Of course I should point out that my statement applies only to regular people who have a basement or upstairs apartment in their houses…not to commercial renters such as multi-unit complexes. Only where a private home is concerned.
Thank you for responding Joe. In a way I can see your point about rooms to let, That is far different than opposing anti-discrimination laws as H4E does.
In that thread, H4E was clearly talking about renting a home or apartment, not a room.
I too see your point, Joe. We used to own a double house, which we inherited from my parents and grandparents. Because it was an extended family, the rear entrance, the cellar, and the attic were shared between the two households, and there was no effective way, without more remodeling than we could afford, to make one half of the house secure from the other. When we went to place it for rental, you better believe we were very choosy about whom we felt comfortable having that kind of access to our home.
As regards your earlier point to me, I think we disagree, but in a way that should arouse no ire between us. For me, I see Christians as having an affirmative duty to their Lord to act in behalf of those who are persecuted by others, including emphatically victims of bashing and other forms of discrimination. I can however see your stance as, if not what I’d consider moral, at least morally neutral. We are not all called to do everything that needs doing.
Gobear, as de facto spokesman for the “other side” vis-a-vis discrimination arguments, can you see Joe’s responses to my questions as acceptable if not ideal? If not, can you explain in measured terms (as opposed to Pit venting) why they are not. I feel like we’ve achieved a breakthrough in communicating and would like to continue exploring these topics together.
Just FYI, H4E’s hypothetical involved a single-owner rental property. There are exemptions in the Fair Housing Act that allow you to discriminate against people when the rental property is either a room for sublet, or the other half of a duplex if you’re living in one half. So even if sexual orientation were added to the list of protected classes in the FHA, it would never force anyone to take a person whose lifestyle they don’t agree with under their own roof to live side by side. That’s as it should be, it is your house, after all. (BTW, you can discriminate, but you can’t advertise discriminatory practices under that exception.) The FHA was designed only to making the market fair in commercial rental situations.
Not really.
Gay Marriage
Joe_Cool seems to think that only unions between Christians are called “marriages.” Maybe that’s what his church teaches, but the law doesn’t discriminate between the religious and the nonreligious. Legally, A union between two heterosexual atheists performed by a JP is every bit as much a marriage as a religious ceremony for the twiceborn, and that’s all I care about. I have no interest in a religious ceremony. I don’t want some back-of-the-bus “second class civil union”–I want the exact same legal rights that Joe and Jersey Diamond will receive, and those are not limited only to Christians, but they are limited, at the moment, to heterosexuals. Since Joe says he favors equal rights, and since the law does not limit marriage to unions between Christians, he should have no objection to gay marriage. Remember, it doesn’t have to be in a church to be called a marriage.
Housing
A. I’d like to see a cite about the law permitting discrimination by private renters. If the law allows Joe to deny housing on the basis of race or age, then I’ll accept that it’s OK to deny it to gay people. See, what Joe persistently fails to understand is that gay people do not want “special rights”; we want equal rights. Treat us as you would anyone else, no better and no worse.
Laughing at “Fag” Jokes
Are these jokes funny? (Warning: These are really vile)
Why do black kids have flat noses? That’s where the doctor steps when he pulls off their tails.
What’s the difference between a Jew and a pizza? A pizza doesn’t scream when you put it in an oven.
What does “gay” stand for? Got Aids Yet?
Sure, I can laugh at myself and I can take kidding about gayness. But I also have the sense to tell the difference between humor and hate. If anyone told antiblack or anti-Jewish “jokes” in my presence, they’d get a prompt scolding in very blunt terms, even though I am neither black nor Jewish, 'cos bigotry is never funny.
Oh, and there’s a side-issue
You do not know what you are talking about. The First Amendment limits the powers of the government to limit speech. It in no way refers to dealing between private individuals. Saying “Shut up” to you might be terribly rude, but it is NOT a violation of the First Amendment.
Read some books on the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s history of enforcement.
A People’s History of the Supreme Court, Peter Irons
The Courage of Their Convictions, also by Peter Irons
The Bill of Rights: A user’s Guide, Linda R. Monk
no, but not merely because they are about particular groups, but because they are also vicious slams against those groups.
I have a fabulous joke, tho:
A Jew, a German and an Italian were stranded in the desert with nothing.
The Italian says: “Oh, I’m so hungry, I’m so thirsty, I must have some wine!”
The German says: “Oh, I’m so hungry, I’m so thirsty, I must have some beer!”
The Jew says: “Oh, I’m so hungry, I’m so thirsty, I must have diabetes!”
Was that offensive? Cuz if it was, you better clue all my jewish friends, who think it’s utterly hilarious.
Stoid
exploiting the opportunity to tell her current favorite joke
Nah, that’s not offensive because, as you said, it’s not a vicious slam against Jews. Laughing at a particular group’s traits isn’t necessarily offensive. What I find offensive, and I suspect I’m alone in this, are jokes where humor is based on the supposed inferiority/filth/immorality of a specific ethnic or religious group. I grant you, the dividing line between funny and offensive can be highly subjective and exceedingly thin, but there is a difference between mocking the foibles of a group and laughing at them because they’re so stupid/greedy/dirty/lazy/immoral, etc.
Nah, that’s not offensive because, as you said, it’s not a vicious slam against Jews. Laughing at a particular group’s traits isn’t necessarily offensive. What I find offensive, and I suspect I’m alone in this, are jokes where humor is based on the supposed inferiority/filth/immorality of a specific ethnic or religious group. I grant you, the dividing line between funny and offensive can be highly subjective and exceedingly thin, but there is a difference between mocking the foibles of a group and laughing at them because they’re so stupid/greedy/dirty/lazy/immoral, etc.
First.
Actually gobear, I didn’t think your jokes were funny, not only because they’re vicious slams (oven? that’s sick), but because they’re just not funny. Don’t quit your day job.
Second.
I’m quite familiar with the Bill of Rights, as you’d know if you bothered to read any of my posts outside the context of your gay inquisition. You’ll notice I didn’t say that there was a violation of law, but principle. I believe I’ve seen you speak in defense of Freedom of Speech before, but it’s funny how you resort to insults and shout-downs as soon as the speech in question doesn’t agree with your views. And please, once again, at least read what you quote!
Third.
None of my statements aside from the above First Amendment one are based on law, they are my opinions. Last time I checked, I didn’t need a cite to have an opinion. Or has that changed?
And finally…
I’m getting really tired of repeating myself. READ IT BEFORE YOU COMMENT ON IT!
If you don’t buy that, I guess it’s just too bad. I’ve clarified my positions just about as much as can be done, and that’s all you get. If you still don’t agree…well… hard times, dude. I’m not going to change what I believe to appease you, and I’m not going to run scared under the threat of more pit threads (though if you do start another one, PLEASE at least give me a good cursing out. that one about maggots and monkeys’ asses was pretty gay. 
[intentionally ironic statement based on the content of the thread thus far. <sarcasm flag raised for DDG, who by her own admission is incapable of discerning it for herself>])
Um, we were telling jokes like that at the last Pittsburgh Dopefest (I think someone told the pizza one), but I don’t think we were laughing at the jokes per se. It was more of a contest to see who could come up with the most offensive joke, and say, “Oh, that’s REALLY bad!” And laugh at how BAD they were.
However, Joe, His4ever popped into several threads to tell people they were blaspheming and that they were under the influence of the “Evil One”. That’s pretty bad in my book.
Or her, “This new Chick tract is really great, but you people just don’t get it.”
Or the whole, “why is everyone picking one me!!!”
And her laughable attempts to prove that Catholics worship saints and that Mormons do this or whatever it was.
Guinastasia, people do blaspheme on this board, and quite often. So I don’t see how you can call that condemnation. It’s more like observation. People under the influence of the evil one? A little harsher and less savory statement than the previous one, but still, can you say that it’s untrue? I still don’t know if I’d call it condemnatory.
And I have my own complaints about the Roman Catholic Church. It does not exactly have a squeaky clean history, so let’s not get started on that one. At least His4ever has never burned anyone at the stake, to my knowledge.
That was me. I admit it. And yes, the “pizza” joke was told, among others. I only tell those jokes because they’re so awful, not because I believe what they say.
Joe, the fact that Catholics burned people at the stake oh so many hundreds of years ago has nothing jackshit nothing to do with the fact that we ain’t worshipping any saint. Or anything else this century. What kind of arguement is that?
We don’t worship saints.
Oh yeah? Well, your church leaders burned people at the stake hundreds of years before any of us were born!
And Catholics sure as anything weren’t the only Christian sect using torture and execution against dissidents. All religious have sinned
Ok.
The catholic church celebrates the mass as a continual sacrifice of Jesus, through the “miracle” of Transubstantiation - in which the bread and wine are believed to become the actual, literal body and blood of Jesus Christ - for the remission of sins.
Whereas Jesus’s sacrifice was complete and sufficient for all time. He himself said “It is finished.” (John 19:30)
“For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.” (Romans 6:9-10).
Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself." (Hebrews 7:27)
“He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:12)
“But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:26)
“And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Hebrews 10:10)
“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit…” (1 Peter 3:18) (That’s a good one, right? The so-called “First Pope” denying the continual sacrifice of the Mass?)
Is that better?
Here’s the link: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm
See Section 803(b)(1) and 803(b)(2). That exempts people such as the duplex owner or room renter who dwells in the house, and people renting no more than three single-family homes. You will see they are exempted from everything except the 804© advertising provision, and the renter who dwells in the property himself is exempted even from the advertising provision.
Those people can, for strong policy reasons, continue to discriminate against the protected classes of the FHA. People have a pretty strong privacy interest in their own place of residence, and the legislature concluded that people should be able to discriminate in those situations. Additionally, those renters are unlikely to have enough to do with interstate commerce to bring the law under the scope of the commerce clause, and thus it would otherwise be unconstitutional on that basis. Since those renters seem to comprise a small proportion of the overall housing market, equal opportunity housing is still achieved. Later development of disparate impact theory, such that intentional discrimination need not be proven so long as one can demonstrate that a housing policy disparately impacts the opportunities of a protected class to attain housing, has allowed the FHA to succeed in its goal despite the exemptions.
Despite your characterization of H4e’s postion above, Rex, I don’t believe she really wants to limit the anti-discrimination principle to homes/duplexes where the landlord is also living. Observe:
(emphasis added).
BTW, Joe_Cool, the RCC does not accept the false dichotomy between “symbolism” and the “Real Presence” in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Your point only makes sense if it must be either symbolic (in which case the RCC is wrong) or real (in which case it’s a continuing sacrifice.) This is not the case. Check any of the links on this page:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ11.HTM
Your point about the allegedly “continuing sacrifice” is a common point made by protestants. There must be a book out there that protestants are all reading that contains these objections, which they learn by rote. Read some of the defenses at that website. In short, the Church argues that the Eucharist is both real and symbolic, in that the actual blood/body is present and that this sacrament is done in remembrance of the one sacrifice.
First of all, I don’t see where she explicitly included commercial property, or that it is even implied. Can you do better than that?
Anyway, 803(b) explicitly exempts private owners as long as “such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any one time.” Which means that anybody with UP TO three single-family homes is ok under the exemption.
Since the portion of H4e’s post you disagree with is the plurality of homes rented, it appears that the law is on her side, and your case is pretty weak.
Barring further evidence, of course…
I did read it; you just don’t understand the the concept of freedom of speech" (and are pigheadedly stubborn, to boot). I reapeat disagreement is not a violation of the principle, the intent, or the spirit of the First Amendment. You have the right to speak; you do not have the right to speak unopposed, nor do I, nor does anyone.
Joe Cool: Homosex is sinful!
Gobear: You are totally full of crap.
Joe Cool: Waaah, Gobear’s violating the First Amendment and suppressing my freedom of speech! <sniffle>
“Violating the principle” my Aunt Agatha!
Then you support gay marriage. Remmber, in this country, mariage is not limited to Protestants. Do you call a mariage between Jews or atheists, or , heavens to Betsy, CATHOLICS!!!, as somehow inferior to your own? Are they mere “civil unions”? If you regard their marriages as valid as your own, if only in the lagal sense, then you can have no objection ot gay marriage and you can stop this “civil union” crap.
In re jokes, a pack of wise-ass Dopers trying to gross each other out is not even in the same ballpark as some yahoo saying, “Heard the latest fag joke?” and you guys all know it.
Thank you for the housing cite, RexDart.