month period: Provided further, That such bona fide private individual owner does not own any interest in, nor is there owned or reserved on his behalf, under any express or voluntary agreement, title to or any right to all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale or rental of, more than three such single-family houses at any one time: Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-family house shall be excepted from the application of this subchapter only if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 804(c) of this title; but nothing in this proviso shall prohibit the use of attorneys, escrow agents, abstractors, title companies, and other such professional assistance as necessary to perfect or transfer the title, or

So, sure she can be discriminatory, but she can't post a sign that says "whites only," which basically boils down to the original point -- people are free to make their own choices behind closed doors regarding who to accept to live in their home, they just can't publicly state that preference.

In 1995 the courts ruled that what you bolded only applied to public publishing in things like newspapers or classified ads. She is still free to post whatever she likes on her own property.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: FuryofFive

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: loki8481
not hiring someone or not renting to someone on the basis of race is very illegal.

Unless there is a business necessity (e.g. Chinese restaurant only hiring Chinese employees to maintain authenticity).

Funny thing is, i see lots of mexicans working in chinese restaurants these days

..and chinese people running fried chicken restaurants..

or mexicans cooking italian food.... 🙂 rocky balboa woot!!!

but seriously i knew a kid who was mexican who said his brother worked at our local italian restaurant.. when i was young i couldnt wrap my head around that.. (young as in like middle school) fast forward, i realized. most likely a dishwasher

LOL. Immigrants from Central and South America work in the kitchens of all but the most ethnic restaurants. Go to any fancy restaurant and you'll see "Mexicans" in the kitchen. Some as dishwashers, but also some cook.

I know you don't think you're a racist, but you are. You wouldn't assume that a White American working in the kitchen of an Italian restaurant was a dishwasher, but you made that assumption about a Mexican. I hope you label your building "Whites Only," so I can know where not to go.

Is it racist to think you're a complete tool?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: BeauJangles


(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any one time: Provided further, That in the case of the sale of any such single-family house by a private individual owner not residing in such house at the time of such sale or who was not the most recent resident of such house prior to such sale, the exemption granted by this subsection shall apply only with respect to one such sale within any twenty-four month period: Provided further, That such bona fide private individual owner does not own any interest in, nor is there owned or reserved on his behalf, under any express or voluntary agreement, title to or any right to all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale or rental of, more than three such single-family houses at any one time: Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-family house shall be excepted from the application of this subchapter only if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 804(c) of this title; but nothing in this proviso shall prohibit the use of attorneys, escrow agents, abstractors, title companies, and other such professional assistance as necessary to perfect or transfer the title, or

So, sure she can be discriminatory, but she can't post a sign that says "whites only," which basically boils down to the original point -- people are free to make their own choices behind closed doors regarding who to accept to live in their home, they just can't publicly state that preference.

In 1995 the courts ruled that what you bolded only applied to public publishing in things like newspapers or classified ads. She is still free to post whatever she likes on her own property.

Interesting and thanks for the clarification!

 

[hammertime451]

touchy topic

 

[Xylitol]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Xylitol

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Your freedom doesn't include discriminating against people based on skin color. Just like it doesn't make you free to murder, rape, steal, extort, bribe, or pedal cocaine.

um...
i should be able to discriminate against whoever I want if I'm not part of something public.

Is it against my right to avoid making friends with gay people? I'm discriminating against them by not letting them be my friends - this is NOTHING like rape, murder, bribing, etc.

So don't offer a service to only one segment of the public and they'll be no problem.

no it'll be spread out since everyone does not share the same beliefs

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Your freedom doesn't include discriminating against people based on skin color. Just like it doesn't make you free to murder, rape, steal, extort, bribe, or pedal cocaine.

So do you think that there are a lot of white people working for BET, or do they illegally pass up whites in order to hire blacks?

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Your freedom doesn't include discriminating against people based on skin color. Just like it doesn't make you free to murder, rape, steal, extort, bribe, or pedal cocaine.

So do you think that there are a lot of white people working for BET, or do they illegally pass up whites in order to hire blacks?

BET is owned by Viacom and I would be willing to bet $1,000 they the majority of people working there aren't black. I'm sure Viacom has no vested interest in hiring Black people outside of the on the air personalities.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: dougp

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: loki8481
not hiring someone or not renting to someone on the basis of race is very illegal.

Yet you can give scholarships out based on race.....

And affirmative action.

Disparate Impact pisses me off more than affirmative action.

Wow, that's a really messed up law. So basically you can't have standards if those standards filter out a disproportionate percentage of a certain race. This is screwed up because it's assuming that the standards are somehow "racist". They don't account for the possibility that there is a difference in quality among the applicants that travels along racial lines.

As an example:

"According to the complaint, approximately 68 percent of white candidates, but only approximately 29 percent of African-American candidates, passed the city of Dayton's most recent written police officer examination; and the scores of passing African-American candidates on that exam were lower than those of their white counterparts."

This doesn't prove that the test is racist, it only proves that blacks had a harder time passing the test. Again, unless you think that blacks are somehow unable to pass the test the solution to me is that they simply study a little more and try harder.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

while the post deals with housing, some posters have brought up employment (ie having asians in an oriental restaurant).

BOQ (bona-fide occupational qualification) seems relevant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...ational_qualifications

"It shall not be unlawful for an employer, employment agency, or labor organization (1) to take any action otherwise prohibited under subsections (a), (b), (c), or (e) of this section where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business, or where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age, or where such practices involve an employee in a workplace in a foreign country, and compliance with such subsections would cause such employer, or a corporation controlled by such employer, to violate the laws of the country in which such workplace is located."

it's why the modeling industry can make decisions based on beauty. for those who watch movies, this is alluded to in Ocean's 13 when Al Pacino's character opened a new casino and was able to scrutinize waitresses by appearance due to classifying them as "models who can serve".

 

[Adam8281]

Two extremes:
1) Not letting black people enter your house is OK. You have a constitutional right to associate with whom you will (freedom of association), and that means you can exclude people from your home for whatever reason you choose.
2) Owning a hotel and not renting rooms to black people is not OK. See the Supreme Court case "Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States," where the court held that Congress can use its constitutional "commerce clause" power to fight racial discrimination even when done by private individuals through their privately owned business.

Between these extremes are some gray areas. In the Supreme Court case "Shelley v. Kraemer" the Court held that private covenants among homeowners not to sell their property to blacks are unenforceable by the Court. Private homeowners may choose to abide by such covenants if they wish, but the Court cannot enforce the covenants because to do so would be a violation of the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. I think renting bedrooms in house to whites only falls somewhere in the gray area between 1) above and 2) above. I think it probably lies closer to 1) and would be constitutional, but I'm not certain about that. The Courts tend to consider your home "sacrosanct," in some respects, and like I said in 1), there is no question that you can exclude people from your home on whatever racist or morally heinous basis you choose. But renting rooms in your house is an economic activity, and therefore it's possible that Congress could regulate it via the commerce clause. I think this would be a stretch, though, since the level of economic activity from you renting your home is much less than a business, like a hotel (which Congress clearly can regulate under "Heart of Atlanta"). Also, if the renter is still living in the house (i.e. she's just renting out rooms in the house, not the whole house), that would weigh in favor of finding the scenario to be more like 1) than 2); more of a "freedom of association" case than a commercial discrimination case. I'm not aware of any legislation, premised on the commerce clause, that prohibits racial discrimination in the renting of your own home, but I could be wrong. Cliffs: My hunch is that it is constitutional to say you will rent rooms in your home to "whites only."

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: loki8481
not hiring someone or not renting to someone on the basis of race is very illegal.

still doesn't make sense to me.

i want to cater my product to a certain demographic. i should be able to carry that out any way i see fit.
isn't this the land of the free?

No. Land of the free is where jackasses aren't allowed to descriminate and tell someone who would make a perfectly viable client/employee/tenant/etc. that they are not eligible because of skin color. Or maybe we can start having "white only" restaurants /etc. in the South or wherever else racists live, that'd be just dandy for you I'm sure.

this lady is in Niagara Falls.

What does that have to do with the South?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Not that it's right to be racist, but if it's your own business can't you choose who your clients are? I can't see why the government can stop you from refusing service to someone for any reason.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Not that it's right to be racist, but if it's your own business can't you choose who your clients are? I can't see why the government can stop you from refusing service to someone for any reason.

Are you even aware of what the Civil Rights movement is?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Not that it's right to be racist, but if it's your own business can't you choose who your clients are? I can't see why the government can stop you from refusing service to someone for any reason.

Are you even aware of what the Civil Rights movement is?

everyone is aware of what it is.
it just doesn't seem "right" from an individual's standpoint, to have our freedom of choice taken away by the law.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Not that it's right to be racist, but if it's your own business can't you choose who your clients are? I can't see why the government can stop you from refusing service to someone for any reason.

There are exceptions . Like in this case as long as you were not renting more than 3 homes or if you were living in the home where you rented rooms, you can discriminate all you want.

I think there is something similar for business depending on size and affiliation. I remember reading something like that as long as the business did not offer a public service and was not using government funds they could discriminate.

 

[Kelvrick]

I think she should be able to rent to whoever she wants. She isn't keeping him from doing anything like voting, using public transportation, parks. She has a private home and should be able to do as she chooses. Obviously not something like murder, but she wants to rent a room, she will rent to whoever she wants.

Something else I completely loathe is how we've gone after smokers. Personally,I hate the smell from a cigarette, I will never go to a restaurant that will seat me where I will smell it from another patron. I probably wouldn't mind a smoking/non-smoking section if they had enough ventilation. But, why is this forced on a business in some places? Maybe a business wants to cater towards smokers. Let them lose everyone who doesn't want to smell the smoke but gain the smokers' business. Everyone is there by choice, including employees.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
I think she should be able to rent to whoever she wants. She isn't keeping him from doing anything like voting, using public transportation, parks. She has a private home and should be able to do as she chooses. Obviously not something like murder, but she wants to rent a room, she will rent to whoever she wants.

Something else I completely loathe is how we've gone after smokers. Personally,I hate the smell from a cigarette, I will never go to a restaurant that will seat me where I will smell it from another patron. I probably wouldn't mind a smoking/non-smoking section if they had enough ventilation. But, why is this forced on a business in some places? Maybe a business wants to cater towards smokers. Let them lose everyone who doesn't want to smell the smoke but gain the smokers' business. Everyone is there by choice, including employees.

That I agree with 100%. I don't smoke, and I think iti's bad for you, blah blah... but if smokers chose to do it then fine, it's their choice. I find it should be up to businesses to decide the smoking rules.

Here its actually illegal to smoke in the car with a child. Sure, it's a really bad idea to do that, and I would not agree with someone doing that to their kid, but it should not be the government's decision it should be the parent's. On the other hand today's people are so retarded, that the government probably realized it needs to step in for the better well being of future generations. So guess that law can be taken two ways.