Posted on 03/03/2009 12:12:32 PM PST by TornadoAlley3
NIAGARA FALLS—Two days after a man was sentenced to probation and community service for putting up a sign as a “joke” in a public works garage that said “whites only” on a drinking fountain, city police were called to a home in the 600 block of 25th Street on Sunday to investigate another racially charged sign.
This one was clearly no joke.
No charges were filed Sunday, but police told the woman she must take down the handwritten sign on a fence on her property saying, “I rent three bedrooms [at her address to] white people Niagara Falls.”
The 53-year-old woman told police she put up the sign after someone tried to break into her house and added, “I can do what I want. I live in America,” according to a police report.
Police said they received complaints and she must take the sign down. An officer at the scene said the woman agreed to take down the sign under protest. The officer said the woman already had seven more signs she was planning to hang up.
>> Implication of “only” is hardly irrelevent - unless you support punishing this woman for what she did NOT say.
The Fair Housing Act doesn’t require the word “only” to appear for a violation to occur.
SnakeDoc
No, but PRIVATE property rights are.
Especially in light of A.G. Eric “How Soon Can We Ban Those Guns” Holder’s statements last week complaining about our choices regarding those with whom we associate ON OUR OWN TIME.
I suggest your logic is overbroad in that anything may come under the ICC because everything is affected by ICC somehow.
As far as this lady is concerned, not sure but I get the impression it is a private residence and she has a few room to let. She is renting rooms inside her private residence. One would think she would have the right to control who enters her home.
Good for you. You can quote the Declararion of Independence. So can I, when it is appropriate.
BUT - The Declaration was NEVER the law of this land (or any other land for that matter). The Constitution was/is the law of this land. By the way, for an attorney, you have a VERY loose definition of a law.
You made a factual error when you stated that slavery was unconsitutional. I pointed out that since slavery was originally written IN to the Consitution, it WAS, in fact, consitutional until the 13th Amendment was passed.
Those are FACTS; and, you are entitled to your own OPINIONS, as “they” say, but NOT your own facts. Slavery was ALWAYS immoral, but to our shame, it was NOT always illegal in this country.
>> The Declaration was NEVER the law of this land (or any other land for that matter).
The Declaration states the principles on which this country was established.
>> You made a factual error when you stated that slavery was unconsitutional.
I made no factual error. The Constitution does not, and cannot, grant or deny rights. The Constitution merely enumerates rights granted humanity by the Creator (as noted in the Declaration). Thus, to the extent that the document seeks to deny God-given rights to any particular individual, it violates its own premises. Slavery was always unconstitutional.
To the extent that we violated the principles of our foundation, we committed illegal and unconstitutional acts.
SnakeDoc
>> How is this any different from the kid who hung (with a noose) Sara Palin in effigy from his bedroom window in CA last Halloween?
In principle, the sign over the water fountain isn’t any different. As I said at the time — it was a tasteless and obnoxious display (as is the water fountain display). The sign about the rental property is different only to the extent that she violated the Fair Housing Act.
>> I don’t believe he was questioned by the police and I’m thinking it wound up being a question of “Free Speech,” not racism simply because he hung a white woman in effigy.
Free speech can protect the tasteless and obnoxious, so long as no other law is violated (such as the fair housing act).
>> I’m guessing it would have been a whole different story had the effigy been Obama’s. He took it down after the media played the story out on the air and in print. The kid appeared to be Hispanic, non-white.
Probably. The media is hardly the model of consistency that we should emulate. My reaction here is exactly as it was to the Palin display ... the displays are obnoxious, and the displayer should be questioned to the extent that some other law was violated. I thought the Palin-effigy schmuck deserved a Secret Service visit.
SnakeDoc
It is her house and the sign is on her property. I’m sure there are real crimes to be investigated elsewhere..
United States v. Lopez didn’t overrule Katzenbach v. McClung, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, or Daniel v. Paul.
Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Commerce Clause is tricky to follow, but I wouldn’t argue against the overuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause by pointing to the Civil Rights Acts. I think, both politically and logically, that’s an untenable position.
The worst thing about freedom is that it can be so ugly at times. Its much better to have someone, anyone, preferably a committee of someones, to protect us from being too individualistic. Her hate scribbles aren’t just words...just speeches. They’re talismanic totems of bigotry, with words that literally leap off the page and assault any hapless minority who is within reading distance. I agree with everyone on this thread who thinks this woman was in the wrong. I mean, we’re free, but we’re not free to hurt.
I wonder what the reaction would be both here, and by the media in general if a heterosexual male felt he had the freedom to specify he didn’t want a homosexual roommate? Well, I can predict the media’s reaction...outrage.
Why, the very idea that you can show discretion in who you live with makes me livid. There ought to be more laws...
Personally, I like to keep the gay far, far away. Maybe some of the males on this thread who are in favor of government intervention in this lady’s personal life feel differently...? After all, one doesn’t choose to be gay anymore than they choose their skin color. Or at least that’s what the ruling party believes, so the truth of the matter doesn’t even enter in to it as far as enforcement of the law goes. Or would it be different in your case? Tell it to your federally backed gay roommate, or maybe if you’re really lucky, it will be your son whom the federal government gets to force to accept any and all into his home, should he choose to make money off of it.
Nah, it’ll never happen. Homosexuals aren’t a ‘protected class’ like racial minorities are.
Hmmm - but they keep telling us that southerners are the racist bigots and are still beating that horse as recently as last month.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2195423/posts
Basic Facts About the Fair Housing Act
What Housing Is Covered?
The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members
IF you really are an attorney, then all I can say is, I am gald you are not practicing in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
>> IF you really are an attorney, then all I can say is, I am gald you are not practicing in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
If you really are a conservative, all I can say is I am glad you’re not voting in the Republic of Texas.
SnakeDoc
Does the info in post 53 offer any relief for the lady?
That's not what her sign said. Her sign did not say "I WILL only rent to whites". From the text of what her sign actually says, it could just be a statement of current fact if her current renters are white.
>> From the text of what her sign actually says, it could just be a statement of current fact if her current renters are white.
Who are we kidding here? You and I both know what the sign meant.
SnakeDoc
Our opinions on what the sign might have meant are largely irrelevant.
In the legal system, any ambiguity in interpretation must be interpreted in the direction of innocence of charges, while any prosecutor must show that she unambiguously violated some specific law.
>> Our opinions on what the sign might have meant are largely irrelevant.
Not insofar as we might be jurors, or jurors might agree with our position. I’d bet that less than 1 out of 20 would take your position on the matter.
>> In the legal system, any ambiguity in interpretation must be interpreted in the direction of innocence of charges
Only “reasonable” doubt must be interpreted in favor of the Defendant. Given her statements of “I can do what I want”, and the fact that she put up the sign after a break in by a black person — I’d contend that your interpretation is not reasonable.
The sign was clearly an advertisement, not a “statement of fact”.
>> while any prosecutor must show that she unambiguously violated some specific law.
She did.
SnakeDoc
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.