Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., has died at age 77.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Mormons back gay rights laws
Laws banning discrimination against gays in housing and employment in Salt Lake City were passed unanimously by the city’s council last night, thanks to support from the Mormon Church.
“The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage,” said Michael Otterson, director of public affairs for the church.
“I think it establishes that we can stand together on common ground that we don’t have to agree on everything, but there are lot of things that we can work on and be allies,” said Brandie Balken, director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah.
Mormon support for the laws was due in part to exceptions that were included allowing churches to maintain their religious principles and standards without any penalty.
In addressing the Salt Lake City Council last night, Otterson pointed out that the endorsement does not change the church’s position on traditional marriage: “[The church] remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.”
back to top139 Comments to “Mormons back gay rights laws”
God bless the Morman Church for being fair minded.
Report comment to moderator
I kind of have a problem with discrimination laws in general. Is it really the Governments business who I hire or rent to? Theses laws have some employers reluctant to hire minorities in vital positions because they are afraid that if it doesn’t work out they won’t be able to fire them without a lawsuit. I’ve known employers who will reserve a harmless, dead end job for the minority employee. They will also try to double up by hiring a black woman making it harder for a black men to get hired. Now they will have to hire a gay, black woman.
Report comment to moderator
This will not appease proponents of homosexual marriage.
Report comment to moderator
The Council recognized that “allowing churches to maintain their religious principles and standards” is very important, the absence of which could be quite serious.
The discrimination ruling was the right one even as they reaffirmed their stance on marriage. Unfortunately, KWERNA is probably right.
Report comment to moderator
–
I find these laws funny,
I mean you have places the have signs that say no children permitted, when renting apartments is that not discrimination against people with Children?
You have places that rent to only seniors, is that not discrimination against people by age?
You have places that have no pet’s permitted, is that not discrimination against people who own animals?
You have places that rent only to singles is that not discrimination against people who are married?
Report comment to moderator
kbells: Is it really the Governments business who I hire or rent to?
Yes. Our constitution calls for equal rights. That includes rights to earn a living in one’s field and living where one wants.
‘Cept I don’t want to rent to no doggone bible-thumpin Jesus-freaks. They all figger since they’re so doggone good they don’t have to pay the rent on time. An’ if you hire ‘em they spend all their time tryin’ to convert people.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: Some classifications are ’suspect’ others are more practical.
Though I must admit I find some parts of housing laws confusing. Especially the rules regarding kids.
Report comment to moderator
“That includes rights to earn a living in one’s field and living where one wants.”
Which amendment is that?
Report comment to moderator
arcadia 11.11.09 AT 10:28 AM
Pastor Roy: Some classifications are ’suspect’ others are more practical.
Though I must admit I find some parts of housing laws confusing. Especially the rules regarding kids.
—
so you are in favor of some form of discrimination
Report comment to moderator
arcadia 11.11.09 AT 10:24 AM
kbells: Is it really the Governments business who I hire or rent to?
Yes. Our constitution calls for equal rights. That includes rights to earn a living in one’s field and living where one wants.
‘Cept I don’t want to rent to no doggone bible-thumpin Jesus-freaks. They all figger since they’re so doggone good they don’t have to pay the rent on time. An’ if you hire ‘em they spend all their time tryin’ to convert people
—
“Our constitution calls for equal rights. That includes rights to earn a living in one’s field and living where one wants.” that is not true. You can have a teacher licensed and want to teach, but if no one wants to hire you. You do not get to earn a living in one’s field .
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
Being selective of what kind of people to rent to is appropriate when the difference between who is and who is not accepted is relevant to how the housing is designed/managed/used.
Pets are relevant because they are likely to make noise, cause odors, and/ or cause damage. Some pets won’t (fish, for instance), so some landlords will allow certain kinds of pets but not others. Other landlords prefer to make it simpler by refusing all pets rather than trying to maintain lists of acceptable vs unacceptable and have to deal with arguments about whether a particular pet should be accepted.
Children are relevant because they make noise, usually lots of it. Some people prefer to live without that kind of noise. I tend to think somewhat less of such people, in general (no doubt there are some circumstances that justify it), but it is an issue relevant to how housing units are designed and used.
I’m not sure about housing for seniors. Typically I would guess it takes into consideration their physical limitations, desire for quiet, desire for social activities without having to go far, etc. Of course a single handicapped person might have the same needs and desires. I could see such a person having a good argument for being able to rent the same housing.
I didn’t know there were places that only rent to singles. I assume that means singles with no kids. I can’t see why that is relevant, unless the landlord is concerned that once a married couple gets in there they’ll have kids, and since having kids is often unplanned and takes less than a year, they’d end up breaking the lease, or else not move in time and have to be kicked out which isn’t easy, or else they end up having kids there after all.
I can’t think how it’s relevant to how housing is designed, managed, and used, whether a couple is gay or straight. I can understand the argument that the landlord is enabling what he considers sin in the case of a gay couple (though it would need to apply equally to unmarried heterosexual couples), but people commit all kinds of other sins in their homes, which a landlord may or may not know about. Personally I think the landlord’s role is better limited to issues involving how well the property is taken care of and that affect neighbors such as noise levels.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline
I just find it funny that we say it is ok to discrimination to certain groups of people but not other groups.
What do you think the responds would if someone states that their apartment are only for GLBT Community members only or someone states that their apartment are only for Christian only.
Which one would be targeted for attack?
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, bottom line is that it the landlord’s property,investment and business. This is the filed he has chosen to earn a living and he shouldn’t have to worry about going under because he has bad renters he can’t evict or bad employees he can’ fire because they will sue him for discrimination.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Pauline.
Roy: Many of the things you mentioned are also protected. My city has the following ordinance:
“The City’s Housing Ordinance and the Fair Housing Act protect an individual in the area of housing (terms and conditions, rental, leasing, buying or selling) based on race, sex, religion, national origin, familial status, and physical or mental disability. The ordinance also protects an individual from discrimination based on age (18 years or older), status as a student, sexual orientation, gender identity and marital status.”
Report comment to moderator
#12 “What do you think the responds would if someone states that their apartment are only for GLBT Community members only or someone states that their apartment are only for Christian only.”
I’m sure there would be a variety of responses from different people. I think the response in both cases should be that there is no reasonable basis for the restriction.
Report comment to moderator
I think we should have taken the Bear Bryant path. When the school wouldn’t let him integrate the football team he arranged for them to play an integrated team who kick their tail. The next year the Crimson Tide was integrated. If I voluntarily choose not to cut myself off from a large portion of the potential clients and employees I am ahead of the game. I hire the best people regardless of race, creed or other things, I rent to people with good records regardless of race creed or other things and I do better than the real bigot down the street. Soon I can afford to give my good employees a raise and fix up the apartments for my good renters.
Report comment to moderator
“This will not appease proponents of homosexual marriage.”
Should it? It won’t even end calls for their tax status to be investigated.
Kbells, must live in a city with a lot of vacancies! She has no idea how rental markets work when their are fewer apartments than people who want them. If the cost of assuring people have equal access to a job or a place to live is alienating a few shameless bigots…I don’t see the down side.
Report comment to moderator
KBells (16),
I agree with your points, but let’s avoid the humanist trap of equating discrimination based on appearance (e.g., race) and that based on behavior (e.g., sexual perversion).
Renters and business owners have rights also: You still commonly see the sign “WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYBODY.” But woe betide the landlord who refuses to rent to an openly gay couple.
Since when is the landlord’s or business owner’s conscience slave to the state?
Racial discrimination is a sin issue, not a crime issue. But the landlord who wishes not to rent to homosexuals may be acting according to his deeply-held religious beliefs. If he cannot lawfully discriminate against gays, what gives him the right to discriminate against a bi-sexual trio, or siblings who are obviously engaged in incest?
Report comment to moderator
A person who discriminates against people based on their color or creed is a shameless bigot.
A person who discriminates against people based on their public sexual relationships may be a shameless bigot — or he may be endeavoring to live according to his religious principles.
Why doesn’t he have the right to do so?
Besides, it’s not like these anti-discrimination laws for homos are the only thing ensuring they have a place to live. Plenty of people would continue renting to them in the absence of such laws.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokane – the gay community has the right to tell you who you can rent to. But you do not have a right to tell them no.
Report comment to moderator
“The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage,” said Michael Otterson, director of public affairs for the church.
Of course this view point is not “Evangelical”!
Report comment to moderator
“If the cost of assuring people have equal access to a job or a place to live is alienating a few shameless bigots.”
It is doing a lot more than that, as I said before a lot of normal good people are afraid to hire a minority in a key position for fear of getting stuck with a liability they can’t get rid of without an expensive lawsuit. The result, employers are less likely to take a chance on an inexperienced minority employee and often the only thing available are harmless dead end token jobs.
Report comment to moderator
“It is doing a lot more than that, as I said before a lot of normal good people are afraid to hire a minority in a key position for fear of getting stuck with a liability they can’t get rid of without an expensive lawsuit.”
I don’t believe you. And I don’t think you know the slightest thing about what you are talking about. I don’t believe any isolated people you may know who are that idiotic qualify as “a lot” of people.
You will never find any independent research showing what you describe is a large scale problem.
But if you do know such people, warn them. If they refuse to hire minorities, they will be sued and penalized just as surely as if they tried to fire one without cause.
Report comment to moderator
This is the left answer to all of the Nation Problems “But if you do know such people, warn them. If they refuse to hire minorities, they will be sued and penalized just as surely as if they tried to fire one without cause. “
Report comment to moderator
As a landlord, I don’t want anyone telling me who can can or cannot rent to. I can and I will. There are ways around the senseless rules. At one house, I’ll not rent to the elderly- the stairs are too tall. Kids are fine- but you have to think twice when it’s a single mother with 4 of them. Or, if you have some battered woman who tells you her ex is about to be released. Duh! The gov will not tell me I can’t use common sense.
Gays? I’ll bet they keep the house kept up and maybe even plant a garden. Bet they pay on time as well. While I don’t like the gov telling me I have to rent to them I think it’s also ridiculous not to rent to them based on this fact. Unless! Actually, I have a house in one neighborhood where they might be endangering themselves if the gangs found out.
But back to the point. Be careful about being so righteous in your decision-making. I despise what they do but I’m certain God could show me things about myself that He’s not happy with, either. Not renting to them will not cast out their gay demons!
Report comment to moderator
A person who discriminates against people based on their public sexual relationships may be a shameless bigot — or he may be endeavoring to live according to his religious principles.
Yes, or he may be both.
Who would Jesus deny housing to? And what’s a “public sexual relationship”? One that’s conducted on the front lawn?
You have no idea if people are actually sexin’ unless you see or hear them do it. So unless they’re clumsy with the curtains or broadcasting the proceedings with a subwoofer, you’ll likely never know.
Why doesn’t he have the right to do so?
Because in America, we don’t rely on any one religious group’s “principles” when determining rights to public accomodation. Sorry!
Report comment to moderator
Mynock, every job I have ever held in media had such a token job in reserve. I met my best friend when she was hired to one of those positions. I heard the boss and tell the production director to hire a black woman in that job in order to full fill their quota. In another job I had there was a studio cameraman position that was always filled by a black man, four in a row. When the third one left, a talented guy who could not feed his family on the token salary, he told us to tell just-add-water, “hi.” He said they kept a stock of freeze dried black cameramen in the back and when they needed a new they just added water. The fourth guy turned out to be lazy and litigious and they can’t get rid of him. He has already sued them twice.
Report comment to moderator
“Kbells, must live in a city with a lot of vacancies! She has no idea how rental markets work when their are fewer apartments than people who want them.”
Sounds like a great opportunity for someone to build some nice apartments rent them out to some nice responsible people and make a little money.
Report comment to moderator
Well, KBells, if you work in an industry that has well-documented institutionalized racism…. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/nov/25/broadcasting.race
Plus, it sounds as though you had a really lazy HR department.
Report comment to moderator
Two gay people go to rent a house. The owner does a credit check and their credit is awful. So he refused them due to their credit check. What will the gay people do? They will run out find a lawyer an bring a suite against the owner, saying he denied them due to the fact they were gay.
Report comment to moderator
#27 Kbells,
I hear ya! Same thing with renters. Get one and you can’t get rid of them. Race/gender/orientation is a bogus issue. It’s the individual that counts.
Give me a black, college-educated guy or couple who look you in the eye and carry a conversation and they move to the top of the list. Show me when who can’t put a coherent sentence together and wears his pants around his knees- no way. He’ll never keep up the rent.
Same skin color, different background, different attitude. Are landlords allowed to look at the content of one’s character or just the color of their skin?
Report comment to moderator
#30:
And the landlord will point to the credit check, and a judge will dismiss the case. Voila.
Report comment to moderator
By the way…
#25:
Did you just say you would refuse to rent to a battered woman because her ex might get out of jail and come beat her up?
Classy.
Report comment to moderator
Again I say the Morman Church did the right thing. God bless them!
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass 11.11.09 AT 12:49 PM
#30:
And the landlord will point to the credit check, and a judge will dismiss the case. Voila.
—
sorry no the Liberal Judge would award the couple the house for free.
Report comment to moderator
#33.
Battered women are welcome.
Men who ram into the house breaking doors and windows and costing me $1400 are not. No reason to go that route when you have so many other better candidates to choose from.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy suggests that a gay couple with poor credit would sue to be able to rent despite failing a credit check.
A more reasonable poster said that the credit check would exonerate a landlord, assuming such a suit actually took place.
Pastor Roy countered with “sorry no the Liberal Judge would award the couple the house for free.”
Pastor Roy, find me one case citation where this has actually happened. One will do.
You cannot. This is why your statements on this subject are rhetorically called straw men. They’re easily refuted, but have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Report comment to moderator
37. But what small businessman can afford to get that far. Most would give in over just a threat just to save on legal fees.
Report comment to moderator
#37 Thomas1,
Pastor Roy might be reaching for some straws but we can all admit that some pretty crazy things (although rare) have happened with discrimination suits. I disagree with his position but I sure as heck wish he had the freedom to choose however he would like based on the individual applicants.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.11.09 AT 1:17 PM
Pastor Roy suggests that a gay couple with poor credit would sue to be able to rent despite failing a credit check.
A more reasonable poster said that the credit check would exonerate a landlord, assuming such a suit actually took place.
Pastor Roy countered with “sorry no the Liberal Judge would award the couple the house for free.”
Pastor Roy, find me one case citation where this has actually happened. One will do.
You cannot. This is why your statements on this subject are rhetorically called straw men. They’re easily refuted, but have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
–
Let see I worked for a Company one time, they fires a man who was gay for not doing his job. He yelled I will bring a law suite against you people. Two month later he was rehired and he went about telling people, we can do what we want because we are gay. If you stand in our way we will sue.
A former mayor of a town, who was is charge of the Gay Alliance get pulled over for being drunk. The office were told not to take her into custody, because if you do the Gay Alliance, will bring a law suite against the city. They let her go.
A school said no to Christian Club and a Gay Alliance Club, Gay Alliance threating the school with a law suite against the school and the school gave into them.
The State of CA said no to the GLBT Community, what did they do? File a law suite.
So no this is not straw men posting. It is a fact you say no to the GLBT Community they will file a law suite .
Report comment to moderator
@TheHeckler – one can. You’ve outlined several ways to avoid running afoul of the law by obeying the letter but not the spirit.
I agree that renting houses out to people can be fraught with peril.
But refusing to rent because you don’t like what they do with their own hoo-has? In private? Preposterous, unChristian, and as you pointed out, a poor business parctice.
Report comment to moderator
41. But shouldn’t I have the to be preposterous, unChristian, and use poor business practices.
Report comment to moderator
kBells 11.11.09 AT 1:36 PM
41. But shouldn’t I have the to be preposterous, unChristian, and use poor business practices.
—
do you not understand you can not say no to the GLBT Community,if you do you are in big trouble.
Report comment to moderator
#41 Thomas!
But it’s NOT their house. They are renters. He who owns the house should have the say.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, I don’t want to rent to clergy or ex-clergy, even though I’m not allowed to discriminate against them based on their religion.
But! It’s ok. You could file a “suite” against me and force me to rent to you.
In spite of the fact that….
Over the last seven days…
Alabama: Pastor Ralph Lee Aaron charged with 152 counts of sodomy, sexual abuse, sexual torture and possession of obscene matter involving children.
Manitoba: Pastor Raju Madanu pleads guilty to stealing church donations meant for an orphanage.
Missouri: Youth Pastor Michael Joy arrested for aggravated indecent solicitation of pre-teen child. Bonus: Joy was employed by the church despite spending most of the ’80s in prison for the same crime.
Oklahoma: Pastor Josh Spires sentenced to ten years in prison for child molestation.
Georgia: The Catholic Diocese of Savannah agrees to pay $4M settlement to man molested by Father Wayland Brown.
California: Pastor Reuben Mitchell charged with two counts molesting pre-teen girls.
Spain: Catholic priest arrested in immigration scam in which over 100 foreigners paid $15K each to marry a Spaniard and gain residency.
Quebec: Father John Duarte arrested for molesting boys at Haitian mission he founded.
Poland: Father Norbert Jedrusinski arrested for bank robbery.
Australia: Archbishop Denis Hart tells local priests to disregard a letter written to several parishes by a woman warning about sexual abuses even though the imprisoned priest she claims raped her at seven years old has confessed to molesting dozens of children.
This Week’s Winner-
Michigan: The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) charges that the Archdiocese of Detroit knew fully well that Father Joseph Skelton was a convicted child molester and allowed his ordination in the Philippines anyway. In 1988 Skelton was convicted of molesting a boy in his room at the Detroit seminary. The Archdiocese of Washington recently settled a lawsuit brought by a man who says that Skelton and Father George Stallings tag-teamed him as a boy.
Report comment to moderator
Thoams An they need to go to jail. But that is not the issue. The issue is if you dare to say no to the GLBT Community,you are in big trouble.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas – how many of these men attacked only boys?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, I agree. You are in big trouble if you break the law and discriminate against gay people.
And you should be.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas – how many of these men attacked only boys?
Want a long list with only female victims? I can produce it. What’s your point?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.11.09 AT 1:51 PM
Thomas – how many of these men attacked only boys?
Want a long list with only female victims? I can produce it. What’s your point?
—
the point is if you cross the GLBT Community even if you are in teh right, they will attack you/
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.11.09 AT 1:50 PM
Pastor Roy, I agree. You are in big trouble if you break the law and discriminate against gay people.
And you should be.
—
what is discriminate against gay people?
Report comment to moderator
But by discriminating in public accomdation against gay people, you put yourself in teh wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s an example of discrimination against gay people, since Pastor Roy claims to have no idea what it is.
Imagine taking your family on a long-deserved vacation. You’re on a gay-friendly cruise ship, ready to relax and enjoy time together and with other gay and lesbian families. But unexpectedly, your partner falls ill. She is rushed to the hospital, but neither your nor your children are allowed to see her. A social worker tells you, “You’re in an anti-gay city and state,” as he bars you from seeing your partner. She dies alone. This is exactly what happened to Janice Langbehn and her family.
Report comment to moderator
Why makes a Christian get so mad at Christians?
Report comment to moderator
Is there a particular website one can go to that keeps up with the current BAD Christians?
Report comment to moderator
Why would someone want to be a Christian if they are all a bunch of idiots, perverts, bigots, racists, continually discriminating against anyone who isn’t Christian, and _______ (fill in the blank in case I missed something)?
Report comment to moderator
The above reference to battered women got me thinking. Too often, we Christians forget that ministering to the needs of others will always cost something. Time, aggravation, even money. Real life is rarely tidy, and we’re not called to serve others only if they favor us or show themselves “worthy”.
To most, landlord/renter relationship is a business deal but it can be a wonderful opportunity to impact people’s life with the Gospel. The church I grew up in owns rental houses and has rented to unmarried couples, not because they approve of their choice but because they hope to earn a hearing for the Gospel while they help with the need of housing.
Report comment to moderator
In the 80’s, after divorce, I needed to rent a room in my house. The newspaper (The Arizona Repulsive as we loving call it) said I could not say women only in my ad. Figure that one out.
Report comment to moderator
Why would someone want to be a Christian if they are all a bunch of idiots, perverts, bigots, racists, continually discriminating against anyone who isn’t Christian, and _______ (fill in the blank in case I missed something)?
So we can show you how to do it right.
Start here:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3654_43992_ENG_HTM.htm
Report comment to moderator
Wow I just evangelized!
Report comment to moderator
I owned a building that combined business and housing space. It never ocurred to me to discriminate. I wonder how many of us Christians would rent to a known adulterer, thief, or other sinners mentioned by Paul? Of course it is a rhetorical question.
Report comment to moderator
I think the larger issue, which KBells addresses in #2, is why must the government “tell us” what we should do in every situation?
How is it now that we, a nation comprised of some of the most intelligent adults in the world, can’t possibly live together without needing and asking the government nanny to intervene in every little question when we already have a constitution that allows “all” to have the same equal rights without exception? Were we to enforce that simple requirement of the Constitution, without exception, why would we need the mountains of additional rules, regulations, amendments and clarifications from every possible governing authority which only erodes and/or eliminates our foundational liberty and yet never solves anything.
I’d ask: exactly “what” qualifies, or even causes us to think, that government has been, or ever will be, a provider of the best possible answer to any problem? Has it ever done so? What is government’s track record for getting anything right whenever it has added anything to the fundamental concepts provided by the Constitution? How is anything better for the common man now than it was 220 years ago?
Government only provides compromised opinion from agenda driven people which always creates three more related problems for every initial one it claims to supposedly “solve”. It never gets anything completely right and always makes something worse.
All invasive ‘improve behavior’ laws, such as this, are part of the continuing attempt by misnamed “progressives”, presently infesting government leadership, to further control private property and diminish our rights associated with property ownership—an important asset and one of the few remaining rights allowing the individual to have some independence from State control.
“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” — Karl Marx
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” — John Adams
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.11.09 AT 2:19 PM
Why would someone want to be a Christian if they are all a bunch of idiots, perverts, bigots, racists, continually discriminating against anyone who isn’t Christian, and _______ (fill in the blank in case I missed something)?
So we can show you how to do it right.
Start here:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3654_43992_ENG_HTM.htm
—
I am sorry but the Episocpal Church is losing memebers over these issue an most Chrstian Church, no longer view the Episcopal Church as a Christian Group.
Report comment to moderator
RonD – the government has to intervene to protect the minority from the majority. Our Founding Fathers knew this.
I’d ask: exactly “what” qualifies, or even causes us to think, that government has been, or ever will be, a provider of the best possible answer to any problem? Has it ever done so?
Yes.
What is government’s track record for getting anything right whenever it has added anything to the fundamental concepts provided by the Constitution? How is anything better for the common man now than it was 220 years ago?
Read about what it was like to be an indentured servant. Read about a black person’s thoughts on being a slave, or later, considered 3/5ths of a person Talk to a woman about her right to vote. Ask the black children escorted to school after Brown v. Board. Talk to people about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Think about not being hired for a job you’re qualified for simply because you’re Jewish. (Rent Gentleman’s Agreement for a wake-up call on that one. Ask an unemployed person if they really need the money the government gives them. Ask college kids who get Pell Grants if they can afford school without them.
Ask the soldiers in our military if they need the medical care and educational benefits they get. Consider how getting from Boston to Chicago would be on a patchwork of dirt and paved roads.
Albeit imperfect, out government is the best one there is. This is why we live here, no?
And simply put – bigotry of every stripe needs a serious disincentive in order to be crushed out of our society.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, read the linked material before addressing my comment, please. It’s courteous and saves pixels. When you don’t, it’s like you ignore what I’ve written and it devolves our discussion into LOLCat.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.11.09 AT 2:48 PM
Pastor Roy, read the linked material before addressing my comment, please. It’s courteous and saves pixels. When you don’t, it’s like you ignore what I’ve written and it devolves our discussion into LOLCat.
—
you miss the point of what I wrote, I read it, but the Episocpal Church is losing memebers over these issue an most Chrstian Church, no longer view the Episcopal Church as a Christian Group.
Report comment to moderator
#57 DEET:
Indeed, taking in a battered woman could be a great thing. On the other hand, this property is 100 miles away so hardly suitable for ministering. When you only clear $90 a month on the rent (if you get it) you can’t afford to fix broken appliances and doors and such each month. Yes, it would be great but to take her in means I’m denying another family because they don’t have major problems. Not easy to be a landlord.
Report comment to moderator
Is there a particular website one can go to that keeps up with the current BAD Christians?
Is #59 your answer to this question?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1,
The worst thing about Christianity is…the people. We are all sinners. Come on in, you’ll feel right at home.
Report comment to moderator
At the heart of this discussion is the whole question of whether the state should dictate what private property owners can do with their property that so happens to be a “public accommodation”, in order to force these owners into acting with fairness. See the text of the Civil Rights Act for definitions.
KBells advocates letting economics run its course. The company that won’t hire blacks, or women, or atheists, puts itself at a disadvantage vs. a company that does not discriminate on those bases. So theoretically those companies should cease to exist. Only that doesn’t happen in practice. See: the south in the 1950s.
The other approach is to allow “public pressure” to accomplish the same thing. This is why large corporations like IBM et. al. don’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation even though they might be able to get away with it legally. Because a lot more people think that’s despicable than support it, so to discriminate on that basis would be terrible PR and negatively effect their bottom line. Unfortunately this doesn’t work for small businesses located in communities that actually prefer the discriminating stance to the accepting one.
Another issue is whether it is the correct response for a believer to refuse to hire, serve, rent to, etc. a gay person or couple. My personal take is that such a refusal is pretty antithetical to what you find in the Bible. So I’m not sure why people are so up in arms with laws that prohibit housing discrimination against gays.
Report comment to moderator
news2me 11.11.09 AT 3:20 PM
Is there a particular website one can go to that keeps up with the current BAD Christians?
Is #59 your answer to this question?
—-
any far left web page?
Report comment to moderator
Episcopal
Is that the same loving church you told us about where the people said, “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”
Your church makes their rules based on parts of the Bible, and everyone else makes their rules based on…I’m not sure–the parts of the Bible your church left out?
Report comment to moderator
We don’t seem to be following the rules your church has decided on. So does that make us not Christian? Or is that where we become evangelical? Is an evangelical person a Christian?
Report comment to moderator
news2me 11.11.09 AT 3:29 PM
Episcopal
Is that the same loving church you told us about where the people said, “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”
Your church makes their rules based on parts of the Bible, and everyone else makes their rules based on…I’m not sure–the parts of the Bible your church left out?
—-
They have embraced what is called the Social Gospel
Report comment to moderator
News2Me:
We don’t seem to be following the rules your church has decided on.
You truly don’t. The difference between us and you is that we don’t think you have to if you’re not one of us.
So does that make us not Christian?
No. A Christian is a person who believes in the teachings of Christ. We don’t waste our time speculating on the relationship that other people have with God. Besides, isn’t doing so, as Pastor Roy did at 66, a very particular type of sin?
Or is that where we become evangelical? Is an evangelical person a Christian?
Neither question is clearly phrased, but I think that evangelical Christians are identical to every other kind of Christian in one unique way: some are better at it than others.
Report comment to moderator
And News2Me – just curious. Did you read the link at 59? Because it both answers your question at 68, and invites further reflection.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.11.09 AT 3:57 PM
News2Me:
We don’t seem to be following the rules your church has decided on.
You truly don’t. The difference between us and you is that we don’t think you have to if you’re not one of us.
So does that make us not Christian?
No. A Christian is a person who believes in the teachings of Christ. We don’t waste our time speculating on the relationship that other people have with God. Besides, isn’t doing so, as Pastor Roy did at 66, a very particular type of sin?
Or is that where we become evangelical? Is an evangelical person a Christian?
Neither question is clearly phrased, but I think that evangelical Christians are identical to every other kind of Christian in one unique way: some are better at it than others.
——
“A Christian is a person who believes in the teachings of Christ’ – The devil must be a Christian, he beleives in the teaching of Christ. An hates the teaching and those who believe in Christ.
That fact is a Christain is someone who believes in the teachings of Christ and repented of his sins, and living for Christ.
“Besides, isn’t doing so, as Pastor Roy did at 66, a very particular type of sin?’
Since when is it wrong to call false teaching a sin?
Since when is it wrong to correct someone who is going down the path of sin?
Since when is this a sin?
Report comment to moderator
7:1-6 We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody. We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground. We must not make the worst of people. Here is a just reproof to those who quarrel with their brethren for small faults.
Report comment to moderator
Facts for Pastor Roy:
Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, and public opinion pollsters define “Christian” very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian. Using this definition, Christians total about 75% of the North American adult population.
Many Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants define “Christian” more narrowly to include only those persons who have been “born again” or have made a personal commitment to follow Jesus irrespective of their denomination. About 35% of the North American adult population identify themselves in this way.
Some Protestant Christian denominations, para-church groups, and individuals have assembled their own lists of cardinal Christian doctrines. Many would regard anyone who denies even one of their cardinal doctrines to be a non-Christian. Unfortunately, there is a wide diversity of opinion as to which historical Christian beliefs are cardinal doctrines.
Other denominations and sects regard their own members to be the only true Christians in the world. Some are quite small, numbering only a few thousand followers.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas #64,
Since you took the easy target for bloviation, about try answering more than just “Yes.” to your first response. You’re no more qualified than government to drop such authoritative decrees without any explanation or example.
As for the second part of your reply—which violation in your list is not covered, nor would be presently interpreted as not covered, already by the Constitution? Were it enforced—as I said—would not your problems be controlled?
Correction: Our original “Constitution” was/is still the best one out there and it is the only thing keeping your beloved ‘government’ in check—a necessary condition for our hard fought and bled for “liberty” to be retained.
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation.” — James Madison
And, one man’s “bigotry” is directly linked to another man’s freedom to choose. You can’t legislate against it without diminishing the rights of the other and even if you do, you’ve not changed the “bigots” opinion. True bigotry is simply sin and it’s not going anywhere—nor be contained even if you write law until you run out of ink and paper.
Rather than trying to legislate control of the thoughts, and theoretically, the resulting actions of others in this area, why not simply call for enforcement of the Constitution to punish actual offenders?
If your diaper is so tight you are personally offended to be in the presence of such people—which you constantly are anyway, BTW—why not try to stay away from them, or do the adult thing, and simply ignore them as most Christians must do those who offend us? It’s not like there is going to be an outbreak of bigotry on every corner that will be accepted and condoned by anyone. There is nothing out there now, that these laws will ever correct, that hasn’t been there since sin originally entered this world.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.11.09 AT 4:16 PM
7:1-6 We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody. We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground. We must not make the worst of people. Here is a just reproof to those who quarrel with their brethren for small faults
–
missing the book
Report comment to moderator
#79 Thomas — Facts for Pastor Roy
Man can, and as you example does, define Christianity as he will, in many different ways. None of it makes any difference whatsoever as man isn’t the arbiter nor provider of the final decision to which we will all answer.
Report comment to moderator
RonD, I will endeavor to answer this without unChristian references to your undergarments, be they lacy, ruffly pettipants or an BeDazzled athletic supporter.
People who cannot understand that it’s the government’s function to enforce the rights of its citizens are way too libertarian to be Americans today.
I disagree with your here:
And, one man’s “bigotry” is directly linked to another man’s freedom to choose. You can’t legislate against it without diminishing the rights of the other and even if you do, you’ve not changed the “bigots” opinion.
Who gives a rat’s pataootie about a bigot’s opinion when the bigot has been rendered powerless? Women who can now vote don’t care about some guys who think they shouldn’t. Minorities don’t care about what a random racist thinks as long as they can sit where they like on the bus and get a truly equal education.
True bigotry is simply sin and it’s not going anywhere—nor be contained even if you write law until you run out of ink and paper.
Bigotry is dying the death of a thousand cuts. It may take centuries, but if you compare the Dred Scott decision to the fact that we have a black (ok, 1/2) President, you can see it happening.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.11.09 AT 4:18 PM
Facts for Pastor Roy:
Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, and public opinion pollsters define “Christian” very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian. Using this definition, Christians total about 75% of the North American adult population.
Many Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants define “Christian” more narrowly to include only those persons who have been “born again” or have made a personal commitment to follow Jesus irrespective of their denomination. About 35% of the North American adult population identify themselves in this way.
Some Protestant Christian denominations, para-church groups, and individuals have assembled their own lists of cardinal Christian doctrines. Many would regard anyone who denies even one of their cardinal doctrines to be a non-Christian. Unfortunately, there is a wide diversity of opinion as to which historical Christian beliefs are cardinal doctrines.
Other denominations and sects regard their own members to be the only true Christians in the world. Some are quite small, numbering only a few thousand followers.
—
What does God’s Word say? Not what every one else says.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.11.09 AT 4:16 PM
7:1-6 We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody. We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground. We must not make the worst of people. Here is a just reproof to those who quarrel with their brethren for small faults
—
“We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground” I think that changing God’s Word to meet someone sinful needs is with a ground.
“Here is a just reproof to those who quarrel with their brethren for small faults” Sin is never a small fault.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas — “People who cannot understand that it’s the government’s function to enforce the rights of its citizens are way too libertarian to be Americans today.”
People who think the government must, and shall by any means necessary, become totally involved in the minutiae of everyday life in order to affect their personal concept of a more perfect utopia are way to Marxist to be Americans today.
Thomas — “Who gives a rat’s pataootie about a bigot’s opinion when the bigot has been rendered powerless?”
Who gives the bigot power but those who notice and make a big deal over their cowardly ruminations and petty acts? Do they not purposely expose their bigotry for “show” thinking/hoping to influence others? What happens if they’re ignored—what happened to the punk kid on the street trying to rile up everyone else when nobody bought any of it?
Thomas — “Bigotry is dying the death of a thousand cuts. It may take centuries,”
It is not dying and it is not going away. It has survived for centuries in the face of all of man’s supposed governmental/religious solutions/admonitions to correct it without any improvement whatsoever. It is part of all of us. You too, BTW.
Why do you keep refighting battles of the past to justify your actions in the present?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 #64
“And simply put – bigotry of every stripe needs a serious disincentive in order to be crushed out of our society.”
crushed?
Interesting statement.
Report comment to moderator
I think that a large part of the problem in this debate on special rights for homosexuals is that T1 takes things much too personally and writes her own books from which she quotes herself. Losing her temper with nasty sarcasm and insults only weakens her arguments, so we have to be more patient with her emotional state on this.
Now, to my #3 granddaughter’s birthday party
Report comment to moderator
Thomas#78
“7:1-6 We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody. We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground. We must not make the worst of people. Here is a just reproof to those who quarrel with their brethren for small faults.”
Which book of the Bible would that be?
Is that a verse you live by or were you just being funny when you put that up? Can I quote you.
Report comment to moderator
THEHECKLER1, I wasn’t criticizing you in my post #57; I hope you didn’t take it that way. Given the distance you mentioned #67, your situation is more problematic, whereas, the example of the church with rental property was only a matter of a street or two away.
Report comment to moderator
Just out of curiosity, NANA, why do you refer to THOMAS as “her”?
Report comment to moderator
If you are the example of what a Christian is, I would not want to be one.
Report comment to moderator
Deet: Just out of curiosity, NANA, why do you refer to THOMAS as “her”?
To be puerile and amuse her dirty old lady sense of humor, I think. It doesn’t bother me, thought I do hope that her granddaugher is better behaved. At 3, at least the child must have mastered the concepts of gender-specific pronouns.
Report comment to moderator
RonD: People who think the government must, and shall by any means necessary, become totally involved in the minutiae of everyday life…
Housing is not minutiae. Ask a homeless person.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t read many of the earlier posts, so some of this may have been said already.
Some time ago I attempted to list for rent on Craig’s list a bedroom in my own home. The anti-discrimination rules were ridiculous (not Craig’s list laws, by the way, but actual laws). A summary is that if the place rented is in my own home, I’m allowed to mention the preferred sex of the renter (nice of them!), but can’t discriminate on basis of religion, handicap, sexual orientation, national origin, etc. They did say that privately (if the rental unit is in my own home) I can legally rule out people by preference, but can’t legally mention a preference in my ad.
I decided well, I’d just say in the ad that I’m a Christian, and people can call me or not, as they choose. When I actually went to place the ad, there was a warning against such “back door” hints, with fines of $10,000 or something like that, and possible jail time.
So, I couldn’t even say I’m a Christian, and thus had to screen anyone who contacted me and tell them that–what a stupid waste of time and energy. And I also wondered what that does to people of very minority religions, Hindus or Mormons and the like–they have virtually no chance of trying to connect with like-minded people. Sorry, that isn’t anti-discrimination, that’s discrimination. (And interestingly, one homosexual man “got around” the rules by stating he was a homosexual man and was looking for a male roommate who liked to have a good time, or something like that. His chance of being called on such an ad was probably quite slim, but I couldn’t mention that I was a Christian, in renting a bedroom in my own home!!!!)
If I have an apartment with 300 units, I imagine I’d care only that my tenants be responsible. But honestly, it is none of the government’s business who I rent to–especially in my own home. If society wants to “sanction” extra-marital sex by refusing to rent to people who are openly indulging in it, isn’t that the landlords’ choice? (I mean, why can you discriminate against pot smokers but not adulterers who’ve abandoned their families? It’s OK to say renters can’t own a goldfish, but not OK to say they can’t be involved in overty sexual sin?)
Report comment to moderator
NANA #88
Words of wisdom from a grandmother.
Children don’t get much of that from many grandmothers who live in places that keep children out, or too far away to be able to enjoy them more often.
How fun to be a grandmother, and enjoy it?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – I asked again – 7:1-6 We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody. We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground. We must not make the worst of people. Here is a just reproof to those who quarrel with their brethren for small faults.
what book?
Report comment to moderator
#92 is for you Thomas
Report comment to moderator
The problem with the South in the 60’s was the absence of anti-discrimination laws but the presence of pro-discrimination laws and a lack of protection for people who broke them.
Report comment to moderator
kBells 11.11.09 AT 5:54 PM
The problem with the South in the 60’s was the absence of anti-discrimination laws but the presence of pro-discrimination laws and a lack of protection for people who broke them.
—
was not the Dem Party in Charge of those states back then?
Report comment to moderator
99. that should be: The problem with the South in the 60’s wasn’t the absence of anti-discrimination laws but the presence of pro-discrimination laws and a lack of protection for people who broke them.
Report comment to moderator
“was not the Dem Party in Charge of those states back then? ”
Oh yeah.
Report comment to moderator
Why would a Landlord tell anybody that he hadn”t rented to a person that fit in the list of non-discriminations? I always rent to the best choice, not avoid renting to a member of this or that group. It is easy to avoid renting to someone that you have bad vibes from.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas — “Housing is not minutiae. Ask a homeless person.”
So rental bigotry is now a source of the homeless problem?
It certainly is minutiae for the government, with no constitutional authority to intervene and far, far bigger problems needing attention, to force people to comply with what ‘government’ thinks they should do with their private property by legislatively labeling them criminal for not allowing certain events they deem immoral and offensive to happen on that property—the specific issue we’re really talking about here despite all the diffusions attempting to link your issue to real, true discrimination problems from immutable, inherent characteristics.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
Referring people to a church (your church) that not only condones homosexuality but is representative in its leadership, would be the same as referring people to a church where the married pastor has affairs.
Oh yeah, I should go there and be enlightenen, just as I would go to Obama’s church of many years that he distanced himself from.
Report comment to moderator
Roy #97:
He’s quoting from Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary as it pertains to Matthew 7:1-6:
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=40&c=7
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass 11.11.09 AT 6:14 PM
Roy #97:
He’s quoting from Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary as it pertains to Matthew 7:1-6:
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=40&c=7
–
I will pull my Matthew Henry’s out when I get home tonight to ensure he did not miss ussed that quote.
Report comment to moderator
Jude 5:7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” (NIV)
Report comment to moderator
THOMAS1 (26): Who would Jesus deny housing to?
FRANK: I dunno … who would He deny eternal life to? (Here’s a hint … )
THOMAS1 (26): And what’s a “public sexual relationship”? One that’s conducted on the front lawn?
You have no idea if people are actually sexin’ unless you see or hear them do it.
FRANK: FAIL.
A “public sexual relationship” is 1) a sexual relationship that is 2) publicly known of and acknowledged.
One example would be marriage. Everybody knows what those married folks are doing, even though they don’t “do it on their front lawn.”
Another example is when you see a couple holding hands or necking in the park.
And still another example is when two guys (or two girls) show up at the landlord’s front door to discuss the duplex he’s renting out, and it is obvious by their public displays of affection that they are not mere room mates.
Why so naive, T1? Liberals/humanists fight tooth and nail for the public acknowledgment — and compulsory acceptance — of same-sex relationships, and then you go all stupid on me when I use the phrase “public sexual relationship”?
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Report comment to moderator
THOMAS1 (26): … in America, we don’t rely on any one religious group’s “principles” when determining rights to public accomodation.
FRANK: If not, then why should we rely on irreligious peoples’ principles when determining the extent of private property rights?
Laws enforce morals. Always. Somebody’s morals are going to be the basis of law.
So why should it be the morality of the advocates of same-sex relationships?
Report comment to moderator
Frank #110:
“If not, then why should we rely on irreligious peoples’ principles when determining the extent of private property rights?”
I’m not irreligious. I share the view that private property rights are not sacrosanct and should be partially abrogated in order to ensure some level of “fairness” with regard to things like housing.
So it is not the case that these principles can be pigeonholed as those of “irreligious people”. Furthermore, from #109…
“I dunno … who would He deny eternal life to?”
This is a deflection. Unless you’re implying that the set of people Jesus would refuse to rent to is the same as the set to whom he would deny eternal life.
Given that several posters in this thread have suggested that refusing to rent to homosexuals is “the right thing to do” from a Christian point of view, the question of “Who would Jesus refuse to rent to?” is relevant. “Who would Jesus deny eternal life to?” less so.
Report comment to moderator
FRANK: FAIL.
A “public sexual relationship” is 1) a sexual relationship that is 2) publicly known of and acknowledged.
One example would be marriage. Everybody knows what those married folks are doing, even though they don’t “do it on their front lawn.”
Another example is when you see a couple holding hands or necking in the park.
And still another example is when two guys (or two girls) show up at the landlord’s front door to discuss the duplex he’s renting out, and it is obvious by their public displays of affection that they are not mere room mates.
Sigh, Frank. Talk about going all stupid. You’ve conflated sexin’ with romantic or legal attachment. They don’t always go together, though they often do. There are oodles of products on the market to enable or enhance sexin’ for people with difficulties, as I’m, sure you know. And watching people with prurient speculation based on hand-holding is probably not something you should be doing. You can’t tell for sure if people are sexin’ unless you see or hear them.
Which raises the issue – if homosexuality is not a sin, but homosexual ACTS are – what Biblical grouinds are there to discriminate against anyone who happens to be gay but whom you can’t say for sure is sexin’?
Report comment to moderator
Frank, fail again:
in America, we don’t rely on any one religious group’s “principles” when determining rights to public accomodation.
FRANK: If not, then why should we rely on irreligious peoples’ principles when determining the extent of private property rights?
When you offer your property to the public for accomodation, it’s not private anymore.
Report comment to moderator
News2Me@ 105 – couldn’t read the link @ 59, huh? Too bad. You might have learned something.
Report comment to moderator
“When you offer your property to the public for accomodation, it’s not private anymore.”
#113, you are incorrect
TITLE XII
PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 155
FACTORIES, TENEMENTS, SCHOOLHOUSES, AND PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, RESORT OR ASSEMBLY
Places of Public Accommodation; Physically Disabled Persons
Section 155:39-a
155:39-a Definition of Place of Public Accommodation. – Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subdivision if its operations affect commerce:
I. Any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than 5 rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence.
II. Any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment.
III. Any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment.
Report comment to moderator
… and re. “who wouldn’t Jesus rent to?”
You will recall that He upheld the rights of property owners to use and dispose of their own property as they see fit:
“Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?” (Matt. 20:15)
A landlord (i.e., a property owner) has the real right to pick and choose whom he will rent to, based upon his own criteria, up to and including choosing not to rent to people he considers to be grossly immoral. (Or preachers.)
It is only the arrogant State that creates faux “rights” by legislating against the real rights of property owners.
Report comment to moderator
NEWS2ME-105. I just read T1’s attempt at evangelizing via a political prayer for Social Justice prepared by the Episcopal Church office of Government Relations at the Episcopal Public Policy Network website. It’s nice enough, but you have to read it for yourself to appreciate its scope. But I think T1 might have missed the part about a quiet spirit, or thought it only applied to leaders in the passion of debate, or only to the God of generosity and compassion. We all have our days.
Report comment to moderator
T1: “When you offer your property to the public for accomodation, it’s not private anymore.”
Offering property for rent is indeed a public act. The public is invited to enter discussions with the landlord over who will be allowed to use his property for a monthly fee.
But in the end, the rental contract is ultimately made between two private parties who privately hold their own goods: The landlord his rental property, and the renter his cash.
If a landlord is unable to find a renter for his property, he has no right to — i.e., no legal expectation of — rental income. IOW, he may not go to a pool of potential renters, pick one, and legally compel him to rent his property.
Likewise, a renter has no similar “right” to pick one landlord out of a pool of potential landlords and legally compel him to enter a rental agreement.
A renter has no more “right” to any particular rental property than a landlord has to any particular renter’s cash.
Report comment to moderator
God bless…….I’m glad you and I are in the same grand-club
Report comment to moderator
Nana & News2me – I grew up away from my grandparents, so it has been a blessing to me to have my daughters grow up near theirs. And they have been especially close to my mom. (And of course, this has been a special blessing to the grandparents, too.) God bless you both, & your grandchildren.
Report comment to moderator
Kwerna and Frank – wrong again. This is from the actual law that was passed:
Unlawful Housing Practices:
•Refusal to sell or rent after the making of a bona
fide offer, negotiate for the sale or rental, or
otherwise make unavailable any dwelling because
of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
•Discriminate in terms, conditions, or privileges of
the sale or rental of any dwelling or in providing
facilities or services in connection with the
dwelling.
•Represent that a dwelling is not available for
inspection, sale or rental when in fact said dwelling
is available.
•Make, print, circulate, publish, post or orally state
either directly or indirectly preference, limitation,
or discrimination based on sexual orientation or
gender identity.
•Induce or attempt to induce any person to buy,
sell, or rent any dwelling by making
representations about the entry or prospective entry
into the neighborhood of persons of a particular
sexual orientation or gender identity.
•Engage in discriminatory housing practices based
upon a person’s association with another person.
•Real estate brokers or salespersons are precluded
from discriminatory practices to:
1. Make available residential real estate or in
defining the terms and conditions of the transaction
in the City.
2. Deny any person access to, or membership or
participation in, any multiple-listing service, real
estate broker’s organization, or other service,
organization or facility relating to the business of
selling or renting dwellings inside the City. In
addition, it is unlawful to discriminate in the terms
and conditions of access, membership, or
participation in the organization, service, or facility
inside the City.
3. Engage in any discriminatory housing practice
inside the City based upon a person’s association
with another person.
So! I note that there are certain exemptions for owner-occupied dwellings of a certian size… but basically, yes, you would have to rent to any qualified person, regardless of whether Frank The Sexin’ Detective thought that the candidate’s gaze lingered too long on his co-candidates.
Report comment to moderator
Amen Frank, this whole thing is personal- as well as regional. Take my area for example. We have a lot of first generation crossers of the Mexican border. I have no issue with them- they’re God’s kids too. But apparently….they’ve never owned a thing in their life, nor have they ever witnessed someone who ownes their own stuff. Believe it or not, they trash everything and live in filth that you wouldn’t tolerate being under your house! The way they cook- they go thru a stove in 3-4 months. So, let’s see, I profit $100 a month for 5 years. They cost me $12k on there way out. I lost $4800 on that transaction. Believe me, I can line up other landlords who have done this much longer than I have and will tell you very similar things.
So, if you have a “class” of folks who are more likely to cause you greater losses, is it reasonable to ask for, say, $10k upfront? Or does only the landlord have to be PC?
Report comment to moderator
btw, N2M – I never expected it would be this “grand,” did you? I never really thought ahead, just weathered through myopically like a lot of people dealing with life as it comes. I didn’t know God’s hand had always been there until I grabbed it. And He’s still there hanging on to me. Amen.
Report comment to moderator
T1, I missed the citation for exactly what bill that is. Just asking.
Report comment to moderator
DEET – 91: Biographical comments and innuendos, writing style and various clues just led me to surmise that T1 is a female. Not that it matters to me or “it.” I’ve been wrong before, but hiding behind a male handle also fits even as it’s a surname. Or, I could say I know people – whatever that means. I’m pretty sure, though, T1 is not Kieth Olbermann
or Rachel Maddow….too frenetic. That’s all.
Report comment to moderator
@ 125 – or maybe you just have the typical obsession of your kind on the private parts of others.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe, maybe not.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.
Could you have said you were a heterosexual female looking for a female roommate?
Did you get pervert callers? I always got guys calling and offering a room to me, among other things I didn’t need. (Thank God for Caller ID on land lines these days.)
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1: Does your church believe in this verse?
Jude 5:7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” (NIV)
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
I was just wondering if you are married? (You gave advice on the things women like.) Do you have children? (You mentioned “your family”.)
Report comment to moderator
NANA #127
Report comment to moderator
news2me 11.12.09 AT 9:31 AM
Thomas1: Does your church believe in this verse?
Jude 5:7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” (NIV)
–
their answer is that was rape not a loving relationship
Report comment to moderator
129 & 130 News2Me:
129 – My church doesn’t issue dogmatic decrees based on a bible verse taken out of context. Instead, there is a process called scriptural interpretation with which we try to arrive at consensus.
130 – I try to avoid dishing out too much identifying information on the internet, because there are a lot of crazy people who do lots of crazy things. This is a very polite way of me telling you that it’s not your business whether or not I’m married or how my family is composed. (It’s conventional, whatever that means to you.) Personal questions like this on a blog remind me uncomfortably of NANA’s obsession with whether or not I have a male or female hoo-ha. Creepy and weird.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.12.09 AT 9:50 AM
129 & 130 News2Me:
129 – My church doesn’t issue dogmatic decrees based on a bible verse taken out of context. Instead, there is a process called scriptural interpretation with which we try to arrive at consensus.
—
Thomas those passage are being taken out of context by your church.
“scriptural interpretation .” Sorry but your Church does not use scriptural interpretation if they did then they would not be losing all the Christian, and your Church would be taken a stands against sin.
Report comment to moderator
News2Me,
I can legally say I’m looking for a female to rent a room (since it’s in my own home), but can’t state that I am a Christian or that I’m looking for a Christian. I also couldn’t, I’m sure, state that I’m heterosexual, but honestly that’s a non-issue. Not only are there not that many lesbians running around, but I do some pretty in-depth discussion with someone to find out whether the person is a serious Christian and compatible with me.
Thomas, in whatever part of the country you live in (I’m not asking where, because I don’t care), do adults use the word “hoo-ha”? Do any of them use the term regularly?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, not only has the pendulum swung from one extreme to the other in classified ads (which doesn’t affect a rental situation as you descirbed), PC intimidation is undermining all of our society and turning it into tyranny by the minority which is tantamount to blackmail infringing on all kinds of private property, depending on how the courts define it.
And I’m somewhat relieved to know that I’m not the only one unfamiliar with the vulgar term “hoo-ha” that THOMAS1 uses so liberally (pun intended) even though we’re both from NY. It might be a less-than-clever-by half juvenile pretense of snarkiness in order to avoid common decency in order to employ one of her own “Rules for Radicals.” – It’s nasty, intolerant and playground pathetic.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.: Thomas, in whatever part of the country you live in (I’m not asking where, because I don’t care), do adults use the word “hoo-ha”? Do any of them use the term regularly?
I don’t ordinarily use that term, but it’s safer than the biological terms I prefer here, since this purports to be a site visited by children.
Proving that children know no age, Nana obsesses over the idea that I might have a male hoo-ha, but she insists that (based on her Doctorate in Blogger Hoo-ha Detection) I must needs have a female one. So she gave me a female one, seeking to improve on God’s own creation.
It drives every bat from the belfry to think that a man might be liberal, for her at least. She thinks it’s somehow insulting to refer to me as female, even though I am a guy, which tells you all you need to know about her version of gender politics and level of maturity.
Playground pathetic? Nana, you wrote the book on that.
I’m sorry that gender-specific pronouns have tottered their way out of your ken in your dotage. I’ll pray for their safe return.
Of course, she can’t continue doing this much longer, particularly after this post.
Report comment to moderator
Curiosity question for Cheryl:
If the laws contained an exemption for those who are trying to rent out a room in their own house (i.e. you’re going to be cohabiting with the person) and waived all the anti-discrimination laws in that situation, which of the anti-discrimination laws (with regard to fair housing) would you support keeping on the books? Any of them? Why or why not?
Report comment to moderator
Now we know that T1 is a “guy.” He must be right about THAT. Peace, brother – cheer up.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!