Posted on 08/20/2007 10:30:08 PM PDT by Coleus
ping to 120
Thanks for the link!
Actually, I don’t think there should be any laws prohibiting discrimination in the sale or rental of private housing. If you’re a libertarian, how can you argue otherwise? You’re basically saying that the state’s commitment to egalitarianism overrides property rights, freedom of association, and religious liberty.
Even if one accepts that there are some anti-discrimination laws that are legitimate, how does homosexuality, which is a sexual perversion, meet the criteria for inclusion?
BTW, I’m not a libertarian, yet I seem to support less government than you do.
If your argument is that landlords have the right to reject tenants for moral reasons, then that argument is lost already. You can't discriminate against someone based on their religion, marital status and the like. It's true that discrimination against blacks was a unique and pervasive wrong that need to be corrected by unprecedented means. But that doesn't mean it's okay to discriminate against a Buddhist.
Because they make fabulous cocktails and know how to decorate?
Oh, wrong kind of "party." Sorry.
The very idea that a private business is a public accommodation is problematic, in my opinion. It certainly isn’t libertarian to support such a concept.
Unless that freedom to associate involves religion or the lack thereof, sex, marital status, race, or sexual orientation, in which case you don't. Can you name any person that does not have a religion or lack of one, a sex, a marital status, a race, or a sexual orientation? With whom do we have the right NOT to associate with then, if all are protected?
Because it is has nothing to do with whether a person is a good tenant or not. Do you think we should repeal the housing laws that say you have to rent to a Hindu?
In your personal life. I'm speaking only of businesses that are public accommodation. You can choose not to associate with blacks, women, or Hindus but you don't have a right to refuse service to them unless you are a private club.
We are all equal under the law. Renting to a gay person does not make that person more equal.
You are correct, but in addition, it is discriminatory for the state to pick which sexual deviancies it wishes to promote and “protect”, and which it does not.
Compare polygamy and homosexuality, for example. There is more agitation for sanctioning same-sex “marriage” than for sanctioning polygamous marriage. Why? Well, for no other reason than that the homosexual lobby is powerful, well financed, and fashionable.
If human-animal sex became “chic” tomorrow, we’d start seeing people demanding anti-discrimination laws against people who are sexually attracted to sheep.
But as of now, out of all the various perversions and sexual variations that exist, ONLY homosexuality gets promoted in this way. There will be no leather fetish night at a Padres game. Only a gay night.
I disagree. I would hate to think I wasn't able to buy my house because of the color of my skin or whether I'm divorced.
I wish the government didn't have to intrude on this sort of thing but I wish more that it didn't have to.
I don't see how this is "promoting" behavior. Lots of married people engage in deviant sexual behavior. The fact that these folks aren't denied housing doesn't mean the government is promoting oral sex. Does government promote Hinduism by banning discrimination against Hindus?
Equal protection under the law, no more but no less.
Yes, people should be free to rent or refuse to rent to whomever they choose, for whatever reason they choose. If a Christian doesn’t want to rent to a Hindu, that’s his business. Ditto if a Hindu doesn’t want to rent to a Christian.
However, I will add that there’s nothing inherently unnatural about being a Hindu. So it’s not comparable to homosexuality, which is counter to nature.
So you can associate with whoever you want only in your personal life. Now, since we live in homes and work in offices if you must rent or sell to anyone regardless of who they are, and you must employ anyone regardless of who they are, where are you truly able to exercise freedom of association?
It all wraps together. There is more threat to freedom of association than you are recognizing and less freedom than you think. Basically, whenever it matters, politically, economically, or personally, other than in your own home, you can’t choose who to associate with.
Basically any activity that doesn't involve public accommodation. Churches, scouting, country clubs, social clubs, etc. can and should be able to discriminate based on any reason or no reason. Hotels, restaurants, libraries, public pools, etc. shouldn't.
I included Hindus because religiously, they're violating the First Commandment.
Scouting has been under serious attack for over a decade for not allowing gay scoutmasters.
I'm not in the capital "L" sense. I've got to get off now but in any case, this argument is moot -- what I'm arguing is essentially the settled law, unless we repeal laws relating to public accommodations.
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.