Guardsman, peace-loving landlady are at odds over apartment rental

bostonherald.com ^ | 06/04/2012 | Laurel J. Sweet

[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??’

[Mister Da]

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.

[Blue Ink]

“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.

[CSM]

“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....

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

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.