4 ms·

> Could you explain the legal principle, if there is one, that allows discrimination under one circumstance but not the other? In case you're not being obtuse,

by w4 10y ago

> Could you explain the legal principle, if there is one, that allows discrimination under one circumstance but not the other? In case you're not being obtuse, the Fair Housing Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act It applies to rentals of full properties, but not to roommates or (some) owner occupied properties.

fiatmoney 10y ago
That's legislation, not a principle. If I ask "why is mortgage interest deductible", the principle is "because it encourages homeownership" - not the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
- w4 10y ago
  > That's legislation, not a principle. If I ask "why is mortgage interest deductible", the principle is "because it encourages homeownership" - not the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Intentionally obtuse it is! The reason it's permissible is because the exception is permitted under the Act. It's not predicated on some vague legal principal (nor, for that matter, is your example - that's a policy reason, not a legal one). If you want the policy justification for permitting discrimination in one case but not the other, it's exactly what you outline above: there is a significant difference between renting out a portion of your own home, and renting a property exclusively for business purposes (i.e. real estate investment): https://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2010/06/articles/fha-basics/the-mrs-murphy-exemption-to-the-fair-housing-act/ https://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2010/06/articles/fha-b...
  - fiatmoney 10y ago
    Yeah, that "significant difference" is what I'm interested in. There seems to be some underlying principle that we'll ask you to put your property & other tenants' lives at risk in the service of Ending Discrimination, but not your own, as long as you're "Mrs Murphy"ing it and your house doesn't have more than 4 rooms, after which point you can afford to hire a super to deal with the people the law previously allowed you to exclude. Is that an accurate assessment of the logic, or is there a more charitable explanation?
    - w4 10y ago
      The idea is that you get to choose your immediate neighbors (on any basis other than race, because race is always protected) if they share the same house with you. When you're running a business the tenants aren't your immediate neighbors, so you don't get to choose them based on certain protected criteria. You can only choose them based on their ability to pay, for instance, or any other criteria not deemed to be socially harmful. > There seems to be some underlying principle that we'll ask you to put your property & other tenants' lives at risk in the service of Ending Discrimination, but not your own Seriously? If you think that renting to minorities or other protected classes means "putting your property & other tenants' lives at risk," then I just don't know what to tell you here.

by w4 10y ago

fiatmoney 10y ago

That's legislation, not a principle. If I ask "why is mortgage interest deductible", the principle is "because it encourages homeownership" - not the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

w4 10y ago
> That's legislation, not a principle. If I ask "why is mortgage interest deductible", the principle is "because it encourages homeownership" - not the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Intentionally obtuse it is! The reason it's permissible is because the exception is permitted under the Act. It's not predicated on some vague legal principal (nor, for that matter, is your example - that's a policy reason, not a legal one). If you want the policy justification for permitting discrimination in one case but not the other, it's exactly what you outline above: there is a significant difference between renting out a portion of your own home, and renting a property exclusively for business purposes (i.e. real estate investment): https://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2010/06/articles/fha-basics/the-mrs-murphy-exemption-to-the-fair-housing-act/ https://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2010/06/articles/fha-b...
- fiatmoney 10y ago
  Yeah, that "significant difference" is what I'm interested in. There seems to be some underlying principle that we'll ask you to put your property & other tenants' lives at risk in the service of Ending Discrimination, but not your own, as long as you're "Mrs Murphy"ing it and your house doesn't have more than 4 rooms, after which point you can afford to hire a super to deal with the people the law previously allowed you to exclude. Is that an accurate assessment of the logic, or is there a more charitable explanation?
  - w4 10y ago
    The idea is that you get to choose your immediate neighbors (on any basis other than race, because race is always protected) if they share the same house with you. When you're running a business the tenants aren't your immediate neighbors, so you don't get to choose them based on certain protected criteria. You can only choose them based on their ability to pay, for instance, or any other criteria not deemed to be socially harmful. > There seems to be some underlying principle that we'll ask you to put your property & other tenants' lives at risk in the service of Ending Discrimination, but not your own Seriously? If you think that renting to minorities or other protected classes means "putting your property & other tenants' lives at risk," then I just don't know what to tell you here.