Why wouldn't an LGBT festival patronize an LGBT business for T-shirts?

[emilynghiem]

Why do you think it was a poor ruling? Free speech is protected. This was not a case of discrimination.

I disagree. There was no valid reason not to do what they do, print shirts.

Free Speech is standing on your soapbox on the corner, not refusing to do your job.

So PaintMyHouse if a videographer is asked to film pornography,
they have no right to decline the business?

They have to shoot whatever sex or violent message you ask them to film
as long as they pay you?

Does a recording artist have to record any song someone asks them to sing?
Does an actor have to play any role someone wants to hire them to play?

Where does this end?

Does a lawyer have any right to remove themselves off a case if they no longer wish to serve a client?

Must you be so verbose? Don't be.

And what you do for a living is almost never an act of faith, so do your fucking job and shut up about it.

Can you answer the questions PaintMyHouse


So PaintMyHouse
1. if a videographer is asked to film pornography,
they have no right to decline the business?

They have to shoot whatever sex or violent message you ask them to film
as long as they pay you?

2. Does a recording artist have to record any song someone asks them to sing?
Does an actor have to play any role someone wants to hire them to play?

3. Does a lawyer have any right to remove themselves off a case if they no longer wish to serve a client?

Let's simplify, do I have the right to refuse to sell gas to a ******, a Jew, a ****, a Wetback, a Whop, a Chink, a Faggot? Yes, or no?

I would respect your right to refuse business. I would respect your right to mediate
to resolve any conflict to prevent a lawsuit. I can't speak for other people though.

Will you answer the questions I asked you PaintMyHouse
1. if a videographer has the right to refuse a paid job filming porn or violent acts.
2. if a recording artist has to record any song anyone asks them to sing.
Or an actor has to play any role someone hires them to play as long as they are paid.
3. If a lawyer has the right to remove themselves off a case if they don't wish to serve a client.
4. If a sex worker, in a state where prostitution is legal, can refuse to service clients of the same gender, or if they are required to serve all clients willing to hire them?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I would respect your right to refuse business.

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would respect your right to refuse business.

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

WRONG PaintMyHouse:
in the real world, the manager of a restaurant told OJ Simpson he had to refuse
his business and couldn't serve him, because it was disturbing the other guests. OJ didn't sue. That's part of the real world also. People can CHOOSE to respect each other.

Now, can you answer these 4 questions PaintMyHouse
1. if a videographer has the right to refuse a paid job filming porn or violent acts.
2. if a recording artist has to record any song anyone asks them to sing.
Or an actor has to play any role someone hires them to play as long as they are paid.
3. If a lawyer has the right to remove themselves off a case if they don't wish to serve a client.
4. If a sex worker, in a state where prostitution is legal, can refuse to service clients of the same gender, or if they are required to serve all clients willing to hire them?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I would respect your right to refuse business.

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

???? You can't answer these 4 questions...

None of those are PAs so, why bother? While I could answer, those questions have nothing to do with the problem at hand. The problem at hand is can we allow for the No ******* gas station? The answer, for five decades now, no, we cannot.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would respect your right to refuse business.

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

???? You can't answer these 4 questions...

None of those are PAs, so, why bother? While I could answer, those questions have nothing to do with the problem at hand. The problem at hand is can we allow for the NO ******* gas station? The answer, for five decades now, no, we cannot.

Because it is an issue of free choice.

Your post implied that "if you are asked to do a paid job, then you do it"

So I gave you four examples of people asked to do a job for hire,
and ask would you respect their right to refuse any of these jobs.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I would respect your right to refuse business.

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

???? You can't answer these 4 questions...

None of those are PAs, so, why bother? While I could answer, those questions have nothing to do with the problem at hand. The problem at hand is can we allow for the NO ******* gas station? The answer, for five decades now, no, we cannot.

Because it is an issue of free choice.

Your post implied that "if you are asked to do a paid job, then you do it"

So I gave you four examples of people asked to do a job for hire,
and ask would you respect their right to refuse any of these jobs.

Businesses follow rules, our rules, they are not free to do as they like. If the job pays, do the job. In most cases that is the end of the discussion.

 

[danielpalos]

Poor ruling but that's how the process works.

Why do you think it was a poor ruling? Free speech is protected. This was not a case of discrimination.

Being repugnant to Capitalism for the sake ideology should be done on a not-for-profit basis. It really should be that simple, for the Right.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would respect your right to refuse business.

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

???? You can't answer these 4 questions...

None of those are PAs, so, why bother? While I could answer, those questions have nothing to do with the problem at hand. The problem at hand is can we allow for the NO ******* gas station? The answer, for five decades now, no, we cannot.

Because it is an issue of free choice.

Your post implied that "if you are asked to do a paid job, then you do it"

So I gave you four examples of people asked to do a job for hire,
and ask would you respect their right to refuse any of these jobs.

Businesses follow rules, our rules, they are not free to do as they like. If the job pays, do the job. In most cases that is the end of the discussion.

So are the 4 examples I listed included in cases that are NOT up for discussion, or there is room to refuse paid jobs in THOSE cases.

 

[danielpalos]

Poor ruling but that's how the process works.

Why do you think it was a poor ruling? Free speech is protected. This was not a case of discrimination.

I disagree. There was no valid reason not to do what they do, print shirts.

Free Speech is standing on your soapbox on the corner, not refusing to do your job.

So PaintMyHouse if a videographer is asked to film pornography,
they have no right to decline the business?

They have to shoot whatever sex or violent message you ask them to film
as long as they pay you?

Does a recording artist have to record any song someone asks them to sing?
Does an actor have to play any role someone wants to hire them to play?

Where does this end?

Does a lawyer have any right to remove themselves off a case if they no longer wish to serve a client?

Free Speech Lawsuit By Student Forced to Cheer Rapist Found Not Frivolous Fractals

If you mean that once you accept to work at a business and the business asks you
to do some things, then yes, you can get fired for not wanting to do what they hire you to do.

But here, even this case of a cheerleader who is normally required to cheer as part of the duties assigned by the school, was permitted to sue when it came to being forced to cheer her assailant.

Common sense and civility does have a place in law.

If you look up the case of William Penn, even though the local laws were clear, and he was unquestionably guilty of violating laws that declared his preaching illegal,
the JURY in his case refused to convict him, and voted by conscience to NULLIFY the law
in support of Constitutional laws of religious freedom they felt the law violated.

People have that authority to consent or dissent to laws. We don't have to act as automatons
following judges blindly like the church structure of letting priests and popes dictate for us.

Only bad Capitalists and lousy Artists complain; did Michel Angelo complain?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

???? You can't answer these 4 questions...

None of those are PAs, so, why bother? While I could answer, those questions have nothing to do with the problem at hand. The problem at hand is can we allow for the NO ******* gas station? The answer, for five decades now, no, we cannot.

Because it is an issue of free choice.

Your post implied that "if you are asked to do a paid job, then you do it"

So I gave you four examples of people asked to do a job for hire,
and ask would you respect their right to refuse any of these jobs.

Businesses follow rules, our rules, they are not free to do as they like. If the job pays, do the job. In most cases that is the end of the discussion.

So are the 4 examples I listed included in cases that are NOT up for discussion, or there is room to refuse paid jobs in THOSE cases.

If you are not a PA I am unconcerned in this case. And you finally made a post in less than 30 words. Thank God for small favors.

 

[Papageorgio]

I would respect your right to refuse business.

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

WRONG PaintMyHouse:
in the real world, the manager of a restaurant told OJ Simpson he had to refuse
his business and couldn't serve him, because it was disturbing the other guests. OJ didn't sue. That's part of the real world also. People can CHOOSE to respect each other.

Now, can you answer these 4 questions PaintMyHouse
1. if a videographer has the right to refuse a paid job filming porn or violent acts.
2. if a recording artist has to record any song anyone asks them to sing.
Or an actor has to play any role someone hires them to play as long as they are paid.
3. If a lawyer has the right to remove themselves off a case if they don't wish to serve a client.
4. If a sex worker, in a state where prostitution is legal, can refuse to service clients of the same gender, or if they are required to serve all clients willing to hire them?

Those are great questions, which he cannot answer or it blows his whole argument. He knows the is a business can turndown services. If you can't do the job to professional standards, it's best to realize you are in over your head and back out.

 

[emilynghiem]

???? You can't answer these 4 questions...

None of those are PAs, so, why bother? While I could answer, those questions have nothing to do with the problem at hand. The problem at hand is can we allow for the NO ******* gas station? The answer, for five decades now, no, we cannot.

Because it is an issue of free choice.

Your post implied that "if you are asked to do a paid job, then you do it"

So I gave you four examples of people asked to do a job for hire,
and ask would you respect their right to refuse any of these jobs.

Businesses follow rules, our rules, they are not free to do as they like. If the job pays, do the job. In most cases that is the end of the discussion.

So are the 4 examples I listed included in cases that are NOT up for discussion, or there is room to refuse paid jobs in THOSE cases.

If you are not a PA I am unconcerned in this case. And you finally made a post in less than 30 words. Thank God for small favors.

So you would not even question any decisions, either way,
made by a business in the 4 examples I listed. Any refusal is not an issue, right?

 

[danielpalos]

I would respect your right to refuse business.

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

WRONG PaintMyHouse:
in the real world, the manager of a restaurant told OJ Simpson he had to refuse
his business and couldn't serve him, because it was disturbing the other guests. OJ didn't sue. That's part of the real world also. People can CHOOSE to respect each other.

Now, can you answer these 4 questions PaintMyHouse
1. if a videographer has the right to refuse a paid job filming porn or violent acts.
2. if a recording artist has to record any song anyone asks them to sing.
Or an actor has to play any role someone hires them to play as long as they are paid.
3. If a lawyer has the right to remove themselves off a case if they don't wish to serve a client.
4. If a sex worker, in a state where prostitution is legal, can refuse to service clients of the same gender, or if they are required to serve all clients willing to hire them?

Those are great questions, which he cannot answer or it blows his whole argument. He knows the is a business can turndown services. If you can't do the job to professional standards, it's best to realize you are in over your head and back out.

If an Artist is not competent in any given venue then, of course, they can refuse; no questions asked.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would respect your right to refuse business.

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

WRONG PaintMyHouse:
in the real world, the manager of a restaurant told OJ Simpson he had to refuse
his business and couldn't serve him, because it was disturbing the other guests. OJ didn't sue. That's part of the real world also. People can CHOOSE to respect each other.

Now, can you answer these 4 questions PaintMyHouse
1. if a videographer has the right to refuse a paid job filming porn or violent acts.
2. if a recording artist has to record any song anyone asks them to sing.
Or an actor has to play any role someone hires them to play as long as they are paid.
3. If a lawyer has the right to remove themselves off a case if they don't wish to serve a client.
4. If a sex worker, in a state where prostitution is legal, can refuse to service clients of the same gender, or if they are required to serve all clients willing to hire them?

Those are great questions, which he cannot answer or it blows his whole argument. He knows the is a business can turndown services.

Well, he could explain it that in the case of OJ, OJ agreed to let the restaurant refuse his business without suing them.

I have respected people who did things like this
A. told me they didn't feel comfortable showing me an apt, because as a Vietnamese girl wearing black that day, I reminded him of Viet Cong and made him uneasy.
I thanked him for his honesty and didn't sue or fault him for making that association.
B. told me that the executive I applied to serve as secretary didn't want to hire me
because I was Asian, and he wanted an American and did not feel comfortable with a fellow Asian helping him with English. I told the placement office I understood, that was an Asian cultural thing and I appreciated the person being honest and no, I wasn't going to embarrass punish or sue him when he was perfectly honest how he felt.

So there is room for people to AGREE to respect each other's consent.

He could explain that in the cases where people DON"T agree, then this is where it causes problems. So the issue is really whether or not people consent.

And in the case of PA lawsuits, they disagree, so much, to the point they sue over it.

My solution would be for businesses to offer waivers to clients to sign, agreeing to mediation and consensus to resolve disputes, or else they agree NOT to do business together if they can't resolve things amicably through mediation. That way, it's like refusing to do business if people don't sign an arbitration agreement. But I don't recommend arbitration, I recommend mediation.

So that's what I recommend, so people who don't agree don't do business together,
in order to prevent lawsuits. Just avoid each other on that basis: because they don't agree
to resolve conflicts amicable as OJ Simpson did and as I have done when I was refused.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would respect your right to refuse business.

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

WRONG PaintMyHouse:
in the real world, the manager of a restaurant told OJ Simpson he had to refuse
his business and couldn't serve him, because it was disturbing the other guests. OJ didn't sue. That's part of the real world also. People can CHOOSE to respect each other.

Now, can you answer these 4 questions PaintMyHouse
1. if a videographer has the right to refuse a paid job filming porn or violent acts.
2. if a recording artist has to record any song anyone asks them to sing.
Or an actor has to play any role someone hires them to play as long as they are paid.
3. If a lawyer has the right to remove themselves off a case if they don't wish to serve a client.
4. If a sex worker, in a state where prostitution is legal, can refuse to service clients of the same gender, or if they are required to serve all clients willing to hire them?

Those are great questions, which he cannot answer or it blows his whole argument. He knows the is a business can turndown services. If you can't do the job to professional standards, it's best to realize you are in over your head and back out.

Well, Papageorgio, I guess that demonstrates one Constitutional right that PaintMyHouse obviously believes in -- Taking the Fifth Amendment!

 

[Michelle420]

I would respect your right to refuse business.

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

WRONG PaintMyHouse:
in the real world, the manager of a restaurant told OJ Simpson he had to refuse
his business and couldn't serve him, because it was disturbing the other guests. OJ didn't sue. That's part of the real world also. People can CHOOSE to respect each other.

Now, can you answer these 4 questions PaintMyHouse
1. if a videographer has the right to refuse a paid job filming porn or violent acts.
2. if a recording artist has to record any song anyone asks them to sing.
Or an actor has to play any role someone hires them to play as long as they are paid.
3. If a lawyer has the right to remove themselves off a case if they don't wish to serve a client.
4. If a sex worker, in a state where prostitution is legal, can refuse to service clients of the same gender, or if they are required to serve all clients willing to hire them?

Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores.


The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Business can discriminate against the LBGT if they want to.

A recording artist, actor, videographer is typically privately contracted, so they choose their own work/jobs.

A sex worker would know in advance what they have agreed to perform in a legal setting of prostitution. Much like a private contractor.

A Lawyer :Recusal is the act of a judge or prosecutor being removed or excusing one's self from a legal case due to conflict of interest or other good reason. Recusal is governed by federal laws and state laws and codes of ethics, which vary by state.

SO yes, I suppose if the Lawyer had a bias against the client for being gay, they might be able to recuse themself depending on the State's law.

Does that make it right? Should groups who in the past have experienced discrimination for race, religious affiliation,.a disbility, or national origin be protected?

In my opinion Yes they should be protected from being discriminated against in business situations. I also think The gay community should have that same protection and right to be served in businesses as everyone else.

Why shouldn't they?

The Right to Refuse Service Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance Odor or Attitude LegalZoom

Recusal Law Legal Definition

 

[Michelle420]

I would respect your right to refuse business.

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

WRONG PaintMyHouse:
in the real world, the manager of a restaurant told OJ Simpson he had to refuse
his business and couldn't serve him, because it was disturbing the other guests. OJ didn't sue. That's part of the real world also. People can CHOOSE to respect each other.

Now, can you answer these 4 questions PaintMyHouse
1. if a videographer has the right to refuse a paid job filming porn or violent acts.
2. if a recording artist has to record any song anyone asks them to sing.
Or an actor has to play any role someone hires them to play as long as they are paid.
3. If a lawyer has the right to remove themselves off a case if they don't wish to serve a client.
4. If a sex worker, in a state where prostitution is legal, can refuse to service clients of the same gender, or if they are required to serve all clients willing to hire them?

Those are great questions, which he cannot answer or it blows his whole argument. He knows the is a business can turndown services.

Well, he could explain it that in the case of OJ, OJ agreed to let the restaurant refuse his business without suing them.

I have respected people who did things like this
A. told me they didn't feel comfortable showing me an apt, because as a Vietnamese girl wearing black that day, I reminded him of Viet Cong and made him uneasy.
I thanked him for his honesty and didn't sue or fault him for making that association.
B. told me that the executive I applied to serve as secretary didn't want to hire me
because I was Asian, and he wanted an American and did not feel comfortable with a fellow Asian helping him with English. I told the placement office I understood, that was an Asian cultural thing and I appreciated the person being honest and no, I wasn't going to embarrass punish or sue him when he was perfectly honest how he felt.

So there is room for people to AGREE to respect each other's consent.

He could explain that in the cases where people DON"T agree, then this is where it causes problems. So the issue is really whether or not people consent.

And in the case of PA lawsuits, they disagree, so much, to the point they sue over it.

My solution would be for businesses to offer waivers to clients to sign, agreeing to mediation and consensus to resolve disputes, or else they agree NOT to do business together if they can't resolve things amicably through mediation. That way, it's like refusing to do business if people don't sign an arbitration agreement. But I don't recommend arbitration, I recommend mediation.

So that's what I recommend, so people who don't agree don't do business together,
in order to prevent lawsuits. Just avoid each other on that basis: because they don't agree
to resolve conflicts amicable as OJ Simpson did and as I have done when I was refused.

Just because you don't mind being discriminated against doesn't mean you can speak for others in what they experience.

It's against the law, and you didn't do the next Vietnamese girl any favors.

Perhaps she doesn't have better alternatives and really would want that same apartment.

Why should the landlord get the impression it's ok to discriminate because of race or nationality?

 

[danielpalos]

Does the right have only talk and no not-for-profit Action up their sleeve?

 

[emilynghiem]

I would respect your right to refuse business.

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

WRONG PaintMyHouse:
in the real world, the manager of a restaurant told OJ Simpson he had to refuse
his business and couldn't serve him, because it was disturbing the other guests. OJ didn't sue. That's part of the real world also. People can CHOOSE to respect each other.

Now, can you answer these 4 questions PaintMyHouse
1. if a videographer has the right to refuse a paid job filming porn or violent acts.
2. if a recording artist has to record any song anyone asks them to sing.
Or an actor has to play any role someone hires them to play as long as they are paid.
3. If a lawyer has the right to remove themselves off a case if they don't wish to serve a client.
4. If a sex worker, in a state where prostitution is legal, can refuse to service clients of the same gender, or if they are required to serve all clients willing to hire them?

Those are great questions, which he cannot answer or it blows his whole argument. He knows the is a business can turndown services.

Well, he could explain it that in the case of OJ, OJ agreed to let the restaurant refuse his business without suing them.

I have respected people who did things like this
A. told me they didn't feel comfortable showing me an apt, because as a Vietnamese girl wearing black that day, I reminded him of Viet Cong and made him uneasy.
I thanked him for his honesty and didn't sue or fault him for making that association.
B. told me that the executive I applied to serve as secretary didn't want to hire me
because I was Asian, and he wanted an American and did not feel comfortable with a fellow Asian helping him with English. I told the placement office I understood, that was an Asian cultural thing and I appreciated the person being honest and no, I wasn't going to embarrass punish or sue him when he was perfectly honest how he felt.

So there is room for people to AGREE to respect each other's consent.

He could explain that in the cases where people DON"T agree, then this is where it causes problems. So the issue is really whether or not people consent.

And in the case of PA lawsuits, they disagree, so much, to the point they sue over it.

My solution would be for businesses to offer waivers to clients to sign, agreeing to mediation and consensus to resolve disputes, or else they agree NOT to do business together if they can't resolve things amicably through mediation. That way, it's like refusing to do business if people don't sign an arbitration agreement. But I don't recommend arbitration, I recommend mediation.

So that's what I recommend, so people who don't agree don't do business together,
in order to prevent lawsuits. Just avoid each other on that basis: because they don't agree
to resolve conflicts amicable as OJ Simpson did and as I have done when I was refused.

Just because you don't mind being discriminated against doesn't mean you can speak for others in what they experience.

It's against the law, and you didn't do the next Vietnamese girl any favors.

Perhaps she doesn't have better alternatives and really would want that same apartment.

Why should the landlord get the impression it's ok to discriminate because of race or nationality?

Hi drifter thanks for a great informative response!

1. for answering PaintMyHouse's questions
YES I SPECIFIED THAT I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF

I did say that. I said I cannot speak for others. See msg clarifying this specifically:
Why wouldn t an LGBT festival patronize an LGBT business for T-shirts Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

2. I did NOT say it's okay for other people to discriminate etc.
I said it depends if those people consent or not to refuse or not allow refusal etc.
So if people DON'T agree to avoid lawsuits over discrimination, they can
AGREE not to do business together on THOSE grounds, as below:

3. I SAID I support mediation waivers, so businesses and clients
agree in advance what they agree to resolve amicable or else
they AGREE not to do business together. That protects BOTH sides from lawsuits.

 

[Michelle420]

And so ends that discussion. In the real world, that's no longer up for debate so I'll not bother.

WRONG PaintMyHouse:
in the real world, the manager of a restaurant told OJ Simpson he had to refuse
his business and couldn't serve him, because it was disturbing the other guests. OJ didn't sue. That's part of the real world also. People can CHOOSE to respect each other.

Now, can you answer these 4 questions PaintMyHouse
1. if a videographer has the right to refuse a paid job filming porn or violent acts.
2. if a recording artist has to record any song anyone asks them to sing.
Or an actor has to play any role someone hires them to play as long as they are paid.
3. If a lawyer has the right to remove themselves off a case if they don't wish to serve a client.
4. If a sex worker, in a state where prostitution is legal, can refuse to service clients of the same gender, or if they are required to serve all clients willing to hire them?

Those are great questions, which he cannot answer or it blows his whole argument. He knows the is a business can turndown services.

Well, he could explain it that in the case of OJ, OJ agreed to let the restaurant refuse his business without suing them.

I have respected people who did things like this
A. told me they didn't feel comfortable showing me an apt, because as a Vietnamese girl wearing black that day, I reminded him of Viet Cong and made him uneasy.
I thanked him for his honesty and didn't sue or fault him for making that association.
B. told me that the executive I applied to serve as secretary didn't want to hire me
because I was Asian, and he wanted an American and did not feel comfortable with a fellow Asian helping him with English. I told the placement office I understood, that was an Asian cultural thing and I appreciated the person being honest and no, I wasn't going to embarrass punish or sue him when he was perfectly honest how he felt.

So there is room for people to AGREE to respect each other's consent.

He could explain that in the cases where people DON"T agree, then this is where it causes problems. So the issue is really whether or not people consent.

And in the case of PA lawsuits, they disagree, so much, to the point they sue over it.

My solution would be for businesses to offer waivers to clients to sign, agreeing to mediation and consensus to resolve disputes, or else they agree NOT to do business together if they can't resolve things amicably through mediation. That way, it's like refusing to do business if people don't sign an arbitration agreement. But I don't recommend arbitration, I recommend mediation.

So that's what I recommend, so people who don't agree don't do business together,
in order to prevent lawsuits. Just avoid each other on that basis: because they don't agree
to resolve conflicts amicable as OJ Simpson did and as I have done when I was refused.

Just because you don't mind being discriminated against doesn't mean you can speak for others in what they experience.

It's against the law, and you didn't do the next Vietnamese girl any favors.

Perhaps she doesn't have better alternatives and really would want that same apartment.

Why should the landlord get the impression it's ok to discriminate because of race or nationality?

Hi drifter thanks for a great informative response!

1. for answering PaintMyHouse's questions
YES I SPECIFIED THAT I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF

I did say that. I said I cannot speak for others. See msg clarifying this specifically:
Why wouldn t an LGBT festival patronize an LGBT business for T-shirts Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

2. I did NOT say it's okay for other people to discriminate etc.
I said it depends if those people consent or not to refuse or not allow refusal etc.
So if people DON'T agree to avoid lawsuits over discrimination, they can
AGREE not to do business together on THOSE grounds, as below:

3. I SAID I support mediation waivers, so businesses and clients
agree in advance what they agree to resolve amicable or else
they AGREE not to do business together. That protects BOTH sides from lawsuits.

Personally if a business discriminated against any friend or family member I am close to, I would encourage them to exercise their legal rights, if that means court so be it.

Unfortunately, the law has yet to say it's not ok to discriminate against someone for sexual orientation.