Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?

[bripat9643]

I would say there are certain things which can be considered necessities. Housing would be one of them. To allow discrimination in housing creates hardships and ghettos, which are not conducive of a stable society. As such, it does create a compelling interest for the government to prevent.

My religious beliefs are my religious beliefs. Your housing needs are not my concern. And like the baker says to those they don't want to perform a service for, there are other bakeries in town.

Just like there are other rentals in whatever area they are looking for housing in.

To allow the government to force me to do business with those I don't want to do business is an infringement on my rights. Correct? No difference between by business and religious beliefs and the bakers. Well except that if the baker does business it's over right away. If I am forced to rent houses to Christians. I have to deal with them for months. Maybe longer. That's really infringing on my rights..

But I don't think that YOU are one of those Christians who wants to discriminate based on religious beliefs are you?

I recall a story in the News about an old woman who had a room to rent in her house. A pair of Lesbian chicks wanted to rent it and she declined because she didn't want Lesbians in her house. The Lesbians sued and won under Colorado's law prohibiting discrimination against gays. This was the old woman's house that she lived in, mind you.

 

[bripat9643]

Ok. Gotcha.

For some reason I don't think the supposed Christians on here are going to agree to be discriminated against.
No matter how much they want to practice discrimination themselves.

They (Christians) are hypocritical like that.

You're wrong, as always.

 

[bripat9643]

Works for me.

Cool. I got one vote for housing discrimination. Anyone else for it? against it?

How can anyone discriminate against gays if they don't know they are gays?

 

[PratchettFan]

I would say there are certain things which can be considered necessities. Housing would be one of them. To allow discrimination in housing creates hardships and ghettos, which are not conducive of a stable society. As such, it does create a compelling interest for the government to prevent.

My religious beliefs are my religious beliefs. Your housing needs are not my concern. And like the baker says to those they don't want to perform a service for, there are other bakeries in town.

Just like there are other rentals in whatever area they are looking for housing in.

To allow the government to force me to do business with those I don't want to do business is an infringement on my rights. Correct? No difference between by business and religious beliefs and the bakers. Well except that if the baker does business it's over right away. If I am forced to rent houses to Christians. I have to deal with them for months. Maybe longer. That's really infringing on my rights..

But I don't think that YOU are one of those Christians who wants to discriminate based on religious beliefs are you?

I am not a Christian at all. The difference is in the nature of the product or service. People need to have a roof over their head, clothes on their back and food in their belly. Discrimination which prevents them from doing this is a problem for the entire society and thus the government has a compelling interest in preventing it. I ask again, in terms of floral arrangements where is the compelling interest?

I will also repeat that no right is unlimited. All rights can be infringed upon, but the government should have a valid reason for doing it.

 

[zeke]

I recall a story in the News about an old woman who had a room to rent in her house.

For some reason Google didn't pull that story. You got a link?

You're wrong, as always.

Are you saying you wouldn't mind being discriminated against for being Christian?

How can anyone discriminate against gays if they don't know they are gays?

The topic was housing discrimination against Christians. Why you back onto gays?

 

[bripat9643]

I recall a story in the News about an old woman who had a room to rent in her house.

For some reason Google didn't pull that story. You got a link?

You're wrong, as always.

Are you saying you wouldn't mind being discriminated against for being Christian?

How can anyone discriminate against gays if they don't know they are gays?

The topic was housing discrimination against Christians. Why you back onto gays?

I'm an atheist, and a lot of people would discriminate against me if I told them I was atheist. That's why I never tell people I work with or want something from, like a mortgage.

 

[SwimExpert]

I would say there are certain things which can be considered necessities. Housing would be one of them. To allow discrimination in housing creates hardships and ghettos, which are not conducive of a stable society. As such, it does create a compelling interest for the government to prevent.

My religious beliefs are my religious beliefs. Your housing needs are not my concern. And like the baker says to those they don't want to perform a service for, there are other bakeries in town.

Just like there are other rentals in whatever area they are looking for housing in.

To allow the government to force me to do business with those I don't want to do business is an infringement on my rights. Correct? No difference between by business and religious beliefs and the bakers. Well except that if the baker does business it's over right away. If I am forced to rent houses to Christians. I have to deal with them for months. Maybe longer. That's really infringing on my rights..

But I don't think that YOU are one of those Christians who wants to discriminate based on religious beliefs are you?

I recall a story in the News about an old woman who had a room to rent in her house. A pair of Lesbian chicks wanted to rent it and she declined because she didn't want Lesbians in her house. The Lesbians sued and won under Colorado's law prohibiting discrimination against gays. This was the old woman's house that she lived in, mind you.

All the old woman had to do was say that she didn't want to rent to a couple, and the outcome would have been the same, they would have had to go somewhere else. But these guys want to legislate and litigate personal feelings.

 

[zeke]

I am not a Christian at all. The difference is in the nature of the product or service. People need to have a roof over their head, clothes on their back and food in their belly. Discrimination which prevents them from doing this is a problem for the entire society and thus the government has a compelling interest in preventing it. I ask again, in terms of floral arrangements where is the compelling interest?

I would argue just like the baker. Let em go to another bakery. I am not the only landlord renting houses.

Seems like using the "compelling interest" idea is a recipe for disaster. There are many many areas where a person could be discriminated against. And there wouldn't be a compelling interest angle to argue against the discrimination.

Seems to me if the Christians want to argue that they have the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs, that the rest of us should be able to discriminate against Christians. Without penalty. Based on religious beliefs. Or non religious beliefs.

You I would rent a house to. You are not a Christian. LMAO.

 

[zeke]

I'm an atheist, and a lot of people would discriminate against me if I told them I was atheist. That's why I never tell people I work with or want something from, like a mortgage.

I take it you don;t want to be discriminated against based on your lack of religious beliefs. I understand that. Most people, maybe ALL people don't WANT to be discriminated against.

But that's not the question. The question is should I be able to discriminate against you based on MY religious beliefs?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm an atheist, and a lot of people would discriminate against me if I told them I was atheist. That's why I never tell people I work with or want something from, like a mortgage.

I take it you don;t want to be discriminated against based on your lack of religious beliefs. I understand that. Most people, maybe ALL people don't WANT to be discriminated against.

But that's not the question. The question is should I be able to discriminate against you based on MY religious beliefs?

Yes, and you can and do.

 

[zeke]

All the old woman had to do was say that she didn't want to rent to a couple, and the outcome would have been the same,

Actually the smart landlord would have simply said; sorry, I already rented those rooms.

 

[zeke]

Yes, and you can and do.

You agree that I should be able to discriminate against you. YOU agree that YOU don't want to be discriminated against.

SO what would you do if you suspected you had been discriminated against on an important matter?
Would you walk away and say that's their right to discriminate?. Or fight against the discrimination?

 

[bripat9643]

All the old woman had to do was say that she didn't want to rent to a couple, and the outcome would have been the same,

Actually the smart landlord would have simply said; sorry, I already rented those rooms.

So you support weaselling around the PA laws by lying?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, and you can and do.

You agree that I should be able to discriminate against you. YOU agree that YOU don't want to be discriminated against.

SO what would you do if you suspected you had been discriminated against on an important matter?
Would you walk away and say that's their right to discriminate?. Or fight against the discrimination?

No, I believe people should be able to discriminate against me if the want to. They do anyway.

 

[SwimExpert]

All the old woman had to do was say that she didn't want to rent to a couple, and the outcome would have been the same,

Actually the smart landlord would have simply said; sorry, I already rented those rooms.

Finally you admit that the laws are useless for preventing discrimination. Except, ya know, when it comes to picking on old women.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am not a Christian at all. The difference is in the nature of the product or service. People need to have a roof over their head, clothes on their back and food in their belly. Discrimination which prevents them from doing this is a problem for the entire society and thus the government has a compelling interest in preventing it. I ask again, in terms of floral arrangements where is the compelling interest?

I would argue just like the baker. Let em go to another bakery. I am not the only landlord renting houses.

Seems like using the "compelling interest" idea is a recipe for disaster. There are many many areas where a person could be discriminated against. And there wouldn't be a compelling interest angle to argue against the discrimination.

Seems to me if the Christians want to argue that they have the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs, that the rest of us should be able to discriminate against Christians. Without penalty. Based on religious beliefs. Or non religious beliefs.

You I would rent a house to. You are not a Christian. LMAO.

You can certainly argue that, but it wouldn't hold up. I don't see that who is being discriminated against has any relevance at all. We all discriminate, we are all prejudiced and to some extent we are all bigots. It is normal human behavior. If it weren't, we wouldn't need laws to control it. The compelling interest is to prevent such behavior from negatively impacting the society. At the same time we need to recognize that the government is also entirely human and it has a tendency to be inflexible and use a heavy hand. So either extreme is unacceptable.

Now, I have given you a reason why discrimination in housing should be prevented. I have yet to hear a reason why it should be prevented in floral arrangements. Because if you can't, then you have answered your own question as to what the difference is.

 

[PratchettFan]

All the old woman had to do was say that she didn't want to rent to a couple, and the outcome would have been the same,

Actually the smart landlord would have simply said; sorry, I already rented those rooms.

Finally you admit that the laws are useless for preventing discrimination. Except, ya know, when it comes to picking on old women.

The problem (assuming this is a real case) is in how the law is written. Simply excluding people who are renting out rooms in their own home from the requirement would fix it.

 

[SwimExpert]

All the old woman had to do was say that she didn't want to rent to a couple, and the outcome would have been the same,

Actually the smart landlord would have simply said; sorry, I already rented those rooms.

Finally you admit that the laws are useless for preventing discrimination. Except, ya know, when it comes to picking on old women.

The problem (assuming this is a real case) is in how the law is written. Simply excluding people who are renting out rooms in their own home from the requirement would fix it.

Most states already have provisions in their laws that exclude cohabitation arrangements. A 20 year old female is not going to be forced by law to rent her extra bedroom out to a 45 year old man. If the CO law does not have a similar provision for discriminating against gay people under like circumstances, then that's a major failing of the statute. In my experience the "gay friendly home" criterion is typically a basic point when advertising one's self looking for a roommate/renting out a room. Not because of any disapproval of gay people, but because of the awkward issue of dealing with close quarter sexual activities.

 

[PratchettFan]

All the old woman had to do was say that she didn't want to rent to a couple, and the outcome would have been the same,

Actually the smart landlord would have simply said; sorry, I already rented those rooms.

Finally you admit that the laws are useless for preventing discrimination. Except, ya know, when it comes to picking on old women.

The problem (assuming this is a real case) is in how the law is written. Simply excluding people who are renting out rooms in their own home from the requirement would fix it.

Most states already have provisions in their laws that exclude cohabitation arrangements. A 20 year old female is not going to be forced by law to rent her extra bedroom out to a 45 year old man. If the CO law does not have a similar provision for discriminating against gay people under like circumstances, then that's a major failing of the statute. In my experience the "gay friendly home" criterion is typically a basic point when advertising one's self looking for a roommate/renting out a room. Not because of any disapproval of gay people, but because of the awkward issue of dealing with close quarter sexual activities.

Yes. Which is why I included the proviso of assuming it was a real case. Frankly, it sounds like one of those stories people tell because it sounds good but has no basis in reality.

 

[dblack]

I am not a Christian at all. The difference is in the nature of the product or service. People need to have a roof over their head, clothes on their back and food in their belly. Discrimination which prevents them from doing this is a problem for the entire society and thus the government has a compelling interest in preventing it. I ask again, in terms of floral arrangements where is the compelling interest?

I would argue just like the baker. Let em go to another bakery. I am not the only landlord renting houses.

Seems like using the "compelling interest" idea is a recipe for disaster. There are many many areas where a person could be discriminated against. And there wouldn't be a compelling interest angle to argue against the discrimination.

Seems to me if the Christians want to argue that they have the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs, that the rest of us should be able to discriminate against Christians. Without penalty. Based on religious beliefs. Or non religious beliefs.

You I would rent a house to. You are not a Christian. LMAO.

I don't think religion should exempt anyone from obeying the law. But a landlord shouldn't have to justify their decisions regarding who they rent to.