Replies

"This is very disturbing news concerning a guy that is supposed to be a 'conservative'. Here we go again...."

I would be much happier if he had not added his legal skills to this case..however as taken from the article the ability to deny a person housing based on sexual orientation is not a good policy to support..if "correct "that the case was one allowing this type of discrimination I am not concerned as in fairness it is consistent with other anti discrimination laws.

I oppose the radical gay agenda on most levels (marriage, adoption,expressing open sexual orientation in military, lack of laws controlling sexual behavior in relation to transmission of disease such as hiv and the right of organizations to restrict membership based on above) Housing is a basic human need and should be free to all who respect the property of a rental owner.

Lets hope Roberts is as conservative as we have been told.

I do not want another souter.

Looks to me that Roberts took the side of people who overturned the will of the people in a"statewide referendum". Sexual orientation is not a protected class of people except by judicial fiat.

U.S. Supreme Court
ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996)

ROY ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. PETITIONERS v. RICHARD G. EVANS
ET AL.

Argued October 10, 1995
Decided May 20, 1996

After various Colorado municipalities passed ordinances banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, education, public accommodations, health and welfare services, and other transactions and activities, Colorado voters adopted by statewide referendum "Amendment 2" to the State Constitution, which precludes all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Respondents, who include aggrieved homosexuals and municipalities, commenced this litigation in state court against petitioner state parties to declare Amendment 2 invalid and enjoin its enforcement. "
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10179

"Housing is a basic human need and should be free to all who respect the property of a rental owner."

So you don't think a private property owner should be able to refuse to rent to a homosexual "couple".

I disagree.

Many communities designate their properties as "single-family" residences - which prohibits such a living arrangement (along with others).

This comes down to community standards. We do not need federal laws that open property owners to legal attacks for exercising their rights of property ownership and free association.

Applying the same logic, even pedophiles have the "basic human need" of a place to live. Well that doesn't mean it is my job to provide for their needs.

"however as taken from the article the ability to deny a person housing based on sexual orientation is not a good policy to support"

Rubbish. That's an excellent policy to support. And even if a property owner doesn't support it himself, he should be free in this country to rent to whomever he feels like. Roberts should have been taking pro bono work to do things like scale back takings, to attempt to prove that rent control is unconstitutional, that sort of thing.

This is idiotic. Souter never did anything like that...and he probably benefitted from these sorts of laws.

At any rate...he is sort of saying that he was doing this because it was a client of the firm and he was obliged to help his partners. I can sort of see that point. But he could have politely declined to help his partner. I doubt his partner would help him on pro bono work for pro life charities, would he? Probably not. Pro bono can be the domain of the person working on it. Not everyone in a firm has to jump on board (although the firm does represent the clinet as a matter of ethics).