respectfully disagree - denying housing (when one can pay it and satisfy any credit requirements) or employment (if the job is available, marketed as available, and the applicant is clearly qualified if not best qualified for the job) based on a prejudice has been addressed by our courts.
So many words, bordering on sophistry (because a person does not need to explain why he won't sell/rent or employ; he has only to deny it) or on society's often inept attempts to render justice... but it is the law of the land, and we should respect it. If we have a problem with the law, then our Constitution holds the keys for we the People to express it as such through our legislators... which, you might admit, is a process that we're in the midst of these past 25 years as our Conservative movement grows stronger.
Yet you do make compelling statements inferring the shadow of class and protected groups upon the process - both of which I strongly stand against. Does what happened in Colorado fall under the aegis of a government extending further special rights to a "protected" group - and one, which I will add, is certainly activist enough that we already are very familiar with previous (gay marriage...) initiatives? I don't know. Do you? If you have more conclusive information that can clarify a news report from the la times, then please let me know.
As I mentioned in my first note, I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye - and based my opinion on the face value of the post. Give me more info, and we'll see where this goes...
Employment is routinely denied on prejudices such as education (you think only college graduates know computer programming for instance?)
The courts have spoken with regard to COLOR, an unchangeable attribute, that cannot affect your impact on a rental property or in most cases your work.
Being gay will.
It will bring gay boyfreinds or girlfreinds to frequent the rental, if that is adjacent to the owners family and children it is unfair to foists that on people.
Further it's asking the owner to tolerate a mortal sin on their own property and to say nothing.
Thank you for your response. The Colorado initiative said nothing directly about housing or employment. It only restricted the power of the State of Colorado and its subdivisions to create certain special, protected classes. It said,
"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing."
The net effect of this would be that a homosexual and I would have exactly the same rights with regard to housing and employment. That is no longer true. The homosexual has a protected status, based solely on his claimed perversion, that I do not have.
Cordially,