Homosexuality vs. religion

• jmog

  FairwoodKing wrote:
  
  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.

  So you are saying in the law TODAY, you can't be kicked out for "sodomy".
  
  Just as I thought.
  
  I'm not saying there hasn't been huge travesties in the past, I just have been referring to TODAY the whole thread with regards to eviction.
• NNN

  

  BoatShoes wrote:

  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...

  It doesn't work that way though. 14-year-olds can't drive anything bigger than a go-kart or moped because it's detrimental to public safety, and there are restrictions on those vehicles for the same reason. Pedestrians aren't allowed on the interstate for the same reason; it's not discriminating against people who would rather walk, it's enforcing common sense safety measures.
  
  Any halfway decent lawyer would mop the floor with a landlord who tries to evict a gay couple for no other reason than being gay. Here's how it would go, even in the states that don't technically classify sexual orientation as a protected class.
  
  LAWYER: Why are you attempting to evict my clients?
  LANDLORD: Because they're gay.
  LAWYER: Do you rent to heterosexual couples who are not married?
  LANDLORD: Yes.
  LAWYER: Do you rent to two people of the same sex who are not married and are not in a relationship with each other?
  LANDLORD: Yes.
  LAWYER: How can you be fine with having either of those types of lease arrangements but not this one?
  LANDLORD: (assorted stock answer about not wanting gay couples around)
  LAWYER: How do you know that my clients are gay?
  
  Here's the big question. There's no way to answer this that wouldn't go somewhere where the landlord wouldn't want it to go. Let's go one by one.
  
  LANDLORD: They drive Volkswagen Jettas and wear Birkenstocks.
  LAWYER: Does anyone else that you don't believe to be gay do either of those?
  LANDLORD: Yes.
  LAWYER: Then you're saying that one type of person is allowed to drive a Jetta if they're not living with someone of the same sex, but not another?
  
  OR
  
  LANDLORD: They told me that they're gay.
  LAWYER: Did you ask everyone else who you lease to if they're gay, bisexual, or enjoy kinky sex?
  LANDLORD: (undoubtedly) No.
  
  OR
  
  LANDLORD: I observed them having sex.
  LAWYER: Was it out in the open?
  LANDLORD: No.
  LAWYER: Was it in the unit that they lease?
  LANDLORD: Yes.
  LAWYER: By what legal means did you enter an occupied unit without notice for the purpose of a random "gay check"?
  (hint: there is none. Whatever the landlord may answer with is wrong)
  LAWYER: Do you conduct random checks on other couples? Do you enter a unit that has two guys living together as roommates to see if maybe they've busted out a double dildo and are experimenting?
  
  You get the picture.
  
  It is EXTREMELY difficult to evict someone. I know my dad wasn't allowed to even begin the process to evict someone until they'd gone 10 months without paying rent, and lease law tends to define a very narrow scope of what exactly defines "grounds for eviction".
  
  If a gay couple is hosting loud parties on a regular basis, they can be evicted. If they don't pay rent, they can (eventually) be evicted. If they cause property damage, they can be evicted. If their actions are detrimental to safety, they can be evicted. If their actions are detrimental to decency (and this is VERY narrowly defined to include stuff like drug use or various forms of indecent exposure out in the open), they can be evicted.
  
  But there isn't a landlord in the country who would be able to successfully evict a gay couple who is not causing any problems and is paying rent simply for being gay and have it expect to hold up on appeal.
• jmog

  NNN wrote:
  
  It doesn't work that way though. 14-year-olds can't drive anything bigger than a go-kart or moped because it's detrimental to public safety, and there are restrictions on those vehicles for the same reason. Pedestrians aren't allowed on the interstate for the same reason; it's not discriminating against people who would rather walk, it's enforcing common sense safety measures.
  
  Any halfway decent lawyer would mop the floor with a landlord who tries to evict a gay couple for no other reason than being gay. Here's how it would go, even in the states that don't technically classify sexual orientation as a protected class.
  
  LAWYER: Why are you attempting to evict my clients?
  LANDLORD: Because they're gay.
  LAWYER: Do you rent to heterosexual couples who are not married?
  LANDLORD: Yes.
  LAWYER: Do you rent to two people of the same sex who are not married and are not in a relationship with each other?
  LANDLORD: Yes.
  LAWYER: How can you be fine with having either of those types of lease arrangements but not this one?
  LANDLORD: (assorted stock answer about not wanting gay couples around)
  LAWYER: How do you know that my clients are gay?
  
  Here's the big question. There's no way to answer this that wouldn't go somewhere where the landlord wouldn't want it to go. Let's go one by one.
  
  LANDLORD: They drive Volkswagen Jettas and wear Birkenstocks.
  LAWYER: Does anyone else that you don't believe to be gay do either of those?
  LANDLORD: Yes.
  LAWYER: Then you're saying that one type of person is allowed to drive a Jetta if they're not living with someone of the same sex, but not another?
  
  OR
  
  LANDLORD: They told me that they're gay.
  LAWYER: Did you ask everyone else who you lease to if they're gay, bisexual, or enjoy kinky sex?
  LANDLORD: (undoubtedly) No.
  
  OR
  
  LANDLORD: I observed them having sex.
  LAWYER: Was it out in the open?
  LANDLORD: No.
  LAWYER: Was it in the unit that they lease?
  LANDLORD: Yes.
  LAWYER: By what legal means did you enter an occupied unit without notice for the purpose of a random "gay check"?
  (hint: there is none. Whatever the landlord may answer with is wrong)
  LAWYER: Do you conduct random checks on other couples? Do you enter a unit that has two guys living together as roommates to see if maybe they've busted out a double dildo and are experimenting?
  
  You get the picture.
  
  It is EXTREMELY difficult to evict someone. I know my dad wasn't allowed to even begin the process to evict someone until they'd gone 10 months without paying rent, and lease law tends to define a very narrow scope of what exactly defines "grounds for eviction".
  
  If a gay couple is hosting loud parties on a regular basis, they can be evicted. If they don't pay rent, they can (eventually) be evicted. If they cause property damage, they can be evicted. If their actions are detrimental to safety, they can be evicted. If their actions are detrimental to decency (and this is VERY narrowly defined to include stuff like drug use or various forms of indecent exposure out in the open), they can be evicted.
  
  But there isn't a landlord in the country who would be able to successfully evict a gay couple who is not causing any problems and is paying rent simply for being gay and have it expect to hold up on appeal.

  Exactly what I've been trying to say the whole time.
• FairwoodKing

  jmog wrote:

  FairwoodKing wrote:
  
  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.

  So you are saying in the law TODAY, you can't be kicked out for "sodomy".
  
  Just as I thought.
  
  I'm not saying there hasn't been huge travesties in the past, I just have been referring to TODAY the whole thread with regards to eviction.

  I said in TEXAS you can no longer be kicked out of your home because of the sodomy law. But there are still other states where you can.
  
  I would say that the most restrictive state in the union today is Arkansas. They have a number of anti-gay laws on the books.
• FairwoodKing

  Just when you thought things couldn't get any more ridiculous, these fucking Baptists come along and picket military funerals because of gay issues. The dead soldiers weren't even gay!
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100331/ts_csm/291560
• Fab1b

  

  That Westboro Baptist Cult have been doing that shit for years, I wouldn't mind beating a few of their asses!!!!
• enigmaax

  Yeah those cats came to a service man's funeral near my hometown. Apparently God hates fags and since America has homosexuals and service men protect America, then service men must be protecting homosexuals, so by proxy God hates service men too? The whole thing reminded me of that Monty Python scene about the witch and the duck....only about 189023476 more ridiculous, though not nearly as humorous since they REALLY believe this shit.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  That crazy lady, Roper or whatever her name is, deserves to have her tits cut off and get eaten alive slowly by some flesh eating bug or something.
  
  If I were ever saw one of them with my own two eyes holding a "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" sign, I'd go to jail to make them bleed.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Their CHURCH website is www.godhatesfags.com.
  
  What a crock of shit.
• Heretic

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote: That crazy lady, Roper or whatever her name is, deserves to have her tits cut off and get eaten alive slowly by some flesh eating bug or something.
  
  If I were ever saw one of them with my own two eyes holding a "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" sign, I'd go to jail to make them bleed.

  Yeah. I'm a very laid back dude, but if I was at a funeral for a friend and those wastes of oxygen decided my friend's death was the perfect time for them to deliver their agenda, I'd wind up in jail pretty damn quick for what I'd do. Hopefully, I'd get pulled off before the felony gets REALLY serious.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  For me it wouldn't even have to be a friend, if I saw them anywhere and they were holding that sign I'd start throwing punches--no words even spoken, just start cleaning house.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  I honestly don't know if I'd even be that upset if I did something bad enough to serve 15-20 years...seriously. I think I'd be doing the world a favor.
• FairwoodKing

  Those assholes come here to Seattle every year to picket the Gay Pride Parade. Last year my friends and I from Seattle Men's Chorus got back at them. We were an entry in the parade. Just as we approached where the shitheads were standing, we started singing "Jesus Loves Me." It pissed the living hell out of them!
• SQ_Crazies

  

  I've heard they get worked up REALLY easily. You'd think people that are all about freedom of speech and opinion would be more understand of others and at least not get all bent out of shape when someone gives them a taste of their own medicine.
  
  Leave it to a bunch of gays to sing at them rather than just beat ass! Just kiddin' Fairwood.
• FairwoodKing

  SQ_Crazies wrote: I've heard they get worked up REALLY easily. You'd think people that are all about freedom of speech and opinion would be more understand of others and at least not get all bent out of shape when someone gives them a taste of their own medicine.
  
  Leave it to a bunch of gays to sing at them rather than just beat ass! Just kiddin' Fairwood.

  They are not about freedom of speech. They abuse the system. They want freedom of speech for themselves but not for anyone else.
  
  Eventually these fools will be put in their place.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Agreed, but I mean they certainly are supporters of that right.
• NNN

  

  You know how they sustain themselves? By suing people who physically assault them.
  
  But for those who haven't seen it, I present to you the one good or funny thing Michael Moore has ever done.
  
  
• CenterBHSFan

  

  NNN wrote: You know how they sustain themselves? By suing people who physically assault them.
  
  But for those who haven't seen it, I present to you the one good or funny thing Michael Moore has ever done.
  
  

  Agreed! He nails it on this one
• FairwoodKing

  I still don't see why Phelps and his bunch of turds picket military funerals. Even though there are gays in the military, it is still the straightest segment of US society. There are more gays in the priesthood per capita than there are in the military.
  
  I think they are trying to say that the military protects gay citizens. But since when has the military ever singled us out for anything good? The US military wishes we didn't exist.
  
  I guess crazy people do irrational things.
• NNN

  

  FairwoodKing wrote: I still don't see why Phelps and his bunch of turds picket military funerals. Even though there are gays in the military, it is still the straightest segment of US society. There are more gays in the priesthood per capita than there are in the military.
  
  I think they are trying to say that the military protects gay citizens. But since when has the military ever singled us out for anything good? The US military wishes we didn't exist.
  
  I guess crazy people do irrational things.

  Because he's a loudmouthed whore for attention and an asshole; that's my guess anyway.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Yeah, Freddie Phelps is definitely off his nut. Clearly.
  
  Him and his family are not right in the head.
  
  There WILL be no understanding of it if one has a rational mind/mentality.
• Heretic

  

  NNN wrote: You know how they sustain themselves? By suing people who physically assault them.
  
  But for those who haven't seen it, I present to you the one good or funny thing Michael Moore has ever done.
  
  

  In addition...the only time I ever saw Hannity and Colmes 100% in agreement (granted, I only watched them a few times, but the show's format wasn't "have two guys with different beliefs engage in 'we'll agree to disagree; everyone's a winner' conversations") was when Phelps' group was brought up.
  
  What that piece of shit and his people say is only supported by the lowest of the low. When the high-profile right and left wing commentators actually can agree that someone is a pathetic asshole, that's saying something.
• FairwoodKing

  In a perverse sense, the gay world needs Phelps and his band of turds. Every time they open their mouths, they convert someone to our way of thinking. Even people who don't especially like gays have to be on our side when these assholes attack military funerals.
  
  I'm really surprised that they come here to Seattle to picket our Gay Pride Parades. They get virtually no support from anyone. They have to face a hundred thousand straight people who love to come to the parades to see the sights. We get very few pickets or other disruptions.