Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Herald)   Pacifist landlady says renting to soldier presents conflict of interest. Lawsuit and front page newspaper outrage ensue   (bostonherald.com) divider line 346
    More: Misc, Suffolk Superior Court, conflict of interest, Dorchester, rentals  
•       •       •

8742 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jun 2012 at 12:31 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



346 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-05 03:11:52 AM  

insertsnarkyusername: Don't want to rent to someone for a reason that is against the law? Simple "I already have several people interested in this apartment that were here before you, I'll give you a call back if they drop out", "I'm trying out a new tenant on a month lease, give me a call then if you haven't found a place and I'll let you know if they worked out", etc.


Yes, but that doesn't allow for you to call up the person and let them know that you don't approve of who they are.
 
2012-06-05 03:14:03 AM  
I don't agree with her but this is America isn't it? Soldier isn't a protect class like race or sex. If she doesn't want to rent to soldiers it is her right as an American citizen.
 
2012-06-05 03:15:42 AM  

here to help: No... it's not like that. The guys coming home from Vietnam got spit in the face.


Another myth that refuses to die. There is NO evidence that any vets got spit on.
 
2012-06-05 03:16:00 AM  

blahpers: Barbecue Bob: Cyclometh: INTERTRON: From a purely objective point of view, this is really begging the question, isn't it?

Potentially (and props for properly using the phrase "begging the question", by the way), but I assumed the reasoning behind that statement would be stipulated by anyone likely to read it here. But to clarify, the world we live in is a violent one and there are nations, people and groups that would use violence against the United States to its complete destruction and/or subjugation were it not for the presence of a strong military.

I'm not sure there's a reasonable argument to be made to the contrary on that point. My issues with the military are not its existence, but its size and power, which are far greater than we need to protect ourselves and advance our interests internationally. It does create a temptation to treat every problem as the proverbial nail.

I agree an extremely powerful military is necessary. The application of that power is most of the issue with me.
That goes back to the decisions of the people the citizens, myself included, have voted in.
Personal responsibility being non-existant in the US, it's no wonder people just blame others and point fingers anymore.

What you are asking for is more than personal responsibility. Personal responsibility ends at the person. There is no way, other than by my vote and my words, that I could have affected our foreign policy. I voted, and I provided my words. They were insufficient. I refuse to be held "personally responsible" for the actions of those who were elected in spite of my voice and my vote by those who knew the criminal nature of the candidate in question and chose them anyway. Exactly what would you expect of me? Armed insurrection? And what of the personal responsibility of the soldier? They don't get a free pass on moral or ethical obligations just because they volunteered for military service. They are ultimately responsible for their own actions.


Great questions. Exactly the ongoing issue. What should we do now? What can we do? As individuals our voice is trampled. As a group our track record could be so much better than it is.
I don't have a solution but giving up is not a good option. Pointing fingers doesn't seem to be a working answer either.
Whoever comes up with a plans that don't fark people over, vote for them. Until then, pay attention and don't give up.
 
2012-06-05 03:17:31 AM  

imprimere: INTERTRON: imprimere: This question was posed to ther person stating their opinion about her not being forced to rent to someone who doesn't share her ideals. It was not a question of legality, but one of beliefs.

Would you please rank the following stated opinions in order of "least offensive to you" to "most offensive to you"? If you think two or more of them are equally offensive to you, then you can say that instead:

A. "I disagree with your choice to volunteer in the armed forces, so we probably won't get along."
B. "I disagree with your choice to be black, so we probably won't get along."
C. "I disagree with your choice to volunteer in the International Committee of the Red Cross, so we probably won't get along."

OK, so race and sex is out since it's not a choice, but religion, occupation, sexual preference, and altered sex would be OK with you?

The gist of my question was which bigotry was acceptable to that person.


Religion is a choice - So, I don't think "religious" or "secular" should be protected classes.
Occupation is a choice - So, I don't think "employed by X" or "not employed by X" should be protected classes.
Sexual preference is not a choice - So, I think that "sexually prefers X" or "doesn't sexually prefer X" should be protected classes.
Gender identity is not a choice - So, I think that "identifies as X" or "doesn't identify as X" should be protected classes.
 
2012-06-05 03:18:05 AM  

Cyclometh: here to help: Begoggle: Why does everyone have to run to the courts for this crap?
It's not like this is a major systematic problem.
Why would you want to give money to a person who dislikes you?
Tell her to fark off, and rent from one of the EVERY OTHER PLACES who don't have a problem renting to you.
Everyone deals with assholes every day. The proper action is to not do business with them, and get on with your life.
Not run to court & the media.
*waaaaaahhhh she descriminated against me cause I'm a soldier!* Grow up, pansy.

Also the guy is saying "it was like a spit in the face"!

No... it's not like that. The guys coming home from Vietnam got spit in the face.

This guy sounds like a spoiled brat.

No, they didn't. The "spit in the face" thing is a complete fabrication. To date not one verified/corroborated account of something like that happening has been brought to light.

Vietnam vets got treated badly in a ton of ways, but that was not one of them.


*sigh*

There were reports of individual vets getting spat upon by individual idiots when they got off the plane, usually alone, and generally if they were unfortunate enough to land in San Francisco. I had a book back in the 80's of veteran interviews, and some guys said they had in fact been spat upon.

There were just as many individual guys who said they had NOT been spit on when they got home, and were in fact treated honorably when they arrived; usually if they were with other soldiers and/or landed anywhere but a major city where a protest had been going on. The same book of interviews had as many stories like that as the other. (I cannot recall the book, it was in the 80's and I didn't save it)

I suspect that stories of "Vietnam veterans being spat upon" were isolated cases of individual soldiers encountering individual douchebags in situations where the vet had no support; but it was hardly a coordinated, deliberate effort. Just because YOU never saw any "corroborated stories" doesn't mean any of the rest of us never have. But it wasn't a routine event by any stretch of the imagination; just like there were never any "bra burnings' to speak of.
 
2012-06-05 03:19:45 AM  

Cyclometh: DrPainMD: Freedom of association is a basic human right, and you're not free if you don't have freedom of association. Wasn't he fighting for freedom? Stop being a douche and find somewhere else to live.

You can only make this argument if you adhere to it consistently. Would you make the same assertion if we were discussing a black man instead of a soldier? A Jew? A gay man?


Absolutely. That right is covered not only by freedom of association, but property rights as well. Oh, and, on a federal level, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the authority to pass anti-discrimination laws (well, unless the law prevents the government from discriminating... that's covered by the equal protection clause), so the Tenth Amendment precludes it, too.
 
2012-06-05 03:19:48 AM  

blahpers: DrPainMD: Mensan: Thank a veteran of the War of 1812 (that's the last time our national sovereignty was challenged) for protecting your right to be a jerk.
Thank a police officer for protecting your dickish self from other scumbags breaking your neck or turning you into a brain-dead cripple.

Let's be reasonable. Exactly what should have been done in response to Pearl Harbor? Apart from that, we had an obligation to our embattled allies, and Axis would certainly have attempted a full-scale invasion on the United States as soon as they felt it possible. (I wonder what would have happened to us had Japan not colossally blundered by making it essentially impossible for us to avoid entering the war proper.)


The US was going to enter the war for its own national interests, that was a given Pearl Harbor or no Pearl Harbor and the Japanese knew it. The action at Pearl Harbor was designed to leave Japan in a superior position in the beginning of the war, unfortunately for them they were unable to sink any American carriers in the region as they were out of port.
 
2012-06-05 03:21:37 AM  
I love these threads. They reconfirm for all that the hate, ignorance, bigotry, and intolerance of progressives has no competition. Why do liberals continue to associate with them?
 
2012-06-05 03:21:50 AM  

Gyrfalcon: There were reports of individual vets getting spat upon by individual idiots when they got off the plane, usually alone, and generally if they were unfortunate enough to land in San Francisco. I had a book back in the 80's of veteran interviews, and some guys said they had in fact been spat upon.

There were just as many individual guys who said they had NOT been spit on when they got home, and were in fact treated honorably when they arrived; usually if they were with other soldiers and/or landed anywhere but a major city where a protest had been going on. The same book of interviews had as many stories like that as the other. (I cannot recall the book, it was in the 80's and I didn't save it)

I suspect that stories of "Vietnam veterans being spat upon" were isolated cases of individual soldiers encountering individual douchebags in situations where the vet had no support; but it was hardly a coordinated, deliberate effort. Just because YOU never saw any "corroborated stories" doesn't mean any of the rest of us never have. But it wasn't a routine event by any stretch of the imagination; just like there were never any "bra burnings' to speak of.


By "corroborated" I meant something other than a story one guy told with no witnesses or other evidence. I cannot say for certain that no one was spat upon for being a Vietnam veteran. I can say for certain that I have yet to see a corroborated story that would meet the most basic standards for evidence. People make up stories all the time, and memory... it's a fuzzy thing. Memes existed long before the Internet gave them a rapid vector.
 
2012-06-05 03:22:40 AM  

DrPainMD: Cyclometh: DrPainMD: Freedom of association is a basic human right, and you're not free if you don't have freedom of association. Wasn't he fighting for freedom? Stop being a douche and find somewhere else to live.

You can only make this argument if you adhere to it consistently. Would you make the same assertion if we were discussing a black man instead of a soldier? A Jew? A gay man?

Absolutely. That right is covered not only by freedom of association, but property rights as well. Oh, and, on a federal level, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the authority to pass anti-discrimination laws (well, unless the law prevents the government from discriminating... that's covered by the equal protection clause), so the Tenth Amendment precludes it, too.


Except that the government and the courts disagree with you. So, there's that.
 
2012-06-05 03:22:44 AM  

Cyclometh: For what it's worth, my parents were hippies in California (and Texas, and Washington), but they instilled in me and my brothers an abiding respect for this country and our society. Despite what you might think or have been told, most "hippies" were quite aware of their life being enabled by sacrifices made by others. What they hoped for in most cases was that enough sacrifice had been made to enable a better culture with fewer violent sacrifices necessary.

SNIP

And for what it's worth, two of their three kids ended up in the military during a war, so... anecdotes may not be the singular form of data, but I can also say I know I'm not alone in being a combat vet who is a child of hippies that fully supports their vision.


I apologize if I was unclear. Obviously, I wasn't referring to you.

My point was in response to a previous poster who made the comment that he didn't understand why someone would join the military to "serve his country". I have definitely noticed that there is a distinct cultural difference in the way that the military (and national service in a more general sense) is viewed in different parts of the country. In some subcultures, military service is very common and even EXPECTED, whereas in others it is shunned and roundly criticized. One of the guys I went to basic training with came from NYC (this was pre-9/11), from one of the very, very liberal subcultures. There was NOBODY in his family that had been in the military since WWII. None of his friends had any family members who'd been veterans. His subculture was one that participate in anti-war protests and rallies, NOT one where military service was common. In fact, I remember him telling me that the hardest part of enlisting was that his family no longer talked to him. He had a girlfriend and a couple of friends back home that wrote him during basic, but his own mother told him the day he left, "I will always love you, but I will not support you in this." His parents and two of his three sisters refused to write him or accept his phone calls as long as he was in the military. Now his situation was a little extreme (I would think that most parents, regardless of their personal feelings, would support their child no matter what.), but the point is that a child who grows up in that type of subculture/family is going to have a very different view of military service than a child who grows up surrounded by military veterans and by those who promote & encourage military service.

As for the "hippies" remark... I apologize if that came across negatively. I was making a generalization that was unfair and (in at least some cases) inaccurate.
 
2012-06-05 03:23:08 AM  

TheJoe03: DrPainMD: Refusing to associate with someone is now a form of punishment?

She is refusing to sell him a house based on his background, which is bullshiat, what's wrong with you?


It's her property. She can do what she wants with it. He has no right to it and isn't being punished by anybody. What's wrong with you?
 
2012-06-05 03:24:42 AM  

david_gaithersburg: I love these threads. They reconfirm for all that the hate, ignorance, bigotry, and intolerance of progressives has no competition. Why do liberals continue to associate with them?


Don't make me mark you in douchebag blue and call you out the next time some batshiat rightwinger does something equally stupid and/or crazy.

Hey, I know- the WBC freakshow is going to my old high school this week. They're going to be right down the road. How about I go take some pictures and get them to sign one or two for ya? You know, because they're like, your friends and everything.

Why do you continue to associate with them, anyway? They're not really very nice people.
 
2012-06-05 03:25:32 AM  

Shahab: I don't agree with her but this is America isn't it? Soldier isn't a protect class like race or sex. If she doesn't want to rent to soldiers it is her right as an American citizen.


It is a class you can't discriminate against in renting. But the classes are so wide and varied you should never under any circumstances tell anyone that you don't want to rent to them and you certainly shouldn't tell them why.

Years ago I lived in a 4 bedroom house with 3 other guys in their early 20's, one of them was moving out and for some reason it fell to me to find someone because nobody else including the landlord could be bothered. We had one woman with 2 small children, one heavily christian man who insisted we adhere to his values, a 55 year old woman with a legal helper dog "for anxiety" that could not control it's bladder or bowels, an ex solider with severe PTSD and an 84 year old man try to apply because the rent was cheap and we were looking for someone right away. I lied my ass off until I found someone that fit the house, no problems.
 
2012-06-05 03:26:52 AM  

morgantx: I apologize if I was unclear. Obviously, I wasn't referring to you.


No apology necessary; I was only trying to clarify what I see as a fairly frequent misconception, is all. There were people at the other end of the spectrum as you pointed out (and not a very cool thing those folks did to their kid, either). The misconception I see a lot is that the majority were- that's not been my experience and I've been exposed to that culture for most of my life.
 
2012-06-05 03:28:39 AM  

cman: DrPainMD: Mensan: Thank a veteran of the War of 1812 (that's the last time our national sovereignty was challenged) for protecting your right to be a jerk.
Thank a police officer for protecting your dickish self from other scumbags breaking your neck or turning you into a brain-dead cripple.

Yeah! I mean, we ONLY invaded Afghanistan for their oil. It's not like a group of men were trained there, sent over here, and crashed planes into buildings. It's only about the oil!


What does that have to do with anything? If I went to Canada and committed murder, would Canada be justified in bombing the US into rubble? Oh, according to the 9/11 Commission report, they trained in Germany, England, and the US. Afghanistan doesn't have a modern air system to run simulations in.
 
2012-06-05 03:32:33 AM  

DrPainMD: If I went to Canada and committed murder, would Canada be justified in bombing the US into rubble?


If you went to Canada and committed mass murder of thousands via what would be an act of war if you were associated with a government, then fled to the US and hid there under its auspices and protection, while being in defiance of the clear will of the international community...

Then yeah, Canada would be totally justified in attacking the US. And would probably have a lot of allies.
 
2012-06-05 03:33:49 AM  

Barbecue Bob: Great questions. Exactly the ongoing issue. What should we do now? What can we do? As individuals our voice is trampled. As a group our track record could be so much better than it is.
I don't have a solution but giving up is not a good option. Pointing fingers doesn't seem to be a working answer either.
Whoever comes up with a plans that don't fark people over, vote for them. Until then, pay attention and don't give up.


Although it's not going to be popular, I would point out that there IS a solution, just probably not a palatable one. If your voice is not heard at the polls, then you can take it directly to the elected officials through lobbying, petitions, etc. If your voice is not heard there, you can protest. (Despite the Occupy movement's sometimes poor treatment in the mainstream media, there is some strong evidence that at least SOME changes are being implemented as a result of their influence.)

But frankly, here's the problem: We as a society seldom actually DO anything. We complain here on Fark, or we put together a Facebook page or write a blog or post YouTube videos. We complain about EVERYTHING, as long as we're able to complain about it from the safety and security of our mom's basement. We "raise awareness" and "inform the public", but so what? Do you think the powers-that-be care about your little blog? All of that is a useful step - it's like the "consciousness-raising" that the feminists did back in the 70's to try to build the movement. All of that is about getting your group LARGER so that you'll have a louder voice. But none of that actually gets your voice HEARD. To do that, you have to convince enough people not to get angry about the issue but to take ACTION, and that complacency is hard to break. You have to convince people to take to the streets, even if doing so means that they get laid off from work, arrested for "disorderly conduct", etc. Then you take that VERY large group of people and you stage your protest in a place and/or a way that the powers-that-be cannot ignore. There's a reason that protests occur on the Washington, D.C. Mall so frequently: It's visible, it's close to where the politicians and political insiders are, and if the protest is large enough, it gets some attention. And IN ADDITION to persuading your group to protest, you have to persuade them to put their money where their mouth is, because money talks. And then you can hire lobbyists, lawyers, and bribe politicians.

And if that STILL doesn't work? Armed insurrection. Frankly, despite our collective societal distaste for violence, we have to remember that this country was kind of INTENDED to blow up in a powder keg every once in awhile.

/Tree of liberty
//Blood of patriots
///Yada yada yada...
 
2012-06-05 03:34:34 AM  

Cyclometh: Gyrfalcon: There were reports of individual vets getting spat upon by individual idiots when they got off the plane, usually alone, and generally if they were unfortunate enough to land in San Francisco. I had a book back in the 80's of veteran interviews, and some guys said they had in fact been spat upon.

There were just as many individual guys who said they had NOT been spit on when they got home, and were in fact treated honorably when they arrived; usually if they were with other soldiers and/or landed anywhere but a major city where a protest had been going on. The same book of interviews had as many stories like that as the other. (I cannot recall the book, it was in the 80's and I didn't save it)

I suspect that stories of "Vietnam veterans being spat upon" were isolated cases of individual soldiers encountering individual douchebags in situations where the vet had no support; but it was hardly a coordinated, deliberate effort. Just because YOU never saw any "corroborated stories" doesn't mean any of the rest of us never have. But it wasn't a routine event by any stretch of the imagination; just like there were never any "bra burnings' to speak of.

By "corroborated" I meant something other than a story one guy told with no witnesses or other evidence. I cannot say for certain that no one was spat upon for being a Vietnam veteran. I can say for certain that I have yet to see a corroborated story that would meet the most basic standards for evidence. People make up stories all the time, and memory... it's a fuzzy thing. Memes existed long before the Internet gave them a rapid vector.


Well, true. It would never stand up in court. The stories I was referring to were recorded shortly after we left Vietnam, and so they were probably as accurate as can be expected. And obviously a story like that is unlikely to be witnessed in the way you describe. And if someone did witness such an inhuman act, who would want to corroborate it?

As an anthropologist, my suspicion, as I said, is that it did in fact happen to a few guys in some situations; the story then "got legs" as journalists used to say as pro-vet anti-war activists got ahold of it. Returning veterans were execrably treated in some locations, and some protestors were assholes; knowing people, it would not surprise me if some loser spit on some lone soldier in a busy airport terminal.

I CAN say, however, that the story was a big motivating factor in how our soldiers have been treated since Desert Storm, and the idea that our soldiers are nothing but heroes who deserve every honor. Maybe someday we'll land in the middle, but I doubt it.
 
2012-06-05 03:38:41 AM  

Cyclometh: DrPainMD: If I went to Canada and committed murder, would Canada be justified in bombing the US into rubble?

If you went to Canada and committed mass murder of thousands via what would be an act of war if you were associated with a government, then fled to the US and hid there under its auspices and protection, while being in defiance of the clear will of the international community...

Then yeah, Canada would be totally justified in attacking the US. And would probably have a lot of allies.


More than we did, I suspect.
 
2012-06-05 03:41:48 AM  

INTERTRON: imprimere: INTERTRON: imprimere: This question was posed to ther person stating their opinion about her not being forced to rent to someone who doesn't share her ideals. It was not a question of legality, but one of beliefs.

Would you please rank the following stated opinions in order of "least offensive to you" to "most offensive to you"? If you think two or more of them are equally offensive to you, then you can say that instead:

A. "I disagree with your choice to volunteer in the armed forces, so we probably won't get along."
B. "I disagree with your choice to be black, so we probably won't get along."
C. "I disagree with your choice to volunteer in the International Committee of the Red Cross, so we probably won't get along."

OK, so race and sex is out since it's not a choice, but religion, occupation, sexual preference, and altered sex would be OK with you?

The gist of my question was which bigotry was acceptable to that person.

Religion is a choice - So, I don't think "religious" or "secular" should be protected classes.
Occupation is a choice - So, I don't think "employed by X" or "not employed by X" should be protected classes.
Sexual preference is not a choice - So, I think that "sexually prefers X" or "doesn't sexually prefer X" should be protected classes.
Gender identity is not a choice - So, I think that "identifies as X" or "doesn't identify as X" should be protected classes.


Who you are attracted to is not a choice, but who you sleep with IS a choice. So, I guess you can throw that one out since there are plenty of people who don't agree with that particular choice.

Which gender you identify with is not a choice, but dressing in a contrary manner to your assigned parts or changing those parts IS a choice. Again, there are plenty of people who don't agree with that particular choice either.

Discrimination and bigotry can take many forms, so where do you draw the line? Apparently, enough people thought that military service was worthy of a line.

Also, I believe that creed is a protected class and that's fairly open to interpretation.
 
2012-06-05 03:49:37 AM  

DrPainMD: It's her property. She can do what she wants with it. He has no right to it and isn't being punished by anybody. What's wrong with you?


You're a dick.
 
2012-06-05 03:59:14 AM  

blahpers: DrPainMD: Mensan: Thank a veteran of the War of 1812 (that's the last time our national sovereignty was challenged) for protecting your right to be a jerk.
Thank a police officer for protecting your dickish self from other scumbags breaking your neck or turning you into a brain-dead cripple.

Let's be reasonable. Exactly what should have been done in response to Pearl Harbor? Apart from that, we had an obligation to our embattled allies, and Axis would certainly have attempted a full-scale invasion on the United States as soon as they felt it possible. (I wonder what would have happened to us had Japan not colossally blundered by making it essentially impossible for us to avoid entering the war proper.)


Pearl Harbor was not the start of our involvement in WW2, either in the Atlantic or the Pacific. And neither Japan nor Germany could have mounted an attack on the US; they didn't have the supply line capability (hell... Germany couldn't even get across the English Channel). By our own standards, Japan and Germany had legitimate reasons to go to war with us. Also, we sided with Stalin, the Chinese communists, and the British Empire... there really weren't any "good guys" to side with.
 
2012-06-05 04:02:57 AM  

AbbeySomeone: ecmoRandomNumbers: MBK: What a farking biatch.

Why? For stating the feelings of the collective building? Some people have very strong issues with the war and choose to live in an environment where they are not subjected to reminders.
Landlady should have never admitted the reason although it is valid.



AbbeySomeone: A better idea is to let him move into a building where he is hated for his service, right?


So I'm starting the browse the thread and I'm thinking, Wow, I wonder if somebody will troll this one, because, well, the usual trolls tend to press more of a hard-ass curmudgeon theme.

And then I read the above. It would have been a sweet troll except now I'm up against Poe's law and the author in question is just increasing the RPM the Poe's law dilemma.
 
2012-06-05 04:03:23 AM  

Cyclometh: DrPainMD: If I went to Canada and committed murder, would Canada be justified in bombing the US into rubble?

If you went to Canada and committed mass murder of thousands via what would be an act of war if you were associated with a government, then fled to the US and hid there under its auspices and protection, while being in defiance of the clear will of the international community...

Then yeah, Canada would be totally justified in attacking the US. And would probably have a lot of allies.


There's no evidence that the 9/11 attackers were associated with a government (well, except for Saudi Arabia... plenty of links to the royal family). And they didn't flee anywhere; they died.
 
2012-06-05 04:06:03 AM  

TheJoe03: DrPainMD: It's her property. She can do what she wants with it. He has no right to it and isn't being punished by anybody. What's wrong with you?

You're a dick.


I'll be over tomorrow to crash on your couch for a couple of months. You can't stop me... I have RIGHTS!!!
 
2012-06-05 04:07:51 AM  
her house her rules. Fark the soldat! Who da fark wants to be were not wanted? Only a masochist and or drama queen.
 
2012-06-05 04:08:06 AM  
Landlady was a douche, but were are all the libertarian conservatives who should be jumping to defend her right to rent to anyone she wants to? Personally I think it should be up to her, and that she was stupid for mentioning his service as a factor.

Even stupider might be the comment from the guy's lawyer saying it was "illegal AND unconstitutional." I don't remember the renter's rights passages in the Constitution.
 
2012-06-05 04:09:11 AM  
I'm upset that the Papa Johns Pizza delivery guy refused to deliver to me after I didn't place an order. I need to sue.

I mean, he left me a note saying that I had the wrong address on my online delivery template and it could cause confusion, so I felt ashamed and didn't order.

Yeah, this is 100% attention whoring and soldier worshippers are comming out of the woodwork to defend an attention whore with a "But but but he could have been". He wasn't. Period. Thanks internet, you're fantastic as always. Also, interesting random commentary on international politics that notes military rules all, and Luxembourg apparently disagrees or something. Fark scares me more and more.
 
2012-06-05 04:14:47 AM  

DrPainMD: Cyclometh: DrPainMD: If I went to Canada and committed murder, would Canada be justified in bombing the US into rubble?

If you went to Canada and committed mass murder of thousands via what would be an act of war if you were associated with a government, then fled to the US and hid there under its auspices and protection, while being in defiance of the clear will of the international community...

Then yeah, Canada would be totally justified in attacking the US. And would probably have a lot of allies.

There's no evidence that the 9/11 attackers were associated with a government (well, except for Saudi Arabia... plenty of links to the royal family). And they didn't flee anywhere; they died.


Let me break this down so ou can understand it:

We asked the Taliban government to turn over Osama bin Laden s he could be tried to mass murder. The Taliban said no. So, we went into the country to look for him ourselves.
 
2012-06-05 04:15:28 AM  

ameeriklane: Not a lot of landlords in this thread it appears.

TFA said she had 30 applications. The easiest (read: avoid lawsuits) way to decide is to accept the first application that passes the credit check and has adequate financial means to pay the rent. That's the only factor you can use when deciding if a tenant is suitable. It's not like hiring for a job where you go through each application and choose the applicant you like the most.

The complication in this case is the guy didn't actually put in an application. However, her voicemail documents that she was discouraging him from applying at all, so maybe there's still a decent case there.


(IANAL) Doubtful. No application means she couldn't have rented the appartment to him in the first place, so discrimination is out. So at the end it boils down to the voicemail, and is a pure free speech issue. I don't see her words as being so bad (no threat, no fighting words, not much actually) to override a first amendment defense.

And in any case, if the article is correct he's suing under the wrong statute. There just can't be a renting discrimination without a renting application. The suit is going to be tossed so fast it's going to be funny. Could make a funnny Judge whatever sequence, a short one though.

OG.
 
2012-06-05 04:23:58 AM  

galibert: The suit is going to be tossed so fast it's going to be funny.


It's already done it's job.

Mission accomplished.
 
2012-06-05 04:30:30 AM  

galibert: ameeriklane: Not a lot of landlords in this thread it appears.

TFA said she had 30 applications. The easiest (read: avoid lawsuits) way to decide is to accept the first application that passes the credit check and has adequate financial means to pay the rent. That's the only factor you can use when deciding if a tenant is suitable. It's not like hiring for a job where you go through each application and choose the applicant you like the most.

The complication in this case is the guy didn't actually put in an application. However, her voicemail documents that she was discouraging him from applying at all, so maybe there's still a decent case there.

(IANAL) Doubtful. No application means she couldn't have rented the appartment to him in the first place, so discrimination is out. So at the end it boils down to the voicemail, and is a pure free speech issue. I don't see her words as being so bad (no threat, no fighting words, not much actually) to override a first amendment defense.

And in any case, if the article is correct he's suing under the wrong statute. There just can't be a renting discrimination without a renting application. The suit is going to be tossed so fast it's going to be funny. Could make a funnny Judge whatever sequence, a short one though.

OG.


So, a man wearing a scarf on his head comes into my restaurant with his burqa-wearing wife and asks for an application. I give him one, but I tell him that he doesn't really want to work here because I and my staff don't agree with what his people stand for. He decides I'm a dick and doesn't hand in the application. Was there discrimination?
 
2012-06-05 04:34:06 AM  
It's her place. I don;t see why she can' deny to rent HER property for any reason she seems necessary. That said, troop worship in this country is retarded.
 
2012-06-05 04:41:09 AM  
Demanding that a pacifist rent to a soldier is like demanding that a catholic church rent property to an abortion clinic.

Opposition to war is a perfectly valid position. Opposition to armed force is a perfectly valid position. Opposition to those who choose to kill for money is a perfectly valid position.
 
2012-06-05 04:44:02 AM  

snuff3r: How is this any different from not wanting to rent your place to a rabid pack of uni students? Or Junkies? Or Soldiers from other countries? Or people with kids? It's her property, she gets to decide who rents it. A stupid reason, mind, but it's still her property.


I, too, relish the right to not rent to darkies, chinks, wops, broads and slopes. It's my property.

Are you farking retarded?
 
2012-06-05 04:46:58 AM  

cman: DrPainMD: Cyclometh: DrPainMD: If I went to Canada and committed murder, would Canada be justified in bombing the US into rubble?

If you went to Canada and committed mass murder of thousands via what would be an act of war if you were associated with a government, then fled to the US and hid there under its auspices and protection, while being in defiance of the clear will of the international community...

Then yeah, Canada would be totally justified in attacking the US. And would probably have a lot of allies.

There's no evidence that the 9/11 attackers were associated with a government (well, except for Saudi Arabia... plenty of links to the royal family). And they didn't flee anywhere; they died.

Let me break this down so ou can understand it:

We asked the Taliban government to turn over Osama bin Laden s he could be tried to mass murder. The Taliban said no. So, we went into the country to look for him ourselves.


Wrong. The Taliban offered to capture Bin Laden and hand him over to Saudi Arabia to stand trial (there were multiple offers, from several countries, going back to when Clinton was in office. All were turned down). We then bombed Afghanistan and the offer was rescinded. According to Bush's official, hand-picked biographer, Bush planned on invading both Afghanistan and Iraq even before the election. According to Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Bush, during his first NSC meeting (7 months before 9/11), told the council to prepare for war. The two wars had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 9/11.
 
2012-06-05 04:47:01 AM  
Crazy lady. Who wouldn't want a hero living on your property?
 
2012-06-05 05:00:04 AM  

DrPainMD: cman: DrPainMD: Cyclometh: DrPainMD: If I went to Canada and committed murder, would Canada be justified in bombing the US into rubble?

If you went to Canada and committed mass murder of thousands via what would be an act of war if you were associated with a government, then fled to the US and hid there under its auspices and protection, while being in defiance of the clear will of the international community...

Then yeah, Canada would be totally justified in attacking the US. And would probably have a lot of allies.

There's no evidence that the 9/11 attackers were associated with a government (well, except for Saudi Arabia... plenty of links to the royal family). And they didn't flee anywhere; they died.

Let me break this down so ou can understand it:

We asked the Taliban government to turn over Osama bin Laden s he could be tried to mass murder. The Taliban said no. So, we went into the country to look for him ourselves.

Wrong. The Taliban offered to capture Bin Laden and hand him over to Saudi Arabia to stand trial (there were multiple offers, from several countries, going back to when Clinton was in office. All were turned down). We then bombed Afghanistan and the offer was rescinded. According to Bush's official, hand-picked biographer, Bush planned on invading both Afghanistan and Iraq even before the election. According to Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Bush, during his first NSC meeting (7 months before 9/11), told the council to prepare for war. The two wars had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 9/11.


1. Bin laden family is rich and powerful. You think political corruption here is bad? Its MUCH worse in Saudi Arabia. Either the family will bribe the judge to set him free, or the king will tell the judge to find him guilty, either way he cold never get a fair trial

2. Biter ex employee. His statements have no other backers to his claims. Until you can find me a Bush official who would back his statements up (and there are MANY pissed ex Bush admin officials), then it. Should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
2012-06-05 05:36:35 AM  

cman: DrPainMD: cman: DrPainMD: Cyclometh: DrPainMD: If I went to Canada and committed murder, would Canada be justified in bombing the US into rubble?

If you went to Canada and committed mass murder of thousands via what would be an act of war if you were associated with a government, then fled to the US and hid there under its auspices and protection, while being in defiance of the clear will of the international community...

Then yeah, Canada would be totally justified in attacking the US. And would probably have a lot of allies.

There's no evidence that the 9/11 attackers were associated with a government (well, except for Saudi Arabia... plenty of links to the royal family). And they didn't flee anywhere; they died.

Let me break this down so ou can understand it:

We asked the Taliban government to turn over Osama bin Laden s he could be tried to mass murder. The Taliban said no. So, we went into the country to look for him ourselves.

Wrong. The Taliban offered to capture Bin Laden and hand him over to Saudi Arabia to stand trial (there were multiple offers, from several countries, going back to when Clinton was in office. All were turned down). We then bombed Afghanistan and the offer was rescinded. According to Bush's official, hand-picked biographer, Bush planned on invading both Afghanistan and Iraq even before the election. According to Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Bush, during his first NSC meeting (7 months before 9/11), told the council to prepare for war. The two wars had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 9/11.

1. Bin laden family is rich and powerful. You think political corruption here is bad? Its MUCH worse in Saudi Arabia. Either the family will bribe the judge to set him free, or the king will tell the judge to find him guilty, either way he cold never get a fair trial

2. Biter ex employee. His statements have no other backers to his claims. Until you can find me a Bush official who would back his statements up (and there are MANY pissed ex Bush ...


1. That's the law they had to follow. If a country requested we extradite someone without following US law, we would refuse.

2. [CITATION NEEDED] That's all you've got? Character assassination? Find ONE person from the Bush administration who backs YOUR statement. You won't find one. Paul O'Neill had the reputation of being the most honest guy in D.C. That's what got him fired. You obviously know nothing about the man, and just made up the "disgruntled employee" crap 'cuz you got nothing. And Bush's biographer isn't a disgruntled ex-employee.
 
2012-06-05 05:39:46 AM  

TheJoe03: DrPainMD: Refusing to associate with someone is now a form of punishment?

She is refusing to sell him a house based on his background, which is bullshiat, what's wrong with you?


He never even completed the application.
 
2012-06-05 05:51:34 AM  

NetOwl: jaylectricity: "For her to do that to me, it was like a spit in the face," Morgan said. "For what we have gone through overseas, to come home to our country and have people ... discriminate against us. ... It made me extremely insecure about being a soldier."

You chose to go through that, and you were probably lied to about why you were there. You're not a protected class. Protected classes are protected because they have no choice to be who they are.

She looks at you as one of those people that would be OK with killing another human for money.

Soldiers tend to be that, yes.

An apartment complex is one thing, but I would never consider renting out a room in my house to a soldier or to anyone else who has killed someone. Even if the soldiers didn't start the war, they still (all of them!) said that they'd be just peachy wih getting paid to shoot people.


You're not too bright are you? I'd do it for free, circumstances depending, if I could but - trust me - you can't pay the rent and take care of your obligations with idealism. Perhaps you're mistaken but I'm going to wager that you're just stupid.
 
2012-06-05 05:55:48 AM  

DrPainMD: cman: DrPainMD: cman: DrPainMD: Cyclometh: DrPainMD: If I went to Canada and committed murder, would Canada be justified in bombing the US into rubble?

If you went to Canada and committed mass murder of thousands via what would be an act of war if you were associated with a government, then fled to the US and hid there under its auspices and protection, while being in defiance of the clear will of the international community...

Then yeah, Canada would be totally justified in attacking the US. And would probably have a lot of allies.

There's no evidence that the 9/11 attackers were associated with a government (well, except for Saudi Arabia... plenty of links to the royal family). And they didn't flee anywhere; they died.

Let me break this down so ou can understand it:

We asked the Taliban government to turn over Osama bin Laden s he could be tried to mass murder. The Taliban said no. So, we went into the country to look for him ourselves.

Wrong. The Taliban offered to capture Bin Laden and hand him over to Saudi Arabia to stand trial (there were multiple offers, from several countries, going back to when Clinton was in office. All were turned down). We then bombed Afghanistan and the offer was rescinded. According to Bush's official, hand-picked biographer, Bush planned on invading both Afghanistan and Iraq even before the election. According to Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Bush, during his first NSC meeting (7 months before 9/11), told the council to prepare for war. The two wars had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 9/11.

1. Bin laden family is rich and powerful. You think political corruption here is bad? Its MUCH worse in Saudi Arabia. Either the family will bribe the judge to set him free, or the king will tell the judge to find him guilty, either way he cold never get a fair trial

2. Biter ex employee. His statements have no other backers to his claims. Until you can find me a Bush official who would back his statements up (and there are MANY pissed ex ...


Whatever, dude. Either you are a truther, or you are a man who hates Bush soooooo much that you will fit whatever piece of evidence to suit your hatred
 
2012-06-05 06:05:36 AM  
So where are all the people saying: private business, her call ?
 
2012-06-05 06:05:43 AM  

FloydA:
2: The Guardsman is not the person who started the war, so you're punishing the wrong person.


Bullshiat.

Last time I checked military service was voluntary in the USA and the war started long before most of today's active servicemen signed up for it (they were probably in grade school when 9/11 happened).
 
2012-06-05 06:12:05 AM  

Xanlexian: Crazy lady. Who wouldn't want a hero living on your property?


Military service is laudable but it doesn't automatically convey sainthood. He never actually applied, but let's say he did and he had poor credit compared to other applicants. Would she still be vilified for not renting to this guy?
 
2012-06-05 06:49:28 AM  
As long as we can still discriminate against truthers and trustfund hippies I'm OK with this.
 
2012-06-05 06:50:00 AM  
I thought we were protected from having to lodge soldiers!

Seriously, though. D-bag on d-bag action in this story.
 
2012-06-05 06:55:35 AM  
I wonder if she's really a pacifist, or just on the other side. You see a lot of those sorts of 'pacifists' these days. Also, if you want to see a pacifist turn violent, just counter-protest whatever commie get together they're having. You'll see how much they really value peace & non-violence.
 
Displayed 50 of 346 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report