Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Department of Housing and Urban Development | April 08, 2011 | Shantae Goodloe

Posted on 04/10/2011 9:29:53 AM PDT by Salman

The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discriminate based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or families with children. While sexual orientation and gender identity are not prohibited bases of discrimination under the federal Fair Housing Act, housing discrimination against someone who is LGBT may, in certain circumstances, violate the Act's existing provisions, including its prohibition against gender discrimination.

"While 20 states and over 200 local governments have led the way to make LGBT-related housing discrimination illegal, HUD is firmly committed to supporting the right of LGBT individuals and families to lead productive and dignified lives, free from housing discrimination and fear of retaliation, said John Trasviña, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. "HUD is finalizing a federal rule to ensure that HUD housing and programs are open to all, irrespective of marital status, gender identify, and sexual orientation."

The "Live Free" print advertisements are focused to particular targeted audiences. For example, one print ad reads "Should Gender Stereotypes Influence Where Your live? Learn More." "Live Free" campaign will run throughout the year and include Facebook ads, targeted print ads, digital videos, and podcasts.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: democrats; gay; gaystapo; homobama; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; hud; impeachobama; lgbt; livefree; obama; perverts; sodomhusseinobama
Title shortened to fit in space.

An official press release, not some blogger's interpretation.

1 posted on 04/10/2011 9:29:55 AM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salman


Here’s the link.

2 posted on 04/10/2011 9:31:37 AM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman

A woman in a town close by who works for the housing authority just got censured because she wrote a letter complaining about this policy stating that she thought being LBGT was a life choice and likened it to drug dealers, murderers, violent criminal etc who should not be allowed to live in gov housing. is Tennessee after all.

3 posted on 04/10/2011 9:36:12 AM PDT by 30Moves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman
What is (was) the original mission of HUD?
Isn't everyone looking for non-essential programs ro eliminate?
What is HUD's budget?
4 posted on 04/10/2011 9:36:36 AM PDT by Publius6961 (There has Never been a "Tax On The Rich" that has not reached the middle class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
What is (was) the original mission of HUD?
Same as all liberal gov't programs in the last 50 years - redistribution of wealth.
5 posted on 04/10/2011 9:43:17 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salman
As a physical therapist here in Tampa, I perform Home Health Care visits for seniors primarily medicare insured. I have been in many HUD housing units. These are secure clean well kept buildings. It seems they are all being upgraded or reto ac’s appliances, landscaping. The residents enjoy care free secure lifestyles. I only hope to be as secure and comfortable in my retirement.

I am amazed at home many residents speak no English. Is it possible they worked and paid into the medicare system in order to help fund the services they now receive?

6 posted on 04/10/2011 9:44:56 AM PDT by Awgie (truth is always stranger than fiction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman

I see that list and ‘age’ is omitted. So limiting communities to those 55 and over is ok. For jobs ‘age’ discrimination is not ok. How long til 55+ communities are outlawed?

7 posted on 04/10/2011 9:51:10 AM PDT by George from New England (Escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman
" . . . including its prohibition against gender discrimination."

Aha! There you go. "Gender" is becoming the third sexual category. There can only be two when classifying "sex" (M+F) but unlimited for "gender".

Another word corrupted for the advance of the homo agenda.

8 posted on 04/10/2011 9:52:06 AM PDT by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
What is (was) the original mission of HUD?

IIRC, slum clearance and building housing projects.

9 posted on 04/10/2011 9:52:37 AM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven
Same as all liberal gov't programs in the last 50 years - redistribution of wealth.

Well, that certainly coincides with the current mission it describes for itself :

Current Mission of HUD

However, I phrased my question poorly. I should have asked, "What was The Original Mission of HUD?"

I'm still working on that...

10 posted on 04/10/2011 9:54:39 AM PDT by Publius6961 (There has Never been a "Tax On The Rich" that has not reached the middle class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 30Moves

The issue, succinctly stated, is simply, whether, or not, a self-generated, public pronouncement of a private sexual behavior should be entitled under law to special preference in housing or employment considerations. Furthermore, the indicated sexual behavior provides no objective benefit to the individual, those potentially forced to act in deference to such a pronouncement, or to society in general. Additionally, the indicated sexual behavior statistically drives up health care costs, which are a major concern to employers and the state.

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (According to the American Psychological Association [APA] the term, sexual orientation, is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the behavior of a mentally healthy, adult human being.

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

The potentially negative impacts of homosexual behavior on employer health care costs are statistically well established. Forcing employers to knowingly hire individuals who voluntarily engage in high-risk behavior drives up the cost of providing health care coverage to the employer. The employer who is mandated by law to make such hires, must then decide whether to lower or eliminate health care benefits to all other employees to accommodate the potentially increased costs of the high risk behavior group.

In summary, a clear definition of homosexuality combined with statistically valid, medical information establishes that such behavior is economically detrimental to any employer who includes health care coverage as an employee benefit. Furthermore, the increased costs of employers dropping significant amounts of employee health care to Medicare and Medicaid or other government sponsored health care would make such a move extremely detrimental to the state and all of its taxpayers. Therefore, it is unwise, completely apart from any religious, moral or emotional arguments, for any state to allow any of its subordinate governmental entities to change current discrimination protections to include homosexual practitioners as a protected class.

11 posted on 04/10/2011 10:08:10 AM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Here we go.
The link is :

About HUD

That is the official government site. The descrition is brief and as follows:

"The Department of Housing and Urban Development is the principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned with the Nation's housing needs, fair housing opportunities, and improvement and development of the Nation's communities.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was established in the 1965 by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3532-3537). It was created to:

administer the principal programs that provide assistance for housing and for the development of the Nation's communities;

encourage the solution of housing and community development problems through States and localities; and encourage the maximum contributions that may be made by vigorous private homebuilding and mortgage lending industries, both primary and secondary, to housing, community development, and the national economy."

Anyone spot anything in that description mandating ""Social Engineering?"

Further, it was created through a simple Law.
It can be uncreated exactly the same way.

Isn't it almost certain that that :

Either HUD was incompetent in preventing the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac financial debacle? It seems to have failed in one of its most important missions... or

It was complicit in contributing to the resulting economic disaster which involved Wall Street.


12 posted on 04/10/2011 10:11:31 AM PDT by Publius6961 (There has Never been a "Tax On The Rich" that has not reached the middle class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Salman
Thing is most of that BS statement was not in the HUD authorization, but the poor ass congress refuses to de-fund this frigging mess.
13 posted on 04/10/2011 10:12:33 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
As with many other things, beneficial legislation comes and goes.
Evil legislation, perversions, abuses, overreaching, accumulates.

Read it yurself :

Fair Housing

Protected Classes

Looks like, until 1968 one could say that there was national ethical consensus; after 1968, there was a wide and significant divide between Congress (who rammed these laws through) and the working taxpayer who had to suffer under the tyranny of the "elected representatives" who went their own way. That divide has gotten almost impossible to close :

"Congress must pass the Law so you can see what's in it!!"

14 posted on 04/10/2011 10:26:50 AM PDT by Publius6961 (There has Never been a "Tax On The Rich" that has not reached the middle class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Salman

When engineers design a dam they build into it overflow protection. They engineer the dam to withstand a certain amount of force but understand that circumstances could arise where there is more water flowing into the reservoir than the dam can safely handle, and so they provide a way for that pressure to be safely relived.

The social engineers who are working day and night to redesign our society are not leaving any safety valve for those that do not agree with their policies.

Often times it is something small and insignificant that brings about change. One of these days some obscure little clerk working behind the scene at one of these powerful regulatory agency is going to get a small regulation passed and it will be like the last little raindrop into the river that proved too much and the dam will break.

Middle Americans may have their own Stonewall Riots or a Rosa Park moment. Small events that led to change.

15 posted on 04/10/2011 10:41:22 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN (California does not have a money problem, it has a spending problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman

Wait untill the EEOP laws are extended to Sodomites. They will become teachers to get at the young boys.

16 posted on 04/10/2011 10:53:39 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

I always wondered why it isn’t considered a “dangerous life style” like smoking is due to increased health care costs.

However, I am sure any liberal would tell you that it isn’t a choice - it is an orientation - that fits their narrative better.

Didn’t you hear - they just discovered the first gay caveman? He was buried with things that are normally used when burying a woman. Sooo, he had to be gay..:)

17 posted on 04/10/2011 2:39:07 PM PDT by 30Moves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Salman

Hey, here’s an idea. Lend money to people who can PAY IT BACK.

18 posted on 04/10/2011 3:09:52 PM PDT by Fido969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman

Get rid of the Section 8 housing subsidy giveaway.

19 posted on 04/10/2011 8:03:34 PM PDT by Reagan is King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

ADDING a link to post no. 2 - HUD Ads:

20 posted on 04/10/2011 11:14:02 PM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

That’s so they can throw old ladies out of Senior Housing because Ashley Amber Bottoms wants to use the Ladies Room at the Pancake Breakfast and they complain that he’s standing in the stall taking a leak. Yeah, “Ashley” aka Robert Knowles is leading the charge to horrify old ladies.

21 posted on 04/11/2011 1:41:23 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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
Topics · Post Article

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