FairwoodKing wrote:
I'm not stretching the truth and I certainly am not lying. We gay people have had to put up with this shit for a long time and we are fed up.

If you knew anything at all, you would know that gay people have had to face adversity for many hundreds of years. The Catholics used to burn us at the stake. The Nazis sent us to die in concentration camps. The Soviets sent us to the Gulag. In today's Uganda, we are hanged solely for being gay because the Bible says we are sinners. In this country as recently as fifty years ago, gay men and lesbians were required to register with the police. The Klan attacked us. Until very recently, gay sex was illegal in Texas and gays and lesbians were arrested. And in most states today, gays are denied the same rights as heterosexuals in housing and jobs as well as many different legal issues.

This is why people like me are fighting. I don't expect to see full gay rights in the U.S. in my lifetime, but I will continue to fight for them.

I'm talking about in the present, you are talking about what happened over the last few centuries. I'm not denying that homosexuals have been persecuted wrongly, I'm saying that in today's United States you can NOT evict someone just because they are a homosexual. You can't even evict someone until they are many MANY months behind on rent.

So please, get off your soap box and stick to the topic. I said you can't evict people in the US TODAY you go off on a tangent about Nazi's, burning at the stake, etc. I wasn't talking about the past, I was talking about RIGHT NOW, in the US.

FairwoodKing wrote:

Upper90 wrote: Not that I don't think the cause is worthy, and likely side with the cause in all forms....I do think that there's a danger of going a bit overboard when one is passionate.

I suppose my question is this, and color me uninformed, but....what states can you be evicted from an apartment, just for being homosexual, and what are some examples of this playing out?

I've just never heard of it occurring, with THAT being the singular and actual reason behind it, but I'm not on the pulse, I suppose.

There are 31 states (including Ohio) that do not include sexual orientation as a category protected from discrimination. It is true that many progressive companies do have this written in their non-discrimination policies, but the protections still do not come from the states.

In other words, it doesn't happen but I want hate crime legislation passed.

Give an example of someone getting evicted for being a homosexual (and only that reason) and the follow up to it (assuming they sued), or get off that subject.

You completely dodged upper's question and somehow turned it into anti-discrimination/hate crime legislation when he asked for a specific example of a homosexual being evicted because they were homosexual, and how it played out.

FairwoodKing wrote: Just because 31 states deny legal gay relationships doesn't make it right. Your ideas on morality should not dictate my rights. In a democracy, the majority is supposed to protect the rights of the minority. In most parts of this country, this is not happening.

We responsible gay people are going to continue to demand our rights, and we won't be satisfied until we get them.

It is your choice to live an immoral lifestyle. You have the same equal rights under the law as every man and woman of this great country. The laws governing this country were written using the Holy Bible as a foundation.

Although men have participated in homosexuality throughout history, the disdain for it by the various nations and/or organizations is a clear indication that it was and is known and understood to be an abominable sin, and an un-natural activity and it is wrong.

Series62 wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Just because 31 states deny legal gay relationships doesn't make it right. Your ideas on morality should not dictate my rights. In a democracy, the majority is supposed to protect the rights of the minority. In most parts of this country, this is not happening.

We responsible gay people are going to continue to demand our rights, and we won't be satisfied until we get them.

It is your choice to live an immoral lifestyle. You have the same equal rights under the law as every man and woman of this great country. The laws governing this country were written using the Holy Bible as a foundation.

Although men have participated in homosexuality throughout history, the disdain for it by the various nations and/or organizations is a clear indication that it was and is known and understood to be an abominable sin, and an un-natural activity and it is wrong.

Really? Come on, even though I believe that homosexuality is a sin, you can't really believe this is the right/Biblical way to treat someone and express your views on their lifestyle?

Where's the love? Where's the compassion?

If you really think this is how Jesus would have told Fairwood he was wrong then you haven't read the same Bible I do.

The love and compassion is simply stating the truth of the matter. I was not harsh nor degrading, I did not use any derogatory slurs! I read the King James version of the Bible and there are times when Jesus cut to the chase and told the people about themselves. The love is having enough care and compassion to tell someone the truth.

Series62 wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Just because 31 states deny legal gay relationships doesn't make it right. Your ideas on morality should not dictate my rights. In a democracy, the majority is supposed to protect the rights of the minority. In most parts of this country, this is not happening.

We responsible gay people are going to continue to demand our rights, and we won't be satisfied until we get them.

It is your choice to live an immoral lifestyle. You have the same equal rights under the law as every man and woman of this great country. The laws governing this country were written using the Holy Bible as a foundation.

Although men have participated in homosexuality throughout history, the disdain for it by the various nations and/or organizations is a clear indication that it was and is known and understood to be an abominable sin, and an un-natural activity and it is wrong.

you are ridiculous and you don't even know it

Series62 wrote: The love and compassion is simply stating the truth of the matter. I was not harsh nor degrading, I did not use any derogatory slurs! I read the King James version of the Bible and there are times when Jesus cut to the chase and told the people about themselves. The love is having enough care and compassion to tell someone the truth.

The truth in YOUR eyes dipshit! Quit living your life based on a book!

The "truth" in God's eyes. I'll continue to live according to His word!

Is that the best you can do insofar as your insults?

God Bless you, dey.

Series62 wrote: The "truth" in God's eyes. I'll continue to live according to His word!

Is that the best you can do insofar as your insults?

God Bless you, dey.

And you will continue to live a very close minded life...

Series62 wrote:
It is your choice to live an immoral lifestyle. You have the same equal rights under the law as every man and woman of this great country. The laws governing this country were written using the Holy Bible as a foundation.

Although men have participated in homosexuality throughout history, the disdain for it by the various nations and/or organizations is a clear indication that it was and is known and understood to be an abominable sin, and an un-natural activity and it is wrong.

I do not live by the "BOOK".
But I do agree with the "un-natural activity ".

Why would anyone care what two adults do behind closed doors?!?!?

Is your life that pathetic that you want to dictate who has sex with who?

Why is this even a debate?

I'm not gay, but if two guys want to get it on, then go for it....if two chicks want to get it on, then go for it.

As long as it doesn't affect me, then why would I really care? I don't get it.

I'll give you an example of the discrimination we face. A few years ago I lived in Cincinnati. I had a gay friend who had a lover. The lover was in a very serious auto accident. He spent many months in a coma in the hospital before he ultimately died. The lover's family would not allow my friend to visit him in the hospital nor was he allowed to attend the funeral. Because Ohio did not have anti-discrimination laws, my friend could do nothing about it. The only information he could even get about his lover came from a priest who would visit the lover frequently and then report to my friend.

This situation still exists in Ohio. But out here in Washington, domestic partners are protected by law from these atrocities. If the same thing had happened here, my friend could have gone to court and forced the family to let him in for visitations. My friend would also have been responsible for the funeral arrangements and certainly would have been allowed to participate. My friend would be at the head of the line for inheritence instead of automatically being pushed out.

Another tragic irony to my story is that the lover's family had rejected him for being gay. They wouldn't have anything to do with him until he was in the hospital unconscious.

Niineteen states offer some sort of protection. Thirty-one states do not. We will not rest until all fifty states give us the human rights we deserve.

FairwoodKing wrote: I'll give you an example of the discrimination we face. A few years ago I lived in Cincinnati. I had a gay friend who had a lover. The lover was in a very serious auto accident. He spent many months in a coma in the hospital before he ultimately died. The lover's family would not allow my friend to visit him in the hospital nor was he allowed to attend the funeral. Because Ohio did not have anti-discrimination laws, my friend could do nothing about it. The only information he could even get about his lover came from a priest who would visit the lover frequently and then report to my friend.

This situation still exists in Ohio. But out here in Washington, domestic partners are protected by law from these atrocities. If the same thing had happened here, my friend could have gone to court and forced the family to let him in for visitations. My friend would also have been responsible for the funeral arrangements and certainly would have been allowed to participate. My friend would be at the head of the line for inheritence instead of automatically being pushed out.

Another tragic irony to my story is that the lover's family had rejected him for being gay. They wouldn't have anything to do with him until he was in the hospital unconscious.

Niineteen states offer some sort of protection. Thirty-one states do not. We will not rest until all fifty states give us the human rights we deserve.

The same thing happened to a woman I worked with. Only difference is that she couldn't see her boyfriend in the hospital (since his family didn't care too much for her) and there was no legal recourse since they weren't married or engaged.

Was that discriminatory? If they'd lived together for a period of time before the accident, would the law be any different?

I feel kind of like you dodged my pretty "over the plate" question, now twice. That's fine, I suppose. I won't bring it up again. I was just concerned that with your passion, you're also losing validity. Which is never good.

It's going to be a tough to get evicted without violating the terms of the lease agreement as not only is a lease an estate in land but a contract and it guarantees the lessee right to possession so long as she doesn't violate the terms of the lease agreement.

NOW, on the other hand, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 barred these particular types of contracts from containing terms related to Race, Gender, National Origin and later children with disabilities...The U.S. doesn't have sexual orientation as a protected class in regards to housing discrimination...Unless of course you live in a state that has added sexual orientation to this list (as FairWood's state has)

So...technically, a landlord under current law (depending on the state) could write as a term in the lease agreement "Don't be a homosexual or you're in violation of the lease" and not break the law. This doesn't likely happen though and I imagine if it did, unless you live below the Mason-Dixon line or in Texas a Judge would probably void the lease on public policy grounds.

So, in short.

It's likely that people who self-identify as homosexual have been and are being denied housing because of their orientation and have not had ample redress...but, I doubt that much evicting, on the grounds of tenants being gay, is happening...BUT, again, suppose there's a really intolerant landlord...I imagine they could find nit picky things to try and say the lease was violated when in substance she just wanted to kick them out cus they were gay...

I mean, landlord's in lubbock texas aren't kicking tenants out into the street saying "get outta here you faggots!"...but perhaps "Due to a violation of a covenant in our lease agreement, because of persistent disruption of the other tenant's right to quiet enjoyment, the landlord is giving you three days to vacate the premises until he recovers possession"...but really he just doesn't like the thought of two guys kissing on his property.

I mean really, call up an apartment leasing office in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and talk like Richard Simmons and see if there any apartments for rent. Then, wait five minutes and call again talking like Dale Jr. and talk about Bama football and it'll be amazing how much vacancy could appear so quickly.

But hey, as our brazen spawn of Ayn Rand from the politics board who've found there way over to this thread will tell you...who's the government to tell these landlords that they can't choose a certain reason for not allowing a person to rent their property...who's the gov'mnt to tell them they gotta be fair to teh gays!?!? They're forewarned...they can just go find other housing elsewhere. Duh! Forget it Fairwood, if the Freedom loving, God fearing "Real Americans" in the South don't want to rent to gays...just hitch up your wagon, strap on your bootstraps and head to Seattle. No big deal.

BTW, just my two cents, this seems like it should be in the politics forum from my perspective...but that's JMHO. No flame on the Mods.

Upper90 wrote: I feel kind of like you dodged my pretty "over the plate" question, now twice. That's fine, I suppose. I won't bring it up again. I was just concerned that with your passion, you're also losing validity. Which is never good.

I'm not trying to dodge anything. It's just that there aren't good stories to tell. I have known gay men who were kicked out of their apartments when the landlord found out they were gay. They had no legal recourse. End of story.

BoatShoes wrote: It's going to be a tough to get evicted without violating the terms of the lease agreement as not only is a lease an estate in land but a contract and it guarantees the lessee right to possession so long as she doesn't violate the terms of the lease agreement.

NOW, on the other hand, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 barred these particular types of contracts from containing terms related to Race, Gender, National Origin and later children with disabilities...The U.S. doesn't have sexual orientation as a protected class in regards to housing discrimination...Unless of course you live in a state that has added sexual orientation to this list (as FairWood's state has)

So...technically, a landlord under current law (depending on the state) could write as a term in the lease agreement "Don't be a homosexual or you're in violation of the lease" and not break the law. This doesn't likely happen though and I imagine if it did, unless you live below the Mason-Dixon line or in Texas a Judge would probably void the lease on public policy grounds.

So, in short.

It's likely that people who self-identify as homosexual have been and are being denied housing because of their orientation and have not had ample redress...but, I doubt that much evicting, on the grounds of tenants being gay, is happening...BUT, again, suppose there's a really intolerant landlord...I imagine they could find nit picky things to try and say the lease was violated when in substance she just wanted to kick them out cus they were gay...

I mean, landlord's in lubbock texas aren't kicking tenants out into the street saying "get outta here you **!"...but perhaps "Due to a violation of a covenant in our lease agreement, because of persistent disruption of the other tenant's right to quiet enjoyment, the landlord is giving you three days to vacate the premises until he recovers possession"...but really he just doesn't like the thought of two guys kissing on his property

Under the terms of lease law, it's not legally enforceable to evict or otherwise collect from someone on the basis of violation of the lease if the clause itself is illegal or discriminatory in nature*. When we were looking to move a few months back, I had the joy of having a nice back-and-forth with a leasing agent at a rental office over this very issue; their stance was basically that if it's in the lease, it's open and shut. I happen to know a little something (not a ton, but a little something) about lease law. Needless to say, we didn't go with them.

The obvious issue with trying to evict someone or deny housing on the basis of sexual discrimination is twofold: what it means and how enforceable it really would be.

What it means: Is someone a homosexual on the basis of actions or thoughts? Would a celibate person who has homosexual desires be denied housing on the basis of their thoughts, or would someone who is married and bisexual be denied on the basis of their actions?

How enforceable: Let's say that it's on the basis of actions. It would be basically impossible for a landlord to actually come up with an across-the-board way to prevent homosexual behavior. He can't ban unmarried couples from cohabitating. He can't ban two people of the same sex who are living together and not married. He can't ban people from dropping in to visit a tenant of the same sex. He can't draw up and enforce a "no sleepover" rule. Basically, he'd have to actually catch someone in the act, and then you start getting into an entirely separate issue involving privacy, expectation of privacy, and just cause for entering an occupied rented unit.

What would be possible would be something basic and standard that would be applied to everyone. That would be something along the lines of "no public affection outside the unit and inside the property".

*The overwhelming majority of people won't actually explore their options when it comes to this type of thing. I know of a landlord who collected thousands of dollars from tenants allowing their leases to expire, and he would refuse to refund security deposits on the basis of stupid stuff like "there's a thumbtack hole in the wall". When he tangled with the wrong ex-tenant, they took him to the cleaners in court on that very basis.

NNN wrote:
, it's not legally enforceable to evict or otherwise collect from someone on the basis of violation of the lease if the clause itself is illegal or discriminatory in nature*.

I agree and I said this in my post. But, I pointed out that in some states a clause saying "don't be gay" could technically be enforceable because in these states sexual orientation isn't a protected class...hence, you can discriminate against allowing gays to live in your apartment just like you can discriminate against 14 year olds from driving semi trucks...nonetheless, if there was actually such a clause...there's a good chance a Judge wouldn't enforce it because it's just so, right out there in the open. Hence...landlords aren't saying..."you can't be gay and live here" Or, "What, you guys are gay!??...you violated the lease...get out"

It's like you said in your post...they could say they violated some broad lease term such as "disturbing quiet enjoyment of the property" when in reality they just don't like gays...

ManO'War wrote:
I'm not gay, but if two guys want to get it on, then go for it....if two chicks want to get it on, then go for it.

Especially the latter.

Series62 wrote: The love and compassion is simply stating the truth of the matter. I was not harsh nor degrading, I did not use any derogatory slurs! I read the King James version of the Bible and there are times when Jesus cut to the chase and told the people about themselves. The love is having enough care and compassion to tell someone the truth.

You obviously didn't read the way he treated Mary Magdelene (a prostitue), Matthew (a known cheat and tax collector) and so on.

He "cut to the chase" typically with hypocritical RELIGIOUS people like the pharisees. He showed compassion with most sinners while still showing them the right way to live.

If you think you are doing that, then you are sadly mistaken.

You are showing zero "love" and apparently don't fully understand Jesus' words in Matthew 7:1 when he said "Judge not lest ye be judged".

Don't tell me you aren't judging, because you are.

Don't give me the line about "righteous judging" because you aren't righteous, only God is.

You should also read the part where Jesus told the Pharisees (religious leaders) that whoever was without sin could cast the first stone at the woman who had committed adultery many times (possibly a prostitute).

It is one thing to state your beliefs and why you believe them, its another to attack/degrade them. I'm sorry, but that is exactly what you have done on this thread.

FairwoodKing wrote: I'll give you an example of the discrimination we face. A few years ago I lived in Cincinnati. I had a gay friend who had a lover. The lover was in a very serious auto accident. He spent many months in a coma in the hospital before he ultimately died. The lover's family would not allow my friend to visit him in the hospital nor was he allowed to attend the funeral. Because Ohio did not have anti-discrimination laws, my friend could do nothing about it. The only information he could even get about his lover came from a priest who would visit the lover frequently and then report to my friend.

This situation still exists in Ohio. But out here in Washington, domestic partners are protected by law from these atrocities. If the same thing had happened here, my friend could have gone to court and forced the family to let him in for visitations. My friend would also have been responsible for the funeral arrangements and certainly would have been allowed to participate. My friend would be at the head of the line for inheritence instead of automatically being pushed out.

Another tragic irony to my story is that the lover's family had rejected him for being gay. They wouldn't have anything to do with him until he was in the hospital unconscious.

Niineteen states offer some sort of protection. Thirty-one states do not. We will not rest until all fifty states give us the human rights we deserve.

This is oen case I somewhat agree with you.

This is one reason I am ok with same sex marriages/unions in the US. To allow loved ones who spend their live with someone in the hospital at their worst times.

Even though I am 100% against homosexuality in my belief system, that doesn't mean my belief system should be the rule of law.

However, it isn't anti-discrimination laws that would fix this at all, you have that pare incorrect, it would be same sex civil unions/marriages.

You still have yet to come up with an example of eviction like you claimed.

FairwoodKing wrote:

I'm not trying to dodge anything. It's just that there aren't good stories to tell. I have known gay men who were kicked out of their apartments when the landlord found out they were gay. They had no legal recourse. End of story.

False, if they did not break the lease agreement at all, they had legal recourse.

Some people don't realize how hard it really is to get someone evicted nowadays.

FairwoodKing wrote:

Upper90 wrote: I feel kind of like you dodged my pretty "over the plate" question, now twice. That's fine, I suppose. I won't bring it up again. I was just concerned that with your passion, you're also losing validity. Which is never good.

I'm not trying to dodge anything. It's just that there aren't good stories to tell. I have known gay men who were kicked out of their apartments when the landlord found out they were gay. They had no legal recourse. End of story.

I guess I was just looking for specific examples, as I could say "Well, (insert unjust thing) has happened to me because I'm black, end of story"....and I'd have a hard time getting that over, I'm sure you understand that.

However, if I had evidence of this, be it a court case, news story, etc....it would hold more water. I'm not doubting discrimination, but in this case, I would feel better if it was backed up by something, JMO.

Upper90 wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

Upper90 wrote: I feel kind of like you dodged my pretty "over the plate" question, now twice. That's fine, I suppose. I won't bring it up again. I was just concerned that with your passion, you're also losing validity. Which is never good.

I'm not trying to dodge anything. It's just that there aren't good stories to tell. I have known gay men who were kicked out of their apartments when the landlord found out they were gay. They had no legal recourse. End of story.

I guess I was just looking for specific examples, as I could say "Well, (insert unjust thing) has happened to me because I'm black, end of story"....and I'd have a hard time getting that over, I'm sure you understand that.

However, if I had evidence of this, be it a court case, news story, etc....it would hold more water. I'm not doubting discrimination, but in this case, I would feel better if it was backed up by something, JMO.

The grounds for kicking gay people out of their homes were based on the old sodomy laws. In each case, the landlord broke the lease by claiming that the gay men were breaking the law while using the apartment or house. In actuality, they were. The sodomy law in Texas was finally overturned when the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. It was not overturned by the legislature or a vote of the citizens.

Again, I don't think you're understanding what I was asking for. Which I find a bit odd, since I don't think it's put across in a confusing manner.

I suppose I'll leave you to this topic, but I would hope that in your mission to right these wrongs, you're a bit more clear and concise than you've been in spots on this topic.