church opposition to the Equality Act

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
User avatar
alas
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: church opposition to the Equality Act

Post by alas » Thu May 16, 2019 8:47 am

Blashyrkh wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 8:05 am
Lloyd Christmas wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:13 am
Blashyrkh wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:11 am

Yes. I think this is alright. What happens in these situations is the discriminated group does what they have to in order to fullfill their needs. Not only that but what is the one thing that rules all politics, business and religion? Money. If there isn't a doctor in town who will serve Asians then I guarantee that a doctor from out of town will see the void, move into town and only serve Asians and rack up the money. Let's say I own a roofing business and word gets out that I wont do work for LGBTQ people. Pretty soon that word gets out and I am out of business. The cost of sticking to my beliefs gets really expensive. Very few businesses will do this. My point is that an individual, business, religion, cult, doctor, biker gang or drug cartel or roofer should be forced to associate with anyone they choose not to.

Blashyrkh, you're very clearly not Black, or gay. I'm guessing you're not a racial minority? I'm also guessing you've been blessed by white privilege your whole life and don't have any close black relatives or friends. If you do, I would be interested if you have discussed your opinion with them

Not buying it is spot on. I would do a little research on what life was like for black America with people practicing precisely what you describe in the 50s. Middle class blacks were unable to move to nice, suburban white neighborhoods because banks wouldn't give them loans, and owner's wouldn't rent to them. How is it just that one would be forced to live in high crime areas, with poor education options because you were born with a darker skin color?.

This talk of religious freedom is more about giving religious people legal means to discriminate against gays. Like not make a wedding cake, or cater or provide flowers. Is this comparable to the racial discrimination? I think there are some similarities. The primary difference is, most religious people think homosexuality is a choice, not that one is born that way. So religious people don't want to support the sin of homosexuality. Having some family members that are gay and grew up Mormon, I think you're born that way. At least some people. Some maybe have a predisposition but not fully homosexual. With racial discrimination, there's no question that's how you were born. And discrimination merely because of how you were born is wrong.
So according to your logic if you own a duplex and you have children and all of the sudden your tenant starts receiving fan-mail from NAMBLA, you don't have a right to say "um, I don't think this is going to work out." Or if he tells you that he is the president of the "North American Society for the Elimination of Minorities," and that he is using the address that you share to support his legal and legitimate business. I guarantee that most people would do whatever they could to get these tenants out. And in my opinion they should be able to.
I think your examples here are reasons for eviction, not discrimination. There is a difference. Discrimination is because of skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or some outward something that most often the person can’t change. There s reason for not renting to this individual, there is prejudice, and then there is discrimination.

I know of one landlord who refused to rent to single girls, not because there was something wrong with the girls, but because too often they had boy friends that got horsing around and destroyed things. But young men were responsible about the place they were renting, just not the place their girlfriends rented. The girls had no problem getting other places because most landlords preferred girls because they kept the place cleaner. So, no problem with his prejudice. But what if everyone felt that way? Rent for girls might end up twice as high as rent for boys. See, then it becomes discrimination and most landlords hurt everyone of that group.

My daughter is currently evicting her husband’s niece because of behavior. That is not discrimination, that is one individual. That is the difference between when it should be alright and when it is wrong and should be illegal.

User avatar
alas
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: church opposition to the Equality Act

Post by alas » Fri May 17, 2019 4:19 pm

Blashyrkh wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:03 am
alas wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 8:47 am
Blashyrkh wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 8:05 am

So according to your logic if you own a duplex and you have children and all of the sudden your tenant starts receiving fan-mail from NAMBLA, you don't have a right to say "um, I don't think this is going to work out." Or if he tells you that he is the president of the "North American Society for the Elimination of Minorities," and that he is using the address that you share to support his legal and legitimate business. I guarantee that most people would do whatever they could to get these tenants out. And in my opinion they should be able to.
I think your examples here are reasons for eviction, not discrimination. There is a difference. Discrimination is because of skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or some outward something that most often the person can’t change. There s reason for not renting to this individual, there is prejudice, and then there is discrimination.

I know of one landlord who refused to rent to single girls, not because there was something wrong with the girls, but because too often they had boy friends that got horsing around and destroyed things. But young men were responsible about the place they were renting, just not the place their girlfriends rented. The girls had no problem getting other places because most landlords preferred girls because they kept the place cleaner. So, no problem with his prejudice. But what if everyone felt that way? Rent for girls might end up twice as high as rent for boys. See, then it becomes discrimination and most landlords hurt everyone of that group.

My daughter is currently evicting her husband’s niece because of behavior. That is not discrimination, that is one individual. That is the difference between when it should be alright and when it is wrong and should be illegal.
So you can evict someone even though they have never done anything illegal? You can evict someone simply for being a white supremacist? Or for their sexuality that you disapprove of? How is this any different than refusing to rent because of their ethnicity? It seems that you want to kick people out if they don't hold your values and yet demand that others rent to those whom they don't approve of.
I just drew a distinction between prejudice or discrimination and holding people accountable for their own behavior. You were mixing the concepts. And you are still mixing them by saying I want to evict because I disapprove of someone’s sexual orientation. That just isn’t behavior that is any of your business and would be discrimination. Molesting children would be different. That behavior makes them dangerous to others. I am not making any claims about what does or does not justify eviction as that varies by state and city anyway. And that would still be discrimination unless they have done something (behavior) that justifies not renting to them or evicting them. There are legal limits on who you can evict and why, and no, I don’t think you can evict someone for being a white supremacist. That is belief anyway, which is covered by nondiscrimination laws on the basis of religion, and is not behavior. But if they are hurling racial slurs at your other residents, which is behavior, you might have a case. I don’t make any distinction between when you can refuse to rent or evict because yes they are the same thing. I disagree with you on the idea that you should be able to refuse to rent to someone based on anything but behavior. So, if they have bad credit that shows a history of bad behavior. Refuse to rent. If they are on the sex offenders list and there are small children in the building, that is based on past behavior and you can refuse to rent. But them being a member of a specific group, even white supremacists, would be discrimination. So, then tell them you don’t have any empty apartments because you decided on seeing their Confederate flag, that your empty apartment needs repainting. ;)

I think refusal to rent or do business should depend on the person’s behavior (that impacts you as business person) and not the group they belong to whether it is religion, race, sexual orientation, or white supremacy.

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: church opposition to the Equality Act

Post by moksha » Sat May 18, 2019 8:14 am

Alas wrote:I think your examples here are reasons for eviction, not discrimination. There is a difference. Discrimination is because of skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or some outward something that most often the person can’t change.
These are excellent points Alas. Assuming criminal intent is ill-founded. It is like refusing to rent to Mormon newlyweds based on the assumption that they will begin polygamating once they get into the apartment. Most likely they will remain monogamous. Assuming that LQBTQ renters will be engaging in some criminal act is the same thing. This is basically a call to enable bad behavior on the part of the discriminator. I don't want to give them a pass to begin acting out their hatreds based on their religion. Civil rights should not be hobbled by religiously allowed persecution.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests