Posted on 05/25/2018 3:37:51 PM PDT by Ennis85
U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher told a group of Realtors last week that homeowners should be able to refuse to sell their property to gays and lesbians, a statement that cost him the support of a key national Realtor group.
“Every homeowner should be able to make a decision not to sell their home to someone (if) they don’t agree with their lifestyle,” Rohrabacher told an Orange County Association of Realtors delegation at a May 16 meeting in Washington, D.C., according to Wayne Woodyard, a former Orange County Realtor president who was at the event.
On Thursday, Rohrabacher confirmed the accuracy of the sentiment, and added that homeowners should have the right to “choose who they do business with.”
“We’ve drawn a line on racism, but I don’t think we should extend that line,” Rohrabacher said.
“A homeowner should not be required to be in business with someone they think is doing something that is immoral.”
The statement ignited a protest by a Realtor gay-rights group, prompting the National Association of Realtors to withdraw its recommendation that members send campaign contributions to Rohrabacher.
“It was determined that Rep. Rohrabacher will no longer receive support from NAR’s President’s Circle,” an association statement said, referring to its list of recommended candidates. Rohrabacher’s stance, the 1.3-million-member trade group said, is contrary to NAR’s code of ethics, which bans discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation or gender identity.”
“We certainly hope that Congress will … support the elimination of housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”
The about-face occurred as the 15-term coastal Orange County Republican is locked in his toughest re-election campaign.
He’s facing 15 challengers, including eight Democrats as well as onetime political ally Scott Baugh, former Orange County GOP chairman.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
He’s going to get Akin’ed.
That this statement is considered even remotely controversial just shows how far we’ve fallen. Do realtors think that they should be the ones to decide which offer to take instead of the homeowner?
You could get away with that in certain states, but not in CA.
That was a self-inflicted error. He should know how public sentiment has moved in today’s world, whether he agrees with it or not.
Why would anyone with a brain say something like this? What is the conceivable purpose? Why should a person care about whom they sell their house to?
Funny how these realtors didn’t speak up about the lady who refused to sell her home to a Trump supporter.
Little double-standardish ain’t it.
Like the teachers’ unions, the association of realtors started off as a professional organization.
Unfortunately, the association of realtors is fast becoming just another left-wing union whose leadership rules in opposition to its members.
I think this is covered by the Fair Housing Act.
“Why would anyone with a brain say something like this? What is the conceivable purpose? Why should a person care about whom they sell their house to?”
Ditto !
.
Clearly, our culture has been poisoned.
this is just stupid. Why do republicans do this. The libs and media will try to hang this guys statement on all republicans.
this is just stupid. Why do republicans do this. The libs and media will try to hang this guys statement on all republicans.
I’ll go further.
The First Amendment guarantees our freedom to associate with whoever we want and that necessarily guarantees our freedom to discriminate against those we do not want.
Now while the government should treat everyone equally I do believe that businesses should be free to hire or serve whoever they want or not want, and that anyone who doesn’t want to do business with anyone else for any reason at all is guaranteed that right regardless of who it may offend.
You don’t have to bake them a cake and they don’t have to fix the roof on your church.
It’s called freedom and my freedom to refuse to associate with sexual deviants and other degenerates MUST be more important than the social agenda that’s served by trying to force me to associate with these people.
“Every homeowner should be able to make a decision not to sell their home to someone (if) they don’t agree with their lifestyle,”
For example, people in Sacramento and San Francisco don’t have to sell to Trump supporters, right?
There is no hypocrisy in the left because they can’t feel shame.
5.56mm
It’s my house so should be able to sell it or not to anyone I wish. It’s also my right to take it off the market.
Would you hold the same opinion if his statement addressed blacks? We already experienced that back in the 1970's here in Detroit..........
Sorry Fluffy but this guy does not represent the values I support in my party........he deserves to lose based on stupidity alone.
And it was necessary to take a position on this... why?
I had a situation in 2006-2007. Trying to sell a home in CT. Hired a neighbor 5 doors down that was a realtor. Found out after a year her effort wasn’t in it. Got another realtor after 14 months and she got a buyer within days. Found out my neighbor avoided showing to ‘people’ she didnt want in ‘her’ neighborhood. Ended up with a black woman and black boyfriend with 2 kids moving in. Another neighbor from there now hates us emphatically.
Interesting...
I’ve always distinguished between sales of pre-made off-the-shelf products like say a can of peas, vs customized yet-to-be-made products like wedding cakes, the latter of which involves a degree of participating in and implied endorsement of a buyer’s lifestyle choices.
At first blush a home seems to be the former, meaning it should be sold to anyone. And while I’d somewhat understand an argument that might distinguish this from that group because so much of a seller’s ego and identity is associated with their former home, I still think it belongs with those pre-made products for which a seller could not deny sales to any legal buyer on that basis. For example, imagine if a co-op board wrote no gays into their eligibility rules. They’d have an even better freedom of association argument, but I don’t think that would still persuade me, because as many like to say, what a person does behind closed doors is their business.
So flame away any who disagree, but if think Dana is wrong on this one.
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.