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

Skip to comments.

Guardsman, peace-loving landlady are at odds over apartment rental
bostonherald.com ^ | 06/04/2012 | Laurel J. Sweet

Posted on 06/04/2012 5:36:37 AM PDT by massmike

A National Guardsman who served in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay has sued a woman he tried to rent from, after she told him his war service and her peace activism presented a “conflict of interests” and suggested he seek housing elsewhere — though the Dorchester landlady insists his veteran status “would not impede his chances to rent from us.”

Sgt. Joel Morgan, 29, said the two-bedroom $1,220-a-month Savin Hill apartment that property owner Janice Roberts, 63, showed him in April was perfect. But he claims Roberts told him in an April 9 voicemail that renting to him would be a conflict, saying, “We are very adamant about our beliefs.”

“It just is not going to be comfortable for us without a doubt. It probably would be better for you to look for a place that is a little bit less politically active and controversial,” Roberts told Morgan, according to his complaint.

“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.”

Roberts wrote she has belonged to a civil-rights group called Garden of Enlightenment since 2000, adding, “This bodes the question, ‘Why would someone like Joel Morgan, who apparently fought so valiently (sic) in wars in which he believed, want to even choose to subject himself to renting an apartment from people — like myself — who were so vigorously seeking an end to the Iraq War??’

(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: barkingmoonbats; discrimination; dorchester; guardsman; haters; landlady; leftists; liberalintolerance; massachusetts; moonbats; peaceniks; veterans

1 posted on 06/04/2012 5:36:46 AM PDT by massmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: massmike

She did him a favor. Who wants to live in Savin Hill, aka “Stab ‘N Kill?


2 posted on 06/04/2012 5:43:56 AM PDT by Andy'smom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Just tell her you’re gay and the ACLU will sue her for you....


3 posted on 06/04/2012 5:44:11 AM PDT by G Larry (Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

This effete a$$wipe needs to go a few rounds with the courts system at the end of which she’ll be turning over the keys to her apartment house to the good sergeant. “Garden of Enlightenment” my a$$


4 posted on 06/04/2012 5:46:43 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (I like Obamacare because Granny signed the will and I need the cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

..time to disturb her garden. Sue the seeds out of her!


5 posted on 06/04/2012 5:47:20 AM PDT by Doogle (((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Ms Roberts wants to know why the service member insists on renting from her?Maybe he’s just tired of taking shit from inferior people like her.


6 posted on 06/04/2012 5:51:17 AM PDT by Farmer Dean (stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

The state of Massachusetts has a commission against discrimination.

http://www.mass.gov/mcad/regs804cmr0200.html

“Applicable Law. The Massachusetts Fair Housing statute, as contained in M.G.L. c. 151B, s. 4 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, age, ancestry, veteran status, sexual orientation, marital status, children, handicap, and receipt of public assistance or housing subsidy in the selling, renting or leasing of housing accommodations, commercial space, or land intended for use as such.”

Sounds like this landlord has just opened the door to a major can of whoop-ass.


7 posted on 06/04/2012 5:51:59 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike
Just checked the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds website and there's a Janice Roberts in Boston (Dorchester’s part of Boston) that has lots of recent entries...including a motion by the City to take her property for non payment of taxes...and...there's at least one foreclosure notice.This might not be the same person but if it is it seems that she's your basic worthless bum.Or in this case your basic worthless Marxist bum.
8 posted on 06/04/2012 5:59:44 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (If Mugabe Had A Son He'd Look Like Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

That way freepers will be on the landlords side too...


9 posted on 06/04/2012 6:03:14 AM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: massmike
WOW! I am amazed at all the leftist-statists commenting here. Although I am greatly offended by her politics, I believe that everyone should be able to do business or not do business with whomever they choose.

As offensive as her attitude is, as far as I am concerned, she should be able to discriminate against whomever she chooses for whatever reason she chooses.

Time for the Guardsman to move on and find a new place.

Laws which interfere with the freedom of any individual to do with his own as he chooses are the most offensive of laws. I don't recall anything in the Constitution which permits the government to do so.
10 posted on 06/04/2012 6:04:20 AM PDT by Sudetenland (Anybody but Obama!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

yeah well I bet she’s black and he’s not and she doesn’t want him there and thought she could use this veteran thing as an excuse, being ignorant of the law


11 posted on 06/04/2012 6:24:00 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
As offensive as her attitude is, as far as I am concerned, she should be able to discriminate against whomever she chooses for whatever reason she chooses.


12 posted on 06/04/2012 6:49:39 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Congrats to Ted Kennedy! He's been sober for two years now!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Sounds like this landlord has just opened the door to a major can of whoop-ass.

If anybody opens a betting window on whether the commission will even lift a finger to assist the prospective renter, I'll put my money on the "NO" side. I could be wrong, just a feeling.

13 posted on 06/04/2012 6:55:12 AM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

What? Coming out of the closet, are you?


14 posted on 06/04/2012 6:57:03 AM PDT by Sudetenland (Anybody but Obama!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Andy'smom

Such an enlightened lady.......[/s]


15 posted on 06/04/2012 7:09:58 AM PDT by EggsAckley ( There's an Ethiopian in the fuel supply ! ! ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

Exactly.

I loathe her beliefs, but she can rent — or not — to whomever she damn well pleases.

In this economy, It’s just a matter of time before people with bad credit become a “protected class.” Someone with bankruptcies and evictions will decide he’s entitled to rent against the best interests and express wishes of the property owner — and a court will back him up.

And if everyone is a protected class and your right to “freedom of association” cannot enter into legal transactions, then we’ve quietly, by Federal statute, by stealth, amended the Constitution.

How is everyone okay with this?


16 posted on 06/04/2012 7:18:47 AM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

As offensive as her attitude is, as far as I am concerned, she should be able to discriminate against whomever she chooses for whatever reason she chooses.


I agree, but the offensive law should be applied equally. Those who oppose a law should not be prohibited from claiming its benefits.


17 posted on 06/04/2012 7:35:19 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Hold My Beer and Watch This!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

I agree with you 100%.

Although the law tells me I can’t discriminate, it is in my best interest to discriminate when I am hiring new employees. The key is to be completely silent on the reason why you choose not to employ an individual.

If they press the issue, “I chose to hire someone else” is all you have to say. Never, ever, in an interview or otherwise, ask questions or allude to anything that may be discriminatory. Often times asking open-ended questions that give candidates the ability to talk about themselves will give you more information that you need...and you’re not breaking the law.


18 posted on 06/04/2012 7:49:03 AM PDT by Dexter Morgan (Everyone hides who they are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink

Maybe the phrase “equal protection under the law” has something to do with it?

I agree with a behavior based discrimination ability-that’s why backgornd checks, credit checks etc are all just fine. But a discrimination based on a legitimate status such as “veteran” or male or female or black or white or married (note the exclusion of sexual orientation, which is behavior, not a status).

I would think, tha in her “enlightended state”, she would welcome a non-believer into her circle so she could proselytize him over to her way of thinking. She must not be truly enlightened if she needs to be insulated from the real world and those of other viewpoint.

She will hand over the “keys to her enlightened kingdom” to this veteran if he pushes the issue. Even in MA.


19 posted on 06/04/2012 7:51:36 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally korrect!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Make that a gay Cherokee!


20 posted on 06/04/2012 8:00:04 AM PDT by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: massmike
I would thank the lady for alerting me to a loony bin, & say goodbye. However ignorant her views, at least she was honest & upfront. Beyond that, her attitude is unpatriotic & un-American, & she should be scorned & ridiculed.

Many of us here would prefer to use the same tactic when dealing with flaming fags.

21 posted on 06/04/2012 8:20:06 AM PDT by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

“Maybe the phrase “equal protection under the law” has something to do with it?”

The vet has equal protection under the law — he is free in turn to discriminate against anyone who, say, didn’t serve in the armed forces.

What he doesn’t have is the right to make the landlady enter into a contract against her will. She doesn’t want to. She doesn’t like him. The Constitution demands nothing more.

And why is behavior-based discrimination okay in your book but not that based on a “legitimate status?” (Whatever that means.)

If it’s okay to discriminate because someone is a bad credit risk, than it MUST be okay to discriminate based on, say, someone’s political beliefs. Otherwise, “freedom of association” means whatever some judge says it means.


22 posted on 06/04/2012 8:36:28 AM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

“As offensive as her attitude is, as far as I am concerned, she should be able to discriminate against whomever she chooses for whatever reason she chooses.”

I agree with you in principle, but I have to admit that it is nice to see someone hoisted on the PC petard that never expected it....


23 posted on 06/04/2012 9:12:55 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

Whether they do or not won’t matter in a lawsuit. The federal law about fair housing for veterans goes back to post World War I, and the VA as well as the Pentagon get very shirty about veterans being mistreated.

Not a whole lot of press about it, but there was a lot of discrimination against vets by employers in recent years, and the Pentagon came down on them like a ton of bricks in court. Even some of the states that have tried slapping vets with back taxes have backed off in a hurry when the Pentagon gets involved.

I suspect that if this vet pushes it, and preserved that voice mail, he is going to get some big bucks out of this woman.


24 posted on 06/04/2012 10:35:55 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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