Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Racism alleged against landlord
LJWorld.com ^ | May 12, 2005 | Eric Weslander

Posted on 05/12/2005 8:06:21 AM PDT by MikeJ75

They say it was racial discrimination. She says it was the Lord telling her not to rent to fornicators.

Closing arguments are expected this morning in a civil-rights trial involving a Lawrence couple, Adrianne Morales and Wayne Jackson, who say they were turned down for an apartment in 2002 because she's Hispanic and he's black. But the apartment manager, Lynne Sander, says she rejected them because God recently had told her she shouldn't rent to unmarried couples.

"I am following God's law," Sander told jurors on Wednesday. "I did not discriminate against them. For my morals and my integrity, I did what was in my heart."

Jackson and Morales are each asking for $10,000 in damages for humiliation and embarrassment, plus about $3,000 in damages for increased rent they paid at a different apartment.

On Morales' first visit in February 2002 to Villa 26 Townhomes, 2109 W. 26th St., the management was friendly and engaging, Morales said. But she alleges the picture changed when she showed up again with Jackson.

Jackson testified that Sander was distant and cold to him throughout the visit.

"It was the way I was treated as a whole during the whole time we were there," Jackson said. "She didn't acknowledge that I was there."

The next month the couple learned they'd been denied.

First-time case

The case was investigated by the city's Human Relations and Human Resources department in 2002, which found probable cause there was racial discrimination. Instead of settling the case, owner Rex Youngquist took the almost unheard-of step of asking for a trial in District Court.

"I don't have a bit of blood in me that discriminates against anyone," said Youngquist, who is Sander's father.

The director of the city's Human Relations and Human Resources department, Rehelio Samuel, testified it's the first housing-discrimination trial in District Court he's seen in 33 years on the job. All the others are handled out of court, he said.

Technically, the city is suing Youngquist, his daughter Gail Youngquist, who was a co-owner, and Sander on behalf of Morales and Jackson.

Samuel testified it was legal to not rent to unmarried couples, as long as it's done consistently.

But Bruce Plenk, a private attorney hired by the city, pointed out that Sander allowed other unmarried white couples to stay in the apartments, and one unmarried white couple was allowed to rent after Morales and Jackson were turned down.

Sander said the reason she didn't speak to Jackson during the visit was that she was having a religious experience.

"I was so much in prayer I just couldn't answer them," she said.

Tumbling down

She said that at the time she was so concerned about renting to unmarried couples that she would drive around the complex again and again, pretending it was the biblical city of Jericho -- and believing that the walls might figuratively come tumbling down.

"I earnestly believed that God would help me and just send me the people that he wanted," she said.

Witnesses on Wednesday included Sander's pastor, Leo Barbee of Victory Bible Church. Barbee, who is black, said he'd never seen Sander act in a racist manner. He said he believed she made the right choice.

"To live together, whether we want to admit it or not, is wrong," he said. "It's fornication."


TOPICS: US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: antitheist; extortion; freedomofconscience; freedomofcontract; lawsuit; propertyrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

1 posted on 05/12/2005 8:06:21 AM PDT by MikeJ75
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: MikeJ75

Ah, if she knowingly rented to an unmarried couple AFTER her "religious experience" with these two, her case is pretty weak.


3 posted on 05/12/2005 8:08:10 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeJ75

"But Bruce Plenk, a private attorney hired by the city, pointed out that Sander allowed other unmarried white couples to stay in the apartments, and one unmarried white couple was allowed to rent after Morales and Jackson were turned down."

If true, I'd say it somewhat hurts her case


4 posted on 05/12/2005 8:09:07 AM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeJ75
Jackson and Morales are each asking for $10,000 in damages for humiliation and embarrassment, plus about $3,000 in damages for increased rent they paid at a different apartment.

Paleeeeeeeezzzzzzzeeeeeeeeeeeeee

5 posted on 05/12/2005 8:10:07 AM PDT by rockabyebaby (If you're not part of the solution, YOU ARE the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeJ75

I don't care if it was racial discrimination.  It's her freakin' house and she can rent it to whoever the hell she wants to.

Owl_Eagle

(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,

 it was probably sarcasm)

6 posted on 05/12/2005 8:10:42 AM PDT by End Times Sentinel (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

If she does not accept government subsides then government should but out.


7 posted on 05/12/2005 8:13:44 AM PDT by One Proud Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ironfang

She won't win, she's in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act.... You cannot discriminate based on the "marital or familial status". Which I think is crazy, but denying to rent to folks who are not married to one another, is a federal crime.... Even though it should not be.


8 posted on 05/12/2005 8:13:52 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: republicofdavis

If its true, and she knew about it, she's cooked.. of course she's cooked anyway... you cannot by law deny an unwed couple from renting your property. This should not be illegal (denying them to rent) but thanks to the 60s activist crap... it is.


9 posted on 05/12/2005 8:15:24 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MikeJ75
The director of the city's Human Relations and Human Resources department, Rehelio Samuel, testified it's the first housing-discrimination trial in District Court he's seen in 33 years on the job. All the others are handled out of court, he said.

So finally someone stands up to leeches! This alone is cause for celebration.

10 posted on 05/12/2005 8:15:45 AM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
I agree. Why does the government have to get involved in every aspect of citizens' lives? How is it the business of government to tell a property owner who they have to rent to? Can the government force landlords to accept children, pets, criminals? Private property rights are a joke.
11 posted on 05/12/2005 8:16:36 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MikeJ75
Sander said the reason she didn't speak to Jackson during the visit was that she was having a religious experience.

"I was so much in prayer I just couldn't answer them," she said.

Female orgasm??????

12 posted on 05/12/2005 8:17:14 AM PDT by SavageRepublican (TOP FUEL ROCKS!!!!! See you in Topeka, Memorial Day weekend!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeJ75
Samuel testified it was legal to not rent to unmarried couples, as long as it's done consistently.

But Bruce Plenk, a private attorney hired by the city, pointed out that Sander allowed other unmarried white couples to stay in the apartments, and one unmarried white couple was allowed to rent after Morales and Jackson were turned down.

And this will be the decision basis. I am a bible quoting, church going active Christian as well as a Landlord and although this lady's pastor came to her support and he's black, the above 'facts' speak against her winning this case.

Sounds like discrimination to me, if the private attorney's "facts" are correct. (attorney & facts have an odd ring to me in the same sentence! ;-)

13 posted on 05/12/2005 8:20:41 AM PDT by AgThorn (Bush is my president, but he needs to protect our borders. FIRST, before any talk of "Amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeJ75
But Bruce Plenk, a private attorney hired by the city, pointed out that Sander allowed other unmarried white couples to stay in the apartments, and one unmarried white couple was allowed to rent after Morales and Jackson were turned down.

Sadly, there are racist amongst us and this landlord sounds like one of them.

14 posted on 05/12/2005 8:21:44 AM PDT by flutters (God Bless The USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
She won't win, she's in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act.... You cannot discriminate based on the "marital or familial status". Which I think is crazy, but denying to rent to folks who are not married to one another, is a federal crime.... Even though it should not be.

According to this article, you can, as long as you are 'consistent' - apparently this lady was not, so she will loose based on discrimination.

15 posted on 05/12/2005 8:22:49 AM PDT by AgThorn (Bush is my president, but he needs to protect our borders. FIRST, before any talk of "Amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
You cannot discriminate based on the "marital or familial status."

Of course. Liberals have ensured that when it comes to the right to think and believe what you please, it doesn't much matter if it is in conflict with the right of everyone else to fornicate with abandon.

You see, in Liberal Land screwing is, in fact, more important than having any idea of right and wrong.

16 posted on 05/12/2005 8:26:45 AM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: flutters

I'd err on the side of the landlord. I have been the "victim" of racial discrimination (even by members of the police), but I've never sued anyone for it. As for the claim that the landlord allowed people to stay, well, that is non-sequitor. It is one thing to deny to rent and quite another to break a contract. As for the "unmarried white couple allowed to rent", I'd like to see the evidence before I declare anyone a racist.


17 posted on 05/12/2005 8:29:04 AM PDT by yevgenie (8 bits in a byte; 2 bits to a quarter ($.25) ==> so, 8 bits is a dollar ???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
She won't win, she's in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act.... You cannot discriminate based on the "marital or familial status". Which I think is crazy, but denying to rent to folks who are not married to one another, is a federal crime.... Even though it should not be.

I know the federal law applies to discrimination based on marital and family status, but I thought it didn't mean exactly that. I thought it meant, for example, you could not discriminate against families with children or against single mothers.

The article says a landlord can discriminate against unmarried couples so long as it is done consistently. You can't discriminate against umarried interracial couples while allowing same race unmarried couples.

I'll try to find a good article about the marital and family status provisions of the federal law. If I find one, I'll post a link here, unless one of you beats me to it.

Some states, of course, have their own laws that are more restrictive than the federal law, but I doubt Kentucky is one of those states.

18 posted on 05/12/2005 8:31:14 AM PDT by MikeJ75 (Get the Big Spenders out of government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn

The 1988 Fair Housing Act clearly states that you may NOT discriminate on the basis of marital status. Now there have been statutory rulings in various places that have said its OK for landlords to refuse to rent to unmarried couples in spite of the 1988 law.. but the law is indeed on the books.

This landlord might get lucky and get a ruling from a judge that says she may indeed consider marital status when picking tenants. However, the reality is is that the Federal 1988 law needs to be modified, it should not be illegal for a landlord to be forced to accept immoral behaviors in his or her properties.

Now based on the evidence of this case, where she did indeed continue to rent to unwed couples.. frankly, her arguments are pretty flimbsy.


19 posted on 05/12/2005 8:38:22 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MikeJ75

As a landlord about the only people I can discriminate against are smokers and pet owners.

Iowa does have a law that if you live in half of a duplex, you can fully discriminate. Interesting that the last edition of the tenant landlord handbook put out by the state doesn't mention this but I'm pretty sure it is still law.


20 posted on 05/12/2005 8:39:19 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson