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.

So? We have doctors refusing care based on their personal morals. How is this surprising?

You can reject an applicant for any reason you like...so long as you don't tell them why you really did.

BarkingUnicorn: "Morgan filed suit last week in Suffolk Superior Court, accusing Roberts of violating a state law that prohibits landlords from refusing to rent to veterans."

It's really sad that such a law was ever considered necessary.

It's sad that we have this law and yet discrimination on sexual preference isn't illegal nation wide.

Mensan: Thank a veteran for protecting your right to be a jerk.

It's sad that people over the age of 10 still believe that. Tell me exactly which country is likely to attempt to invade and overthrow the government anytime soon? The US military fights to defend the foreign policy interests of the United States government. That has jack shiat to do with your rights.

I do wish America would grow up and stop with the damn hero worship of the military.

The story never said she REFUSED to rent to him. He picked up an application, then she called him and basically said "You know, the people around here are really politically active, I don't think you would be happy here." Then he decided based on that to not actually turn in the rental application.

This doesn't really sound any different to me that if an elderly person wanted to rent an apartment and the landlord said "There are a TON of kids living around here that make a lot of noise, you may not like it here."

It's not refusing to rent, it's just warning the possible renter that the environment may not actually be to their liking.

Being in the military isn't like being a member of a race. People aren't born into the military. American soldiers all made a choice to join.

If we can't judge people based on their choices, what can we judge them on?

I love liberals like her who believe in diversity and tolerance for all.

TheShavingofOccam123: We're not a police state yet. As long as it is legal for her not to rent to the soldier, then let her do what her conscience tells her.

I don't see much outrage about landlords who gouge military families and all the other businesses who make it there business to separate military people from their pay.

That's the thing. It's not legal to deny him housing based on his military status.

TenJed_77: BradleyUffner: The story never said she REFUSED to rent to him. He picked up an application, then she called him and basically said "You know, the people around here are really politically active, I don't think you would be happy here." Then he decided based on that to not actually turn in the rental application.

This doesn't really sound any different to me that if an elderly person wanted to rent an apartment and the landlord said "There are a TON of kids living around here that make a lot of noise, you may not like it here."

It's not refusing to rent, it's just warning the possible renter that the environment may not actually be to their liking.

Finally, someone with reading comprehension skills. And seeing how it went unnoticed I thought I might bring it up again.


I'll third it. The landlady never refused to rent to him, she just gave him a heads up that it might be socially awkward for all involved if he chose to live there. And he apparently agreed by not actually applying. He was not spit on, figuratively or in any way imaginable. I hadn't realized the Guard issued such frilly, twisted panties.

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.

blahpers: I'm fairly certain that out of three dozen random Farkers asked you would end up with three dozen conflicting lists. Mine, for example, includes only half of yours and others that you would probably find appalling.

So, ultimately, where do you draw the line? When is it okay to discriminate? Certainly you do not believe "never".

Yeah, yeah, I know. This is "tl;dr". I put in headings. Read at your own risk. Don't biatch.

It is okay to discriminate when there is a legitimate reason to do so. In the case of a landlord selecting an applicant:

Ability to Pay Rent
*Employment: Is this person employed in a job where their income is secure (or reasonably secure)? For example, someone who works as a construction laborer is not securely employed and is likely to face long periods of seasonal unemployment.
*Income: Is the person's income enough to pay the rent without causing financial hardship in other areas? Most landlords I know use a 3x or 3.5x formula for that, depending on the cost of living in the area. (In other words, if the rent is $1,000, they insist that you earn $3,000 or $3,500 a month.)
*Credit History: I want to look at one thing regarding the ability to pay rent: How much debt is this person currently carrying? In other words, if they earn $3,500 a month (on my $1,000 rental home, as an example), but they have a $600 car payment and $400 a month in credit card debt, I'm not going to rent to them. They're overextended.

Worthiness as a Tenant
*Rental History: I want to see if they've had any evictions or any collections related to a previous rental. I will also call at least one or two references that they've listed from previous landlords to determine if they've had problems. Prior problems wouldn't automatically disqualify them, but I'd want to know what happened and why they had problems in the past. (For example, maybe the bad landlord reference was from their old college apartment that they shared with three other guys and they've had great rental history ever since.)
*Stability: Looking at their credit history, do they tend to be relatively stable? Do they live in the same place for awhile? Having a vacant rental property can be pricey, and finding a new tenant can be costly and a PITA. If their credit/employment history shows that they tend to be more nomadic, I'll pass them up in favor of someone with more stability.
*Sex Offenders: Here's how I (if I were a landlord) would look at the issue of criminal background. First off, if they're a registered sex offender and my property is in an area that they cannot LEGALLY live in (too close to a school, etc.), I have to inform them of that fact. If their PO finds out they're living there, they'll have to break the lease and I'll be looking for a new tenant again. Other sex offenses would depend on the neighborhood; if it's a neighborhood where there aren't a lot of kids around, then I wouldn't worry quite so much, especially if the offense was committed some time ago. But if you're a registered sex offender and a bunch of uptight moms in the neighborhood start to have problems with it, they may try to "run you out" of the neighborhood, which would leave my rental home vacant.
*Other criminal offenses would depend on the property, the neighborhood, and how I think it would affect the neighbors. A non-violent burglary committed six years ago with no further offenses since then? I don't really have a problem with renting to that person. A marijuana-related offense many years ago with nothing recent? No real problems UNLESS I get the impression from meeting you that you're still using (I do NOT want police busting down the door and causing property damage to try to arrest you for smoking weed!). But truth be told, if your offense was alcohol-related or related to a harder drug, I would require a lot more information before I rented to you. I would want to know if you had been through rehab, how long had you been sober, etc. I might even ask for a reference from your AA sponsor, your SA counselor, your PO, etc. Again, the issue with drug offenses is one about property damage. I don't want you punching a hole in the wall because you get drunk. I don't want the cops to be tossing smoke grenades through the window because some disgruntled ex-girlfriend tells the cops you're doing cocaine. Cops are NOT gentle on homes where suspected drug-dealers (or even users!) live.

Lifestyle Factors
Now here's where it gets tricky... The key issue here is, "How will this applicant's lifestyle affect whether they're able/willing/responsible enough to take good care of my property?" These are the issues where I would "chat" with the applicant informally and "get to know them". My over-riding concern is whether they seem like they'll take good care of the property. For example, I wouldn't rent to a "car guy" if the property didn't have a garage, because I know that the car guy is likely to do auto repairs in the driveway and/or take greasy engine parts inside (which could cause serious damage to the flooring). I don't think I would EVER rent to a group of young people (male OR female) like college students who are wanting to split a 3BR home (Of course, I would never purchase a 3BR rental property right next to a college because I specifically DON'T want to deal with that!). I also wouldn't rent to a group of two or three single military folks who are wanting to share a place, but I'd never tell them that was the reason - that has nothing to do with the military affiliation and more to do with the fact that I would kind of be expecting them to act more like those college kids than responsible adults. I would rent to a family with young children IF the children came along to do the walkthrough and were relatively well-behaved (and as a mother of many, I think I'm a pretty good judge of what is "normal" kid behavior and what would be destructive); I might ask a higher security deposit from a larger family, though. If the kids don't come to the walkthrough, I'm wanting to know why the kids are such a handful that they were left with a sitter (which is expensive). Again, I would never SAY that was the reason, though. To be honest, I wouldn't rent a large home to an elderly couple if they didn't appear to be in very good health; they would end up costing me an arm and a leg in repairs and maintenance because if they were physically unable to do some of the more basic maintenance tasks (like changing the air filter, relighting a pilot light in a water heater, etc.), they would be calling me constantly.

Bottom Line?
How does it affect me and my property? My goal as a landlord is to have the property well-maintained and to have the rent paid. That's it. A gay couple or a lesbian couple is no more likely to trash my house than a heterosexual couple. A black family or a Hispanic family is no less likely to pay the rent on time than a white family. Now a LARGE family may be more likely to do damage to the home than a smaller family, but that can be mitigated with a larger security deposit and making a few minor changes. (For example, I would actually remove miniblinds and tell the tenants that the blinds aren't part of the apartment. My own kids wreak havoc on miniblinds and any time we've ever lived in a rental house, the FIRST thing I do is put all the miniblinds in storage and replace them with my own curtains.) A military family may be more likely to get orders and to relocate, but IMO that's generally offset by the fact that a military FAMILY is less likely to do serious damage to the property (not as much of the "party" lifestyle) and the military paycheck and income is extremely stable, so that's kind of a wash in my book. But again, we get to the bottom line here. I would never refuse to rent to somebody because they had some sort of habit I didn't like UNLESS it was something that might negatively affect my property or my rent payment. I don't care if they want to set up a BDSM dungeon in the spare bedroom! As long as they don't damage the walls or ceilings with their modifications and they don't have loud swinger parties that get the cops called in on a regular basis.

/Sorry for the length
//My doctor put me on hydrocodone, which makes me VERY chatty

whitecorporatemaleoppressor: blahpers: whitecorporatemaleoppressor: Lorelle: So where are the conservatives defending this woman for running her business as she sees fit??

I think she SHOULD be able to rent to whomever she likes. But there appear to be laws in place preventing that. Repeal the anti-discrimination laws. No one should be forced to enter a contract.

Question for the liberals suddenly concerned about the free market: what if the applicant was a gay soldier? Would you still be arguing in favor of conscience?

Question for the conservatives suddenly concerned about discrimination: what if the applicant was Jane Fonda, or (for the pro-life folks) a doctor at an abortion clinic? Would you still be arguing in favor of a universal protected class?

I'm not concerned about discrimination. People should be allowed to discriminate for any reason. Conservatives will tend to like stories like this because liberal apologists end up arguing in favor of discrimination, seemingly oblivious to the hypocrisy.

There is no hypocrisy inherent in your false equivalency. Few sane people will intentionally argue against discrimination on any basis whatsoever. There are fundamental differences between sexual orientation and military status, not least of which is the element of choice, but also including the actual effects the status necessarily has on others. You don't get to choose whether to be homosexual, and even if you could, being homosexual has no inherent effect on anybody else, nor any moral or ethical ramifications that hold any water in the current context. Such a comparison is not only obtuse, it is lazy and difficult to take seriously.

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."

If she owns the building, I see no reason why she should be forced to rent an apartment to anyone if she doesn't want to, regardless of the reason why.

Also FTA

"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."

Good. Don't know why everyone is hating on the woman because she does not support a corrupt, oppressive, and murderous military-industrial complex.

phrawgh: She's fortunate to live in a country where others will fight to protect her right to be a pacifist.

I'm fortunate I live in a country where I don't have to serve to kill brown people because oil execs think it's profitable.

Lorelle: So where are the conservatives defending this woman for running her business as she sees fit??

I think she SHOULD be able to rent to whomever she likes. But there appear to be laws in place preventing that. Repeal the anti-discrimination laws. No one should be forced to enter a contract.

Question for the liberals suddenly concerned about the free market: what if the applicant was a gay soldier? Would you still be arguing in favor of conscience?

An awful lot of false equivalency going on here. Volunteer soldier--or even ex-soldier--is now just as protected a class as ethnicity or homosexuality? Where, exactly, is the line of demarcation beyond which it is okay to discriminate against someone? I assume that it exists, or else someone somewhere would be getting sued for not renting to a guy because he murdered a bus full of nuns and escaped prison.

He signed up to be a soldier. You are free to praise him for it, damn him for it, or anything in between. But it was his decision, and while it entitles him to benefits from the government he served, it does not entitle him to anything from private citizens beyond that which the law requires.

Besides, read the damn article. At this point, he doesn't even want to live there--who would? 95% of places would jump on the chance to rent to a veteran. He just wants to show up the dirty hippie and maybe get a payday out of it. I have no sympathy for him.

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.

The US still has a large class of veterans who were subject to a draft. Many did not, in fact, have a choice.

El Freak: Mensan: Thank a veteran for protecting your right to be a jerk.

It's sad that people over the age of 10 still believe that. Tell me exactly which country is likely to attempt to invade and overthrow the government anytime soon? The US military fights to defend the foreign policy interests of the United States government. That has jack shiat to do with your rights.

I do wish America would grow up and stop with the damn hero worship of the military.

Do you think that it might be possible that due to a strong military, there is very little likelihood of a foreign nation successfully invading the U.S.?

Do you think that it is possible that the reason why you currently have the right to say what ever the hell you feel like saying is because of soliders who risked and even lost their lives fighting for this nation?

The military is more than just a tool used to defend foreign policy. It is here to protect U.S. soil and it's citizens.

Could a nation attempt a military invasion of the U.S.? Yeah, it just wouldn't be successful, because of the military. Any naval attempt would result in the sinking of every enemy carrier and troop ship. A treaty of non-aggression with Mexico to allow troops to land in Mexico and march them into the U.S. through the U.S./Mexico boarder would be a bad move because then said invading military would have to deal with both the U.S. millitary and gun carrying Texans waiting for a reason to legally shoot foreigners.

El Freak: It's sad that people over the age of 10 still believe that. Tell me exactly which country is likely to attempt to invade and overthrow the government anytime soon? The US military fights to defend the foreign policy interests of the United States government. That has jack shiat to do with your rights.

I do wish America would grow up and stop with the damn hero worship of the military.

Do you think that would be true if we disbanded the military tomorrow?

I'm not arguing whether the recent wars have been justified. But if America suddenly disbanded our military TOMORROW, what do you think would happen?

As for the bolded? China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba. Now none of those countries are likely to attempt an invasion NOW, but if we suddenly decided to mothball all of our military equipment and laid off everyone who's ever served in uniform, any of those nations (and probably more than a few others) would be scrambling to see who could get here first.

El Freak: Mensan: Thank a veteran for protecting your right to be a jerk.

It's sad that people over the age of 10 still believe that. Tell me exactly which country is likely to attempt to invade and overthrow the government anytime soon? The US military fights to defend the foreign policy interests of the United States government. That has jack shiat to do with your rights.

I do wish America would grow up and stop with the damn hero worship of the military.

I dunno, I know a guy from work that served in Iraq, he's not even 30 yet, his hands are ruined from his service, and he's raising 2 kids (one of which isn't his) and doing a damn good job at work at the same time. I don't really care if he protected any one of my rights, I'm glad he's on my side, and he deserves much more respect than he gets. He's done more work in the past 10 years than most Americans will ever do in their life, and he holds no qualms about it.

david_gaithersburg: I wonder what this coonts fark handle is.

letrole

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.

NetOwl: 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.

So if a police officer who killed somebody who was threatening to kill others, or somebody like the Oklahoma mother who killed intruders to save her own life and that of her baby son, came to you for an apartment you would refuse them?

Thank a veteran for protecting your right to be a jerk.
Thank a police officer for protecting your dickish self from other scumbags.
And thank those who have had to act in self defense for reducing the number of scumbags so you stand out more.

phrawgh: She's fortunate to live in a country where others will fight to protect her right to be a pacifist.

And none of them are soldiers. Soldiers don't fight for her right to do ANYTHING. They fight to defend the interests of the United States government. That has jack shiat to do with fighting for anyone's rights.

The ACLU has done more for your rights than anybody currently wearing a uniform.

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.

I can't believe you had that thought, much less that you put it into writing. Some people have very strong issues with homosexuals and choose to live in an environment where they are not subject to reminders. Some people have very strong issues with non-whites and choose to live in an environment where they are not subject to reminders. Some people have very strong issues with non-Christians and choose to live in an environment where they are not subject to reminders.

Either you believe any discrimination is acceptable, or you are on the same level as any other bigot.

Great Justice: Being in the military isn't like being a member of a race. People aren't born into the military. American soldiers all made a choice to join.

If we can't judge people based on their choices, what can we judge them on?

In fairness, when this law was passed (please correct me if I'm wrong), it was at a time that a lot of Vietnam vets were returning from overseas to find that they were suffering from severe discrimination in housing & employment, and in many of those cases, the returning vets were draftees, not enlistees.

Regardless, the issue is one of public interest. No matter what the hippies might think, we NEED a military. Maybe we don't need to be in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But that's not the issue. The issue is that as a nation, we ALL benefit from us having a strong military. The current wars aren't the issue. The issue is that as a nation, we need a military.

But military service has historically been a very BAD idea. There's the issue of being asked to DIE for your country (which does happen from time to time), long separations from friends and family, substandard housing & living conditions, and a pay that - when adjusted for the hours actually worked - is not normally competitive with similar salaries in the civilian world. So since a draft is political suicide, we have to do things to encourage people to enlist. We offer some of the best (socialized) medical care in the military, along with subsidies on family programs like daycare, grocery shopping, and housing.

Then you have the issue of how the military members interact with the civilians. Like it or not, military members released into the civilian world are trained killers. Some of them suffer from traumatic brain injury and/or post-traumatic stress, in addition to other physical and mental disabilities that may or may NOT have been diagnosed and treated while on active duty. Do you really want to release a large group of combat veterans into a nation that may actively discriminate against them? There's a reason that we at least pay lip service to disabled combat veterans: Because from a public safety standpoint, you do NOT want to piss these guys off.

tl; dr version:
We can argue all day about whether this nation has a moral obligation to support those men and women who have sacrificed so much in service to this country, but I'll never convince you & you'll never convince me. The fact is that every program, law, regulation, department, and guideline we have for veterans is not only good for them but benefits this nation as a whole.

Great Janitor:
Saying this is no different than the quartering troops thing, then you could say that every time my dad (retired Air Force) fills out a rental application or checks into a hotel that he's violating that amendment because he's checking the vet status box on the rental application or using the vet discount rate (if said hotel has one). It's a retarded arguement.

And hey, guess what? Turns out the owners of a hotel or apartment are allowed to turn him away if they don't want his business. The third amendment doesn't say that it's unconstitutional to rent a room to a soldier, it says that they can't be forced to house a soldier against their will. Take a good look at that last part, it's kind of important.

NetOwl: 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.

Then we should have mandatory service like the European countries have.

Turn 18, do your two years.

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.

Always have a back-up plan if unwanted potential renters come a knockin'.

"I've already got somebody interested".
"I promised somebody I would wait until end of week."
"Sorry, You just missed it"
"I'm taking applications and will make a decision after additional credit checking or fact finding."
"I've got to get the place fumigated because of the last tenant's HIV-infected spiders"
"Whar birth certificate, whar?"

SpaceyCat: That tells me that maybe 20% of that article is true...

The thing this all hinges on is whether he's actually got her on voicemail saying it.

And apparently he has. And rather respond saying it's not true, she releases a 16 page "paper" explaining her POV, which he can turn around and use against her.

She's hosed.

Just because you think you occupy the moral high ground doesn't keep you from being perceived as an asshole.

FInd another place. It isn't wise to stay where you aren't welcome.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Don't we have an amendment specifically supporting this lady's decision? It's like, the 6th amendment: no room and board for redcoats, or some shiat. Semper Fi!

ok.. I'll bite.

Third Amendment, not Sixth, and not applicable because of him not being ordered by military command to take occupancy?

Hell, now that I think about it, if this is an actual law, she could use the oft-neglected 3rd Amendment right to not having to quarter troops in your home during peacetime as a defense!

She said that on a voicemail?

Oh, honey...

snuff3r: How is this any different from not wanting to rent your place to a rabid pack of uni students?

This is beyond the pale. Go fark yourself.

We're not a police state yet. As long as it is legal for her not to rent to the soldier, then let her do what her conscience tells her.

I don't see much outrage about landlords who gouge military families and all the other businesses who make it there business to separate military people from their pay.

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

ToxicMunkee: So? We have doctors refusing care based on their personal morals. How is this surprising?

No no now, that's the Christian thing to do.