Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

KaptainKrazyFan

Is it illegal to refuse to rent to a registered child sex offender

47 posts in this topic

Sure, I do. I didn't make a generalized statement, I spoke specifically on this particular instance.

Guess what, I believe if a restaurant doesn't want to serve black people then it shouldn't be made to do so. Let the business suffer the consequences of their decision. If a business doesn't want to hire a black person then so be it, it's their business--let them suffer the consequences of it.

More like: Don't like the regulation? Vote in people that will change it.

When I say I'm a Libertarian--I walk the walk. That doesn't mean zero regulation (buildings have to be up to code whether they are rented out or not btw) but it means LIMITED regulation. We've gotten so far away from that it's ridiculous. Next thing you know, the gubmint will mandate that Chik-Fil-A open on Sundays because some people can't access it Monday through Friday...

You completely ignored the point related to racial discrimination. Why don't you address that directly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Know-it all, I sure missed your ‘theoretical’ diatribes. Yes of course in the ‘theory’ of law, it is illegal to discriminate. But you worded your post such that one could only conclude that if a Black filled out an application you would have to rent to them and them only because why? They’re Black and filled out an application? Maybe if you’re from another planet. Wait, that would explain you’re limited knowledge of earth and humans, wouldn’t it. :wacko:

My old girlfriend was a leasing agent, my Father and his wife have owned up to 8-9 rental properties.

You see boy, the way it works in the real world, as opposed to the theoretical world you surround yourself with is that the person who is in charge makes the decision, not the government, not sugar-plum fairies and certainly not you and your kind.

If the decision maker doesn’t like the mustache on someone, doesn’t like their attitude, really anything, guess what? That’s right, they don’t get a return call from the property manager. ;)

Now you’re probably starting to cry, :( imagining the injustice that freedom could potentially cause, but relax, youngin, most people in America only see one color, Green. We have laws to deal with the rest of them that don’t. :D But I would be curious to see if any of those laws could help me get a job at Bad Boy Entertainment. ;)

Systematically discriminating based on race or religion or other "suspect classifications" is a guaranteed path to a lawsuit. If blacks can show that they were not hired in favor of equally qualified whites, then all of your BS idiocy about "mustaches" and other excuses won't keep the company from losing a discrimination lawsuit.

Now sit down and let the grownups talk for awhile, numbnutz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm sorry you don't qualify", that's all you need to say

yaa just say, I ran a background check on you and you didn't pass. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You completely ignored the point related to racial discrimination. Why don't you address that directly?

I think you need to re-read my reply, I'm pretty sure I answered that with the paragraph that starts off "Guess what"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theory again, my boy, Theory.

BTW, we out here, kickin the 'real' world's a.ss think you and your theoretical blowhards are the numnutz. Perspective, gotta love it.

Yeah, that's why so many SUCCESSFUL class action lawsuits against large corporations are based primarily on evidence of disparate impact, huh?

The reality of actual discrimination litigation proves your idiotic post wrong...

...boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to re-read my reply, I'm pretty sure I answered that with the paragraph that starts off "Guess what"...

But it didn't address the point at all. I'm demonstrating that discrimination meant that blacks couldn't just "get their own place" because whites owned all of the property (going back to the days when blacks were legally prohibited from owning property) and therefore held a monopoly over public accommodations and property. When a monopoly controls a market then by definition alternative options don't exist. That's why government is forced to get involved to prevent blacks from being legally prohibited from owning property, from living in certain areas, and from being able to eat or enjoy other public services in certain locations. In other words, with a monopoly, there is no economic punishment for discrimination because there are no alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, just wanted to make sure you knew the ‘boy’ refers to your naivety and youth, not the other.

Second. Put down the pipe and focus, boy. We’re talking about individuals not giant corporations.

News Flash!!! We, Whites and Blacks fought to end legal discrimination in America. Don’t even attempt to lecture me about discrimination when you obviously know so little about it’s history!

Yeah right, calling an African-American "boy" isn't racially-motivated. And people who fly the Confederate flag on the back of their rusty pickups are just embracing their "heritage", huh? Sure. We believe you.

"Pipe"...that a reference to crack pipes? Because you know all of us African-Americans LOVE to smoke us some crack. Ya-sir, we sho' do luvs us some crack pipes. And watermellon, too! :rolleyes:

The FACT is that your claim about litigation is laughably false. "I didn't like his mustache"? :lol: Yeah, see if that saves you from losing your business in a discrimination lawsuit if blacks can show disparate impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who’s been lyin to you? Tellin you is African-American or even Black. No son, you a Canadian!

I couldn’t be racist cause Rock and Coz would call you one too! :P

:angry: **** up dooshbag

ramen your black?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it didn't address the point at all. I'm demonstrating that discrimination meant that blacks couldn't just "get their own place" because whites owned all of the property (going back to the days when blacks were legally prohibited from owning property) and therefore held a monopoly over public accommodations and property. When a monopoly controls a market then by definition alternative options don't exist. That's why government is forced to get involved to prevent blacks from being legally prohibited from owning property, from living in certain areas, and from being able to eat or enjoy other public services in certain locations. In other words, with a monopoly, there is no economic punishment for discrimination because there are no alternatives.

All that needed changing was the prohibited from owning property legally part...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that needed changing was the prohibited from owning property legally part...

Sure, except for all of the whites who refused to sell their property to blacks. Other than that... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, except for all of the whites who refused to sell their property to blacks. Other than that... :rolleyes:

Are you saying they should have been forced to sell their property to blacks? On what planet is that fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying they should have been forced to sell their property to blacks? On what planet is that fair?

They should be prohibited from not selling to blacks.

It's simple. Blacks were legally prohibited from owning property, so all of the property was held by whites. If whites refused to sell to blacks then blacks were still legally prohibited from buying property.

On what planet is it fair to have legal/institutional prohibitions against people owning property? How is that property rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should be prohibited from not selling to blacks.

It's simple. Blacks were legally prohibited from owning property, so all of the property was held by whites. If whites refused to sell to blacks then blacks were still legally prohibited from buying property.

On what planet is it fair to have legal/institutional prohibitions against people owning property? How is that property rights?

"prohibited from not selling to blacks" sounds far too much like "must sell to blacks" and really didn't answer the question in a straight-forward manner (in other words: lawyer speak--go figure!)

If the whites refused to sell to blacks then that's the way it goes. Whites didn't own "all the property" as cities owned and still own quite a bit of it that they sell off. An individual's personal choice doesn't affect who a municipality sells to and then there's the properties that are auctioned off as well or undeveloped land that could be developed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sorry it just does not work that way. He might tell you that's what happened. But no court in America works that way. I was a cop for 10 years. Sounds like your friend had major evidence against him. But he tells a different story to cover his actions.

Exactly.

Thanks for saving me a lengthy reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, this whole "it's my property so I can do whatever I want with it" doesn't hold up when you're using it as a public accommodation.

Not quite.

In Georgia, the "I can rent to whoever I want" basically applies if you own and occupy a unit in your own quad, or you own no more than 3 single family properties. Hence the difference between a "business" for profit and an individual who rents a few personal properties I assume.

Per the Landlord Tenant Handbook for Georgia with respect to Fair Housing Laws....

Discrimination can take many forms. It can be as direct as a refusal to rent because the applicant is a person of color, disabled, of a certain religion, from another country or because the person has children. Discrimination can also be indirect. For example, the apartment complex rule may not appear to be discriminatory on its face but it may be applied in such a way that a protected group suffers more harshly from the rule. If the owner does not have a legitimate business reason for the rule, it may be found discriminatory.

Clear examples of discriminatory conduct include:

* refusing to rent to a person because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status or disability;

* landlords or rental agents who, while not directly refusing to rent, engage in conduct which discourages or makes unavailable housing;

* landlords who impose different terms and conditions on those who are members of a protected group;

* landlords or property managers who steer tenants of a protected class to particular buildings or units;

* advertisements which excludes from the rental opportunity members of a protected group;

* stating that a unit is not available for rental when it is available.

The fair housing laws cover activities related to the sale, rental, or advertising of dwellings, the provision of brokerage services, or the availability of residential real estate-related transactions. Owners of rental property are exempt from the fair housing laws provided that the following conditions are met:

* Any advertising which the owner does for the rental property must not be discriminatory;

* The owner does not own or have any interest in more than three single-family houses at any one time;

* The owner does not use a real estate broker, agent, or salesperson in renting the dwelling; or

* The owner occupies one of the units in a building intended to be occupied by not more than four families.

In general, a landlord, who owns more than three rental units, uses a real estate broker or agent to rent the units, or advertises the units, must follow the fair housing laws.

Bottom line is there's nothing in the Georgia law that prohibits landlords from excluding potential applicants because of an applicant's criminal background history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite.

In Georgia, the "I can rent to whoever I want" basically applies if you own and occupy a unit in your own quad, or you own no more than 3 single family properties. Hence the difference between a "business" for profit and an individual who rents a few personal properties I assume.

Per the Landlord Tenant Handbook for Georgia with respect to Fair Housing Laws....

Bottom line is there's nothing in the Georgia law that prohibits landlords from excluding potential applicants because of an applicant's criminal background history.

First, thanks for the information, but I never argued that that the OP couldn't deny housing based on criminal background history. That was always an open question for me and it seems that you answered it. What I've been debating is racial discrimination and discrimination based on other suspect classifications. Also, I believe what's being quoted is the federal Fair Housing Act, not a Georgia law, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Second, the limitations on advertisement and the use of a broker in order to get the small-unit exemption actually reinforces my argument. The use of a broker or advertising to the public would be signs that the property is being used as a public accommodation, and not using them makes the rental much closer to a private club where specific invitations are given to members (e.g., not the public at large). The twist here is that the property is used for profit, but again it's much closer to a private club meeting on somebody's property than a public accommodation like a large apartment complex where the landlord doesn't live on the property.

Finally, it's a pretty narrow exemption that doesn't cover the overwhelming majority of rental properties out there. For the most part, the "it's my property and I can do whatever I want" idea doesn't hold up to federal laws against discrimination. And that's the way it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Sarge. I think alot of people have this pretty much tied down. I know you ask these type of questions. I have to ask you this? What Sexual predator would tell you that they are a sexual predator? Also you can refuse to rent to a person based on certain legal criteria. Take their rental history, credit rating, or their income. You can rule them out based on those things. Plus how did they leave their prior residence? Was it nasty? You can get a rental reference from a previous landlord. I just don't think a a sexual predator would tell you upfront, HEY, I AM A SEXUAL PREDATOR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part, the "it's my property and I can do whatever I want" idea doesn't hold up to federal laws against discrimination. And that's the way it should be.

Like I said, unless you own and occupy a quad or own no more than 3 single family homes, don't advertise using discriminatory language, and don't use a broker or agent to rent your properties. Those are the fair housing exemptions for "it's my property and I can rent to whoever I want", as per the GEORGIA Landlord Tenant laws that incorporate Federal fair housing laws.

Check out the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. All the info is posted there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, unless you own and occupy a quad or own no more than 3 single family homes, don't advertise using discriminatory language, and don't use a broker or agent to rent your properties. Those are the fair housing exemptions for "it's my property and I can rent to whoever I want", as per the GEORGIA Landlord Tenant laws that incorporate Federal fair housing laws.

Check out the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. All the info is posted there.

Yes, I said that you had identified a narrow exemption that applies to a small percentage of overall rental properties. Beyond the narrow exemption, the point still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites