Posted on 08/11/2005 11:55:37 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Wonder if there was a reason for that.
The article calls him head of the home owners' association. That's a volunteer position, as far as I know. They might ask him to step down.
But if he is head of a 'homeowner's association' that means the pool belonged to the homes development and was not a public pool anyway.
There's something fishy in this story.
Here are the details on the Fair Housing Act. It is curious that this lady would have lost her case. It would seem that she could avoid this issue if she had fewer than four units.
The law is pretty specific. Perhaps, it wasn't owner-occupied.
Basic Facts About the Fair Housing Act
What Housing Is Covered?
The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.
What Is Prohibited?
In the Sale and Rental of Housing: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap:
Refuse to rent or sell housing
Refuse to negotiate for housing
Make housing unavailable
Deny a dwelling
Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling
Provide different housing services or facilities
Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental
For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting) or
Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing.
In Mortgage
Was it? The guy who locked up the pool was head of the home owners' association. Tells me that the pool was associated with a private home development. They have rules and are free to restrict how many guests can access the pool, etc.
If the pool belonged to a resort, then there's no way this guy could be 'head of the homeowner's association.'
There's something screwy with this story.
Racists are by definition stoopid.
"Number one, your question is leading...."
Yes. It was intended to lead to more clarification of your statement. Since you are "over this thread" I won't ask for any further clarification.
I would suggest you read Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics" and you might find some interesting information regarding government intervention into these issues.
As for this being a bad business practice --- that is not immediately obvious. If they are surrounded by racists, they may flock to your property upon hearing that the management is racist too; this may improve business. And, I think you would agree, there are other forms of bad business practice out there --- advertising in wrong magazines, improper balance of compensation, poorly chosen level of maintenance, etc. We wouldn't be discussing them, would we? Precisely because they are just that: bad business practice. This is not the case here: we are dealing with something more that just a bad business practice.
That should be vociferously condemned by all of us.
Most definitely.
Not really. If you make police to be paid by only by a certain group of citizens, you make service offered by police a club good rather than a public good. Public goods can be enjoyed by all members of the economy (by definition).
The first rendering of the sentence was less burdensome :)
I was not "pretending" such discrimination doesn't hurt.......I was just commenting I felt the sentence was unneeded for the article - I believe the article and the outcome of the suit spoke for itself.
Ownership includes a clause allowing rent. Rent implies transfer of managers' duties from owners to renters.
This is much the same as with any other private property: I have a duty not to break into your parked car even if you lent it to your friend for a week.
Does the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution count a lot for you?
Originalism and original intent are two different things...I am an originalist which means I take, at face value, the words of the Constitution....applying the meaning of those words as they would be understood by those drafting and ratifying the Constition or the amendment. Original intent is a discredited form of analysis...how does one discern the collective intent of hundreds of different Congressman and state legislators...to the extent that there even is a collective intent?
The 13th Amendment deals with slavery...its not relevant to federal civil rights legislation which regulates discrimination by private parties. The 14th Amendment provides that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment provides that "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "
The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to provide Congress with the Cinstitutional authority for the 1866 Civil Rights Act...but that 1866 Act, in no way, outlawed private discrimination...nor would Congress have had the authority under the 14th Amendment to do so...and even today...it does not have that authority.
States...not private parties...are prohibited from practicing discrimnination under the 14th Amendment.
Now, you are correct that in 1875, Congress passed another Civil Rights Act that attempted to outlaw discrimination by private persons and businesses that served the public...but an originalist would plainly see that Congress had no such Constitutional authority.
That was exactly the issue in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 in which the Supreme Court struck down the 1875 Civil Rights Act. The holding in the Civil Rights Cases has never been overturned and, in fact, was recently re-affirmed in the Morrison case...a case I thought all conservatives liked in which those "judicial activists" you speak of like Justices Scalia and Thomas correctly held that the 14th Amendment does not provide authority to regulate private discrimination.
That is why, in upholding the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Warren Court looked to the Commerce Clause. In the opinion of Katzenbach v McClung...the Court explicitly acknowledges that the defendant white-only restaurant could not be reagulated under the 14th Amendment. Believe me when I tell you that, if the Warren Court could have, they would have avoided engaging in the absurd illogic necessary to find authority for the 1964 Civil Rights Act under the Commerce Clause...they would much preferred to have found authority in the 14th Amendment...but its simply not there.
And lets not act like the leftists we've been condemning all of these years who have always seen the Constitution as an impediment to their political objectives. When you claim that, by using the courts to enforce your contracts and by calling on the police...a private party is transformed into a "state" so that the private party's actions can be regulated just as though he were a government...you are engaging in the same sort of absurd stretches of logic that have rendered our Constitution effectively dead...thanks to the leftists.
Then it's too bad they had to settle. They have the right to lock down the pool to keep more than 100 'guests' from overwhelming the facility.
It could but that would still be illegal. He can prohibit access if the capacity limitation would be reached, and that is not the case.
Moreover, this is also not supported by facts: the manager was observed inviting white guests.
A family gathering for a reunion is not likely to act like Jesse Jackson. And, they are not overly sensitive either: have not been offended by the name of the place, for example. Sounds to me like they just wanted to have a good time and simply ran into a racist.
It could but that would still be illegal. He can prohibit access if the capacity limitation would be reached, and that is not the case.
Moreover, this is also not supported by facts: the manager was observed inviting white guests.
A family gathering for a reunion is not likely to act like Jesse Jackson. And, they are not overly sensitive either: have not been offended by the name of the place, for example. Sounds to me like they just wanted to have a good time and simply ran into a racist.
Not if it was a homeowner's association owned pool, which is what it was. It was not a pool that belonged to a 'resort' as the article implies. It was private property.
What other institution is supposed to enforce contracts?
The manager had duties to the existing residents, also. If the pool parties were disturbing the neighborhood then he had to act. It's a nusiance issue. The owners or their renters are not allowed to create a nusiance to do so is a clear breech of the CC&Rs.
The way to deal with that is to pass a bylaw limiting the size of parties that may rent the facilities. If there were no such bylaws, you let the party go through and then amend your bylaws.
What other institution is supposed to enforce contracts?
I was just responding to the argument that, because a private business benefits from public services like police and fire and because it has access to courts...this private business can no longer be considered purely private...by that logic...nothing and no one is private
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.