Landlords are required to deny reality and play along

[theDoctorisIn]

The only person's whose advice has "weight of law", ADVICE, is an attorney general. You thought it was a judge. You are completely ignorant.

However normal people who seek legal advice go to attorneys, and they typically reasonably rely on that legal advice. Your logic would destroy the entire legal system.

But that's because you are incredibly ignorant.

I realize that you think being pedantic is "winning", but you've missed a few details.

I was not discussing "advice" when I mentioned a judge.

Yes you were. And judges don't go figure out the "law" on their own. opposing counsel do all of the work for them, and t hen the judge, and more accurately, his/her clerk, decides which law or interpretation of it to use. Judges are referees and not much more. You have virtually no understanding of the legal system.

I can almost guarantee that I understand our legal system better than you ever will.

But that is entirely irrelevant to the point of this conversation.

Would you like to continue pedantically derail your own nonsense thread?

 

[novasteve]

Okay, if you don't think advice holds the "weight of law" why do people spend so much on attorneys fees? I'm sure no doubt if you got sued, or arrested, you would dispense with having an attorney because their advice doesn't hold the weight of law, right?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Okay, if you don't think advice holds the "weight of law" why do people spend so much on attorneys fees? I'm sure no doubt if you got sued, or arrested, you would dispense with having an attorney because their advice doesn't hold the weight of law, right?

Now you're just babbling incoherently. None of that is the slightest bit relevant to anything we're talking about.

 

[novasteve]

I realize that you think being pedantic is "winning", but you've missed a few details.

I was not discussing "advice" when I mentioned a judge.

Yes you were. And judges don't go figure out the "law" on their own. opposing counsel do all of the work for them, and t hen the judge, and more accurately, his/her clerk, decides which law or interpretation of it to use. Judges are referees and not much more. You have virtually no understanding of the legal system.

I can almost guarantee that I understand our legal system better than you ever will.

But that entirely irrelevant to the point of this conversation.

You are such a fool. I bet without googling you don't understand the difference between mandatory and persuasive legal authorities or when you are entitled to jury in a civil case in federal court. Even with google you would never figure out the second one.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes you were. And judges don't go figure out the "law" on their own. opposing counsel do all of the work for them, and t hen the judge, and more accurately, his/her clerk, decides which law or interpretation of it to use. Judges are referees and not much more. You have virtually no understanding of the legal system.

I can almost guarantee that I understand our legal system better than you ever will.

But that entirely irrelevant to the point of this conversation.

You are such a fool. I bet without googling you don't understand the difference between mandatory and persuasive legal authorities or when you are entitled to jury in a civil case in federal court. Even with google you would never figure out the second one.

Are you just going to keep derailing your own thread?

 

[novasteve]

I can almost guarantee that I understand our legal system better than you ever will.

But that entirely irrelevant to the point of this conversation.

You are such a fool. I bet without googling you don't understand the difference between mandatory and persuasive legal authorities or when you are entitled to jury in a civil case in federal court. Even with google you would never figure out the second one.

Are you just going to keep derailing your own thread?

You said you know more about the legal system than I do. Now go answer my questions. The first one about mandatory vs persuasive authority without google, then use whatever the hell you want to tell me everything about when you are entitled to a jury in a federal civil trial. Prove your knowledge or retract your statement.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You are such a fool. I bet without googling you don't understand the difference between mandatory and persuasive legal authorities or when you are entitled to jury in a civil case in federal court. Even with google you would never figure out the second one.

Are you just going to keep derailing your own thread?

You said you know more about the legal system than I do. Now go answer my questions. The first one about mandatory vs persuasive authority without google, then use whatever the hell you want to tell me everything about when you are entitled to a jury in a federal civil trial. Prove your knowledge or retract your statement.

No, I don't think I'll do either one.

 

[Katzndogz]

The landlord is not only responsible for his or her own behavior, but the behavior of everyone else on the property as well.

That's why these laws are outrageous. This is why sane people fight so hard against them. They should continue to fight, as hard as they can, do whatever it takes to end this insanity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Landlords are required to deny reality and play along

No, the landlord is required to follow the law, just like everyone else:

The applicable fair housing laws prohibit discrimination based on gender, which includes gender identity. As a landlord, you are obligated to treat each prospective or current tenant the same, without regard to their gender or gender identity.

Jurisdictions have the authority over private property rights concerning contracts, where discriminatory practices may be prohibited. See: Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968), Runyon v. McCrary (1976), and Paterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989). See also the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You know, I'll tell you what.

I'll answer your questions if you tell us why you're so incredibly obsessed with transexuals.

 

[novasteve]

Are you just going to keep derailing your own thread?

You said you know more about the legal system than I do. Now go answer my questions. The first one about mandatory vs persuasive authority without google, then use whatever the hell you want to tell me everything about when you are entitled to a jury in a federal civil trial. Prove your knowledge or retract your statement.

No, I don't think I'll do either one.

The first one is simple even without google. Yet you refuse to. The second one will be beyond all of your comprehension. I'll give you a hint, it's in the bill of rights, but just reading and copying and pasting it won't let you know when you can have a jury in a federal civil trial. you will simply have no comprehension of it.

 

[novasteve]

You know, I'll tell you what.

I'll answer your questions if you tell us why you're so incredibly obsessed with transexuals.

For the 100th time. Because I don't want to be forced to deny reality. I provide examples of people being forced to deny reality.

Smith College is forced to consider someone with a dick as a woman.

This landlord is forced to to call someone Michelle, despite the name on the lease.

A shop owner is forced to let someone with a dick into a woman's dressing room.

The genderqueer stories force people to think that someone can be neither male nor female. Can you imagine if someone could so you for calling them he or she because they demand to be called zhir or zhe?

Now please answer the questions I posed to you.

 

[novasteve]

The landlord is not only responsible for his or her own behavior, but the behavior of everyone else on the property as well.

That's why these laws are outrageous. This is why sane people fight so hard against them. They should continue to fight, as hard as they can, do whatever it takes to end this insanity.

I don't think anyone is fighting. Because if you oppose denying reality you are a "bigot". And liberals want their feel good moment.

 

[novasteve]

Landlords are required to deny reality and play along

No, the landlord is required to follow the law, just like everyone else:

The applicable fair housing laws prohibit discrimination based on gender, which includes gender identity. As a landlord, you are obligated to treat each prospective or current tenant the same, without regard to their gender or gender identity.

Jurisdictions have the authority over private property rights concerning contracts, where discriminatory practices may be prohibited. See: Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968), Runyon v. McCrary (1976), and Paterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989). See also the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Is it rational to say it violates the law to call someone by not only their birth name, their legal name, but also the name on the lease?


There's no evidence this person changed their name. They just want to be called Michelle. Now it's "harassment" to not call them the name they want to be called.

You are fine with this?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You know, I'll tell you what.

I'll answer your questions if you tell us why you're so incredibly obsessed with transexuals.

For the 100th time. Because I don't want to be forced to deny reality. I provide examples of people being forced to deny reality.

Smith College is forced to consider someone with a dick as a woman.

This landlord is forced to to call someone Michelle, despite the name on the lease.

A shop owner is forced to let someone with a dick into a woman's dressing room.

The genderqueer stories force people to think that someone can be neither male nor female. Can you imagine if someone could so you for calling them he or she because they demand to be called zhir or zhe?

Now please answer the questions I posed to you.

Nope, I don't buy it.

More than half of the threads you start are about transexuals.

You're way too passionate about this for it to be about "denying reality".

 

[novasteve]

You know, I'll tell you what.

I'll answer your questions if you tell us why you're so incredibly obsessed with transexuals.

For the 100th time. Because I don't want to be forced to deny reality. I provide examples of people being forced to deny reality.

Smith College is forced to consider someone with a dick as a woman.

This landlord is forced to to call someone Michelle, despite the name on the lease.

A shop owner is forced to let someone with a dick into a woman's dressing room.

The genderqueer stories force people to think that someone can be neither male nor female. Can you imagine if someone could so you for calling them he or she because they demand to be called zhir or zhe?

Now please answer the questions I posed to you.

Nope, I don't buy it.

More than half of the threads you start are about transexuals.

You're way too passionate about this for it to be about "denying reality".

Each and every story I post is an example of someone being forced to deny reality or else face legal consequences.

now answer my questions. Not agreeing with my answer isn't grounds for saying I didn't answer it.

Now fulfill your part of the deal and answer my questions.

 

[Gracie]

The landlord is not only responsible for his or her own behavior, but the behavior of everyone else on the property as well.

That's why these laws are outrageous. This is why sane people fight so hard against them. They should continue to fight, as hard as they can, do whatever it takes to end this insanity.

Um. Wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Did you accidentally sleep with a tranny at some point?

I'm trying to understand why you're so obsessed with them. Why does it matter what the landlord calls her?

This behavior is consistent with many on the social right, where they’re frightened by diversity and dissent, and perceive diversity as some sort of threat.

Consequently those expressing themselves as individuals must be subject to punitive measures, such as not being allowed housing, jobs, or education opportunities, intended to compel everyone to ‘conform.’

Needless to say this conflicts with fundamental American principles of individual liberty, and the right of all persons to express themselves free from government interference.

 

[novasteve]

The landlord is not only responsible for his or her own behavior, but the behavior of everyone else on the property as well.

That's why these laws are outrageous. This is why sane people fight so hard against them. They should continue to fight, as hard as they can, do whatever it takes to end this insanity.

Um. Wrong.

I would think he's right since general common law principals apply a landlord's duty to invitees onto properties.

If a tenant is owed a duty of quiet enjoyment, then the landlord must protect tenants from invitees.

Are you denying that if the mailman was blasting music the landlord wouldn't be obligated to tell the mailman to stop if it were disturbing tenants? If there were repairmen on premises sexually harassing tenants the landlord wouldn't be responsible?

 

[novasteve]

Did you accidentally sleep with a tranny at some point?

I'm trying to understand why you're so obsessed with them. Why does it matter what the landlord calls her?

This behavior is consistent with many on the social right, where they’re frightened by diversity and dissent, and perceive diversity as some sort of threat.

Consequently those expressing themselves as individuals must be subject to punitive measures, such as not being allowed housing, jobs, or education opportunities, intended to compel everyone to ‘conform.’

Needless to say this conflicts with fundamental American principles of individual liberty, and the right of all persons to express themselves free from government interference.

how is this diversity?

How does it comply with fundamental american principles of individual liberty to force other people to deny reality?