Landlord fights 'White Only' pool sign ruling

[Gahars]

And to the Gahars guy... I am way more aware of our country's history than you are. The "Civil Rights Act" is no more civil rights than the "Federal Reserve" is federal. You speak of it as if only 30 to 40 years ago is our country's history. Civil rights go way before that.

Way to completely sidestep around my point.

So first of all, how does that invalidate the provisions of the law (or the Supreme Court case that upheld it)?

Secondly, are you seriously trying to tell me that the 1960's and 1970's are somehow not a part of our history, and the fact that the fight for Civil Rights among different groups existed before then somehow invalidates anything that occurred during that time (like important, groundbreaking legislation)?

I'm so sorry for underestimating you; you're a far bigger dunce than I had imagined.

 

[Devante]

And to the Gahars guy... I am way more aware of our country's history than you are. The "Civil Rights Act" is no more civil rights than the "Federal Reserve" is federal. You speak of it as if only 30 to 40 years ago is our country's history. Civil rights go way before that.

Way to completely sidestep around my point.

So first of all, how does that invalidate the provisions of the law (or the Supreme Court case that upheld it)?

Secondly, are you seriously trying to tell me that the 1960's and 1970's are somehow not a part of our history, and the fact that the fight for Civil Rights among different groups existed before then somehow invalidates anything that occurred during that time (like important, groundbreaking legislation)?

I'm so sorry for underestimating you; you're a far bigger dunce than I had imagined.

Yes, you really shouldn't underestimate anybody. Always be aware.

I didn't sidestep your point at all. I think you may have missed my point.
My point is that I comply with civil rights as America's forefathers intended it: believing what you want, practicing what you want.

Your point is that there was a so called "civil-rights" movement in the 60's that basically said everyone is equal, regardless of color or sex.

Two different points completely. Your point is ultimately (although I doubt you even know it) that everyone should be treated equally, my point is that everyone should be able to believe what they want.

To the guy who said that the landlord provided a public service, I disagree. If I buy a house, and decide to rent it, I should be able to decide who I want to live there.
If I see crackhead, drug addled maniacs applying, I should be able to say I don't want them to live there.
If I see good mannered people with no history of violence applying, I should be able to decide they are the ones I want living there comforted in the knowledge that they will most likely pay rent on time and not trash the place I put so much hard earned money and work into.

And furthermore, let's say I'm just a dumb ole racist whose only source of knowledge is from my racist parents, civil rights is about practicing what you want as long as it doesn't interfere with others. Who is to say that you or government dictates what I believe in? Next thing you know the government will force us to marry inter racially.

You guys seriously need to consider what the forefathers intended as civil rights.
Civil rights doesn't equal equality among people. Civil rights equals believing and practicing what you want as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else.

 

[Nujui]

Your civil rights end where other people's rights begin. It's not the 80ties anymore, you don't have separate seats at the back of the bus for people of colour. A landlord has nothing to say as to which residents use the facilities, all of them regardless of race have equal right to use them and if you think otherwise them perhaps you should look out the window and say hi to the 21st century. We welcome you, cave men and women. Today racism is frowned upon.

So you're saying that even though you purchase a house with your hard-earned money spent laboring over the years, you have no say in who lives in it?

Crazy.

If I own a residence, I'd like to be able to say who I'd like to live in it.

And to the Gahars guy... I am way more aware of our country's history than you are. The "Civil Rights Act" is no more civil rights than the "Federal Reserve" is federal. You speak of it as if only 30 to 40 years ago is our country's history. Civil rights go way before that.

There's a difference between your home and a public service. You're well within your right to say who lives in your house, but not for places like a hotel or apartment. You're offering a service of letting them live there, and use the pool as well. I'm with Veho, he could have worded the sign way differently then just saying "White Only", your basically asking to get yelled at for it.

 

[smile72]

He's a landlord, the minute he chose to rent his land he has to abide by federal laws regarding discrimination. And Devante comparing non whites and drug addicts is horrid. I do believe you are a big dumb ole racist. I also believe you are one who doesn't know state or federal legislation. Nonetheless, you are wrong, as civil rights will affects others, as many civil rights laws were made to ban people from discriminating against others in the work place, or as tenants.

 

[Crimson Ghoul]

you don't have these kind of problems when you own your own home -_- stupid americans go crazy with their credit on frivolous things and never get their own place.

 

[Hells Malice]

Devante you're going to some impressive lengths to justify blatant racism.

It's commendable in a way, but I can't help but think you've got a set of white sheets you wear once a week to a special meeting.

 

[YayMii]

Your point is that there was a so called "civil-rights" movement in the 60's that basically said everyone is equal, regardless of color or sex.

Just want to step in here... an act ? a movement. An act is a law put in by congress, while a movement is a type of protest or campaign. Two completely different things.
You guys are misinterpreting each other or something. Neither of you are getting your point across to each other, and since I don't know as much about US law as you think you do, I can't really have a say in this.
But I think you comparing racism with denial of service to drug addicts is wrong, and I'm assuming that you're trying to defend the landlord's actions because you are also a racist person.

Also, since your laws are so different down in the US, I don't plan on living there anytime soon. Up here in Canada, we have something called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which (under section 15) gives everyone equality rights and legal protection from discrimination based on:

race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability

There are quite a few more examples I can give you on our law that makes it a somewhat more peaceful place. Sure, our legislation has its flaws, and government has made bad mistakes in the past. But from what I've seen, it's quite a bit better than the US nowadays IMO.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

And to the Gahars guy... I am way more aware of our country's history than you are. The "Civil Rights Act" is no more civil rights than the "Federal Reserve" is federal. You speak of it as if only 30 to 40 years ago is our country's history. Civil rights go way before that.

Way to completely sidestep around my point.

So first of all, how does that invalidate the provisions of the law (or the Supreme Court case that upheld it)?

Secondly, are you seriously trying to tell me that the 1960's and 1970's are somehow not a part of our history, and the fact that the fight for Civil Rights among different groups existed before then somehow invalidates anything that occurred during that time (like important, groundbreaking legislation)?

I'm so sorry for underestimating you; you're a far bigger dunce than I had imagined.

Yes, you really shouldn't underestimate anybody. Always be aware.

I didn't sidestep your point at all. I think you may have missed my point.
My point is that I comply with civil rights as America's forefathers intended it: believing what you want, practicing what you want.

Your point is that there was a so called "civil-rights" movement in the 60's that basically said everyone is equal, regardless of color or sex.

Two different points completely. Your point is ultimately (although I doubt you even know it) that everyone should be treated equally, my point is that everyone should be able to believe what they want.

To the guy who said that the landlord provided a public service, I disagree. If I buy a house, and decide to rent it, I should be able to decide who I want to live there.
If I see crackhead, drug addled maniacs applying, I should be able to say I don't want them to live there.
If I see good mannered people with no history of violence applying, I should be able to decide they are the ones I want living there comforted in the knowledge that they will most likely pay rent on time and not trash the place I put so much hard earned money and work into.

And furthermore, let's say I'm just a dumb ole racist whose only source of knowledge is from my racist parents, civil rights is about practicing what you want as long as it doesn't interfere with others. Who is to say that you or government dictates what I believe in? Next thing you know the government will force us to marry inter racially.

You guys seriously need to consider what the forefathers intended as civil rights.
Civil rights doesn't equal equality among people. Civil rights equals believing and practicing what you want as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else.

I'm going to ignore that you're comparing drug addicts to non-white folks.

It just seems funny that someone with (seemingly) a decent grasp on American history knows nothing about the Fair Housing Act.

 

[Foxi4]

All racism aside, Devante doesn't seem to be aware of a simple fact. The landlord is the owner of a given property, but that's about it.

The property in question is in the state of "lease". If law worked the way you're convinced it does, Devante, then by the same logic, the landlord could move in to any of his tenants houses - afterall, it is his property, no? No. The owner of a given property is bound by the contract of lease as much as the tenant is, and throughout the lease his only buisness within the area is sending handymen to fix issues reported by his tenants, as to keep the leased property in-shape, according to the contract.

It really is an exchange of goods - the owner of the property allows the tenant to use the property without supervision according to previously set terms. If said contract explicitly stated that the pool is for public use of all tenants then the owner can do jack as to who uses the pool and when unless such agreements were made previously.

It hasn't got anything to do with the government whatsoever - it was the owner who was in breach of contract, and in all factuality the woman could sue him for impeding access to facilities that she was eligable to use and in fact paid for mothly.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

All racism aside, Devante doesn't seem to be aware of a simple fact. The landlord is the owner of a given property, but that's about it.

The property in question is in the state of "lease". If law worked the way you're convinced it does, Devante, then by the same logic, the landlord could move in to any of his tenants houses - afterall, it is his property, no? No. The owner of a given property is bound by the contract of lease as much as the tenant is, and throughout the lease his only buisness within the area is sending handymen to fix issues reported by his tenants, as to keep the leased property in-shape, according to the contract.

It really is an exchange of goods - the owner of the property allows the tenant to use the property without supervision according to previously set terms. If said contract explicitly stated that the pool is for public use of all tenants then the owner can do jack as to who uses the pool and when unless such agreements were made previously.

It hasn't got anything to do with the government whatsoever - it was the owner who was in breach of contract, and in all factuality the woman could sue him for impeding access to facilities that she was eligable to use and in fact paid for mothly.

Even if it wasn't in contract. The US law still has her back.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00003631----000-.html

 

[Foxi4]

Even if it wasn't in contract. The US law still has her back.

http://www.law.corne...31----000-.html

I'm just trying to imagine a perfect situation with two people of undefined colour quarreling over a pool to explain it in more easily-understood terms for reasons that should seem obvious by now. That's why I'm excluding "colour" from the equation as to show why the claim is ludicrous to begin with.

It would be just as dumb if it was reffering to a white tenant.

To the guy who said that the landlord provided a public service, I disagree. If I buy a house, and decide to rent it, I should be able to decide who I want to live there.
If I see crackhead, drug addled maniacs applying, I should be able to say I don't want them to live there.
If I see good mannered people with no history of violence applying, I should be able to decide they are the ones I want living there comforted in the knowledge that they will most likely pay rent on time and not trash the place I put so much hard earned money and work into.

You have that authority. Nobody forced his hand when the contract of lease was signed. There are specific terms in each contract that allow eviction in case illegal activity is taking place in the rented house. You're just showing your lack of knowledge of law, and as the latin proverb says:

Ignorantia iuris nocet. Ignorantia legis non excusat.

 

[Thesolcity]

The pool should be closed.




....

 

[raulpica]

Before this thread gets into a huge mess (for now it's far too civil to be a discussion thread on the 'temp, I'm actually surprised! ), I'll close it here.