4 ms·
That sounds like an enormous oversimplification of what, I imagine, is an extremely complex area of the law. In the case of prospective tenants, I assume a fa
by djmobley 10y ago
That sounds like an enormous oversimplification of what, I imagine, is an extremely complex area of the law.
In the case of prospective tenants, I assume a fair degree of self-incrimination would be required to prove discrimination based on a protected characteristic.
To the point about some people's rights being "more important" than others', rights are a zero-sum game.
Giving protected classes a right to service from businesses necessarily comes at the cost of business owners' rights to refuse service.
The law is necessarily concerned with determine whose rights are "more important" in these cases.
- vorotato 10y agoIt's actually very simple and let me be extremely clear here, this is NOT about picking someone's rights over others, this is about the magnitude of injustice. Here's a list of people incriminated for discrimination by month for violating fair housing rules. In February for example Oklahoma landlords were found discriminating against Veterans with disabilities. Laws are written to protect the most vulnerable FIRST, not the most protected first. It's absolutely unconscionable to protect for example landlords over our veterans. https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fa...