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.
An official press release, not some blogger's interpretation.
Sorry.
Here’s the link.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2011/HUDNo.11-053
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.
Well.....it is Tennessee after all.
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?
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?
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.
IIRC, slum clearance and building housing projects.
Well, that certainly coincides with the current mission it describes for itself :
However, I phrased my question poorly. I should have asked, "What was The Original Mission of HUD?"
I'm still working on that...
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.
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.
ELIMINATE HUD!!
Read it yurself :
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!!"
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.
Wait untill the EEOP laws are extended to Sodomites. They will become teachers to get at the young boys.
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..:)
Hey, here’s an idea. Lend money to people who can PAY IT BACK.
Get rid of the Section 8 housing subsidy giveaway.
ADDING a link to post no. 2 - HUD Ads:
portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=LGBTPSA.pdf
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.