Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: drlevy88
He's the one who suffered from the illegal rule.

When you say 'he' do you mean the black couple? How did they suffer? And why should the owner of the property they allege was for sale have to pay for his desire to not violate a convent, as repulsive as it may be to us?

183 posted on 04/23/2005 7:35:20 PM PDT by ClintonBeGone (Malvone = MMP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies ]


To: ClintonBeGone

"He" in the "archaic" English sense.

He suffered in not being permitted to come in consideration as a buyer. The owner was in absolutely no obligation to obey an illegal covenant, and in fact was in obligation to ignore it. (or as you put it "convent")


184 posted on 04/23/2005 7:37:23 PM PDT by drlevy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies ]

To: ClintonBeGone
How did they suffer?

Assuming the accuracy of their side of the story, they were the initial victims enticed into stopping at his place by his "for sale" sign, only to be told that they could not buy because of the color of their skin. In my book, that is cause enough to afford them civil damages for their suffering (inconvenience).

201 posted on 04/23/2005 10:43:11 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson