From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Legislating niceness (Was Re: Gays in the Military)
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:23:52 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Dec11.135536.27074@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
> In article <1992Dec10.144800.354@hsh.com> , paul@hsh.com writes:
>>>>There was an actual case (in California, I believe) where a woman refused
> to
>>>>rent her apartment to an unmarried couple because it went against her
>>>>religious beliefs.  They sued (what else?)  how would you rule in this
>>>>case?
>>> 
>>> That would depend on just what law, if any, the landlord broke when she
>>> denied the couple.  I don't believe there is any law which specifically
>>> prohibits discrimination based on marital or cohabitational status.  Don't
>>> ask for a ruling without providing adequate information.
>>
>>Too bad that you hadn't read about it.  I wish I had saved the clipping. 
> But 
>>I am certain that California law (and that of other states) prohibits 
>>discrimination based on "race, creed, religion, gender, MARITAL STATUS,..." 
>>and about six other bases.  C'mon, you California readers  can you bear 
>>this out?
> 
> OK, I think I have enough information to answer your first question.  I
> would rule in favor of the couple and against the landlord, based on the
> information given.  Under the law you cite, the landlord had no right to
> discriminate against the couple based on her personal religious convictions,
> when those convictions are in conflict with the laws of the state.  I so
> rule without regard to the fact that I personally agree with the law, as
> stated...

Suuure you do <g>.  

> You are free (even encouraged) to campaign for the repeal of laws you don't
> like.  Or if you feel are in conflict with your state of federal
> constitution, to have them overturned in court.  =That= is how the system
> works.  Not always perfectly, but it =does= work, and justice is =usually=
> server.
> 
> "But what about the landlord's rights," I hear you cry!  The landlord has a
> right to operate within the law, just like everybody else.  People should
> not engage in occupations that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

Since when did having religious beliefs become an occupational hazard for a
landlord?  Not until this lawsuit, it didn't.  I think you need more balance 
between the tenant's rights (anti-discrimination laws) with the landlord's
Constitutional rights -- specifically freedom of association on *their* 
property.  Yes, let's bring in property rights, since the state is co-opting 
them to some degree.

Let's leave religion out of it, and see if you feel the same way.  Would "the
state" be within its rights to pass laws that prohibit landlords from
"discriminating" against tenants that completely offend said landlord?  Do
you feel the state has the power to _force_ landlords to rent to everybody? 
How about a gang of Hell's Angels?  Charles Manson?  David Duke?  Where
would you draw the line, if any?  Or in other words, what rights DO you
accord to landlords -- if any? 

------

Paul Havemann, VP        HSH Associates          (201) 838-3330 | 1-800-UPDATES
Internet: paul@hsh.com   Compuserve: 70410,3507  America On-Line: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11556 talk.abortion:51914