Skip to comments.Guardsman, peace-loving landlady are at odds over apartment rental
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 ...
She did him a favor. Who wants to live in Savin Hill, aka “Stab ‘N Kill?
Just tell her you’re gay and the ACLU will sue her for you....
This effete a$$wipe needs to go a few rounds with the courts system at the end of which she’ll be turning over the keys to her apartment house to the good sergeant. “Garden of Enlightenment” my a$$
..time to disturb her garden. Sue the seeds out of her!
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.
The state of Massachusetts has a commission against discrimination.
“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.
That way freepers will be on the landlords side too...
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
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.
What? Coming out of the closet, are you?
Such an enlightened lady.......[/s]
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?
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 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.
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.
Make that a gay Cherokee!
Many of us here would prefer to use the same tactic when dealing with flaming fags.
“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.
“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....
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.