Posted on 10/19/2004 7:23:50 AM PDT by misterrob
Don't discriminate against strippers.
That's the message the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (search) is sending with a lawsuit against an Omaha real-estate company that refused to rent to a topless dancer.
The Richdale Group (search) had declined to lease an apartment to Charleigh Greenwood after she listed her occupation as a "dancer" at a Council Bluffs, Iowa, lounge.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Just the bare facts, ma'am.
In my younger days I worked as a bouncer in a couple of places that had 'dancers'
I cannot remember one that wouldnt sell it or at least rent it...and I dont remember any that werent into drugs at some level...
The kinds of people 'dancers' will bring around arent going to be appreciated by law enforcement (or at least should'nt be) or any decent tenents
Property owners should have final say so in who they rent their property to...not the state
and certainly not liberals
imo
Gee, I would say that this is another example of society attempting to force it's morals on an individual who does not want to establish a business association (remember the freedom of association and freedom of religion thing?) with an individual.
My favorite local dancer can actually climb up her pole backwards...23 feet in the air. Amazing to see.
Judge ye not..............
I agree with you. When I was younger, I lived upstairs from two dancers who were roomates. LOTS of seedy guys (and girls) around. Eventually my roomate's car was broken into by one of their "customers".
A property owner should be allowed to rent(or not rent) his property as he sees fit.
I don't know about the Nebraska EOC, but it certainly isn't covered under the Federal Housing Act. Under that, you can't discriminate for race, color, national origin, sex, familial status, religion, and handicap.
As a former property manager, we rented to several "dancers", and they were always quiet and paid their rent on time. I'd rent to them any time.
Another example of the government deciding what someone may or may not do with his own property.
The word 'discriminate' is interesting. In its broadest sense it simply means to recoginze the difference between two things. If you have discriminating taste in wine it really means you know one wine from another. This is as opposed to, for example, me who can only discriminate between sweet and sour wines.
Of course, if you can discriminate differences, you are also likely to make judgements about which you prefer. Again, when applied to a wine taster, they can usually be relied upon to help distinguish good wines from bad wines. This implies that there is a more-or-less generally acceptable standard of good and bad wines. That's not always perfectly clear, but it is still generally useful to accept the advice of someone who has discriminating tastes.
We started using it in a more narrow sense to judge people unfairly. Unfortunately, that takes away the opportunity to discriminate against people fairly, which is legal and reasonable. It can also be a moral obligation. For example, you probably have a moral obligation not to rent to a drug dealer for the sake of your other tenants. Discriminating against drug dealers is perfectly OK.
You should not, however, discriminate against characteristics which do not guarantee an actual difference. The color of skin or nationality of origin are examples of this kind of discrimination and the only valid use of the word as a pejorative. Why? Because skin color or nationality of origin do not necessarily indicate behaviors, and it behaviors which should cause us to discriminate.
This brings us to the stripper. Being a stripper is not a characteristic, it's a behavior. It's also more than a job. It's a lifestyle choice. As such, I believe it is reasonable for a landlord to choose not to rent to one. It is also reasonable for a landlord to cater to strippers. It's his/her property, so it's his/her choice. As long as that choice is based on behaviors and not on characteristics that don't determine behaviors.
Shalom.
I agree ... the "Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission" has absolutely no business making moral judgements against The Richdale Group or its management.
I'd also agree that landlords should be able to rent to whomever they want. I worked in a very rough complex and the wanton destruction by some of the tenants was ridiculous. We had one lady try to get rid of her Christmas tree by shredding it in the garbage disposal, and since she was a Section 8 renter, the state made us pay for the new disposal and she got to withhold her rent until it was fixed.
Actually its more proof of the government forcing folks to not be able to make moral judgements in areas they should be completely allowed to do so.
Landlord owns a piece of property, its theirs, not the governments... how does the government have the right to say who that landlord must allow to live there? I know what the laws are, but seriously think about it... by what right does the government grab the power to order a private individual that they must ignore their moral, personal and at times even religious beliefs and allow their personal property to be used?
I think that most of the people here missed the point of the thread.....
:-)
Looks like Nebraska covers the same things as the Federal Law. Occupation is not on the list.
We were allowed to limit the number of renters to "2 heartbeats per bedroom". You are allowed to set standards for occupation limits, but they have to be across the board. Where the familial status comes into play is saying "no kids".
Send that stuff to Al Qaeda, not to Free Republic.
;)
Shalom.
Painters have a very high rate of alcoholism and drug abuse. Would you want to rent to a painter?
I have rented to strippers in the past and have had few problems.
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.