(03-28-2015, 08:46 PM)sally Wrote: Well if sally can get a room anyone can.

I don't think people are discriminated against as much as they claim to be. I could do some nasty bi-sexual, lesbian, midget transexual shit tonight and I guarantee you I'll find a job and apartment tomorrow if I needed to.

Yeah but you'd probably lie on your rental application. That's what I'd do. I'd make me sound so NOT gay/kinky.

Earth to User, there is no section on rental applications asking who you have sex with. The only way you might sound kinky is if your name is Ben Dover or Alotta Butts.

Les Bean

(03-28-2015, 08:16 PM)sally Wrote: Why should you have to put down your sexual preference on an online rental application? That study doesn't make any sense, I've never been asked my sexual preference on any application. The closest is on medical charts where they ask your marital status. Which you answer M or S.

You wouldn't typically be asked to put your sexual orientation on any application, sal.

The report explains the methodology; 7,000 paired-email tests in 50 metropolitan markets were conducted. Researchers identified housing providers who advertised the availability of a one-bedroom rental unit and sent them two emailed inquiries within a short time frame.

One email would be from a fictitious married couple and the other from a fictitious same-sex couple. In one format, for instance, the email from a man named “Adam” might have read, “Hello, I just saw your ad on [a website] for the apartment at [specific address] and I am definitely interested. Is it still available? Is there a time that my wife, Tina, and I can stop by and look it over?”

If Adam was meant to be gay, the email would have been similar in content and refer to “my partner, Johnathon” instead. For lesbian couples, two clearly female names were identified as partners in the email reply.

The results of the research:
-30% of the time, neither couple got a response.
-50% of the time, both couples got a response and the response to the heterosexual couple's inquiry was positive more frequently (they were told it was still available whereas the homosexual or lesbian couple was told it wasn't).
-20% of the time only one of the couples got a response and that was usually the heterosexual couple.
-The lesbian couple got a response and a positive response more frequently than the gay male couple.
-In summary, the study showed that about 15% of the time, all other factors equal, heterosexual couples were favored over gay couples.

It's not an insignificant percentage, nor is it like a vast majority of rental agencies or realtors gave a shit either way.

There was actually slightly more favor shown towards heterosexual couples in states with anti-discrimination laws, which is interesting but not surprising to me and is indicative of why I wouldn't actively oppose RFRA (though I certainly don't support such laws). The results of this study indicate that anti-discrimination laws don't make a difference in how unregulated businesses operate, at least when it comes to property rental. Likewise, I don't think laws protecting business people's rights to discriminate based on their religious beliefs make a difference in how private business, in property rental or any other industry, is conducted either. Those of us who've responded to this thread so far share a similar opinion in that regard.

I think I might choose to rent to gays above all others. I've never encountered a gay who is a slob.

(03-28-2015, 08:16 PM)sally Wrote: Why should you have to put down your sexual preference on an online rental application? That study doesn't make any sense, I've never been asked my sexual preference on any application. The closest is on medical charts where they ask your marital status. Which you answer M or S.

Its bad out there, I don't agree with having to put down your race on some applications. That in itself is racist and destroys the equal footing everyone is looking for.

One of the earliest signs of the rise of a fascist state is the state sponsored legal discrimination against a specific group based on an arbitrary measure, disguised as a "protection" for the ones discriminating, and painted with the brush of religion or national patriotism.

I get your drift Donovan, but I don't think RFRA laws in any way signify that the US is a rising fascist state.

There's not a specific group impacted here. While most of the media attention and focus of this thread has veered towards how business entities might try to use RFRA as a justification to discriminate against LGBT individuals and couples, probably because gay rights is a hot evolving topic these days, there's much more to it.

The first RFRA, at the federal level, was introduced by a Democratic Congressman and signed into law by a Democratic President -- neither individual, in my opinion, in the least motivated by authoritarian right-wing militarism and superior-class oriented philosophies inherent to Fascism.

One of the purposes behind the 1993 federal Act was to afford Native Americans legal ground to protect their literal ritual ground from commerce intervention and to prevent Native American employees from being fired if they tested positive for Peyote in their systems.

Before the federal RFRA was ruled not to apply to individual states in 1997, there were almost 150 legal cases associated with religious freedoms that had been filed citing it. Almost 20% of those were filed by Jews, Muslims and Native Americans who made up less than 3% of the US population combined.

It cuts both ways and the laws can be used to the benefit and detriment of both majority and minority populations and businesses.

Yeah I remember the original fight for native religious rights and protections (specifically the peyote issue), it was in the Pacific Northwest and was going on while I was there in the late eighties. And like most of these well-meaning laws, it only takes one person to reinterpret it to allow them to discriminate in the guise of "protecting themselves." People have been claiming religious freedom from existing laws since the Quakers refused to fight either redcoats or indians.

What is troubling is that when politicians begin to draft laws designed to favor one group over another, and especially when they use religion to back up their right to do so, the end result generally winds up with colorful names like Nuremberg or Jim Crow. Because people are selfish. And mobs of "godfearing" people with a mind to exclude are even moreso.

As for whether that will lead to an American Fascist state: some might argue that ship sailed a while ago.

(03-29-2015, 04:24 PM)Donovan Wrote: What is troubling is that when politicians begin to draft laws designed to favor one group over another, and especially when they use religion to back up their right to do so, the end result generally winds up with colorful names like Nuremberg or Jim Crow. Because people are selfish. And mobs of "godfearing" people with a mind to exclude are even moreso.

As for whether that will lead to an American Fascist state: some might argue that ship sailed a while ago.

As US citizens, we get to vote in democratic elections, we get to vote on ballot measures in our local communities, we have freedom to protest what we don't like and demonstrate in support of what we do like, we don't have state-run media and do have freedom of press, money still has a loud influential voice in our capitalistic society...

And still, some might well argue that RFRA makes America fascist-like. Hell, some argue that the ship carrying America towards its Socialism destiny sailed with the implementation of Obama Care. Those are both invalid arguments born of frustration or ignorance in regards to what fascism and socialism require, in my opinion.

With local news now being available via internet to so many people near and far from that locality, engaged citizens and business owners are aware of the bills under considerations in different states and have a huge virtual venue in which to voice their criticism or agreement. Given that, I'm surprised Indiana's Congress and Governor Pence went where Arizona decided not to venture. AZ Governor Brewer vetoed the RFRA bill there last year after being bombarded with criticism and boycott threats for even considering passing it into state law.

Anyway, this weekend, Apple, Angie's List, the City of San Francisco, the City of Seattle, various celebrities and politicians, etc... condemned and vowed to cease business with the state of Indiana as a result of what they see as RFRA's green-lighting of discrimination against gays.

Personally, I think passing the bill into law hurt Governor Pence and the state of Indiana more than it helped to restore any perceived loss or to protect against feared future loss of religious freedom in the state. Bad move socially, politically, and economically, IMO.

This morning on Today I saw some big stickers that many Indiana business owners are placing on the front of their establishments. They read - WE SERVE EVERYONE

I wonder if all those who vow to stop doing business or flat out leave Indiana will do the same in the other 19 states with RFRA.

My guess is no.

This is all just a tempest in a teapot in my opinion. There is zero evidence that these laws have ever legally allowed any business to discriminate against anyone, which is the concern of those who oppose them. It seems to me that if over the past 20 years it hasn't happened, it's certainly not going to start now. In addition, these laws do not supersede existing anti-discrimination laws... so a business caught discriminating still has to face legal consequences.

Personally, i think these laws are crap and pointless. They do nothing to really protect anyone, they only serve to divide us even more, and give rabble rousers something to rouse about.

Besides, with social and modern media the way it is today, anyone who runs their business like a bigot, homophobe, or racist does it at their own peril. When these stories hit the media, not long after the business closes.

Free markets are pretty efficient at solving these problems, not government.

(03-29-2015, 04:24 PM)Donovan Wrote: ...mobs of "godfearing" people with a mind to exclude are even moreso.

(03-30-2015, 01:07 PM)Jimbone Wrote: Free markets are pretty efficient at solving these problems, not government.

^ Two of the reasons I don't actively object to such state laws these days. In my opinion, anti-discrimination and veiled pro-discrimination laws don't have much impact on how most people do business. And, proposed laws that potentially open the door for legally buffered discrimination get much broader exposure in the internet age. So, when people who oppose them protest loudly and publicly enough, it forces mob members who are typically shaded by higher-profile ones to step into the light for all to see in order to defend their positions.

Or, they can instead reconsider and change up...


^Indiana governor Mike Pence released this statement today: 'After much reflection and in consultation with the leadership of the general assembly,' he told reporters during a press conference, 'I've come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone.'




Next up: ^ Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson is on record as planning to sign into law a similar RFRA bill pushed by his state's congress.

Hutchinson's been working hard to attract technology companies to relocate and/or establish new facilities in Arkansas.

If he really wants the latter, I think he''d better read the writing on the wall from Indiana and reconsider his position on the former.

I'm so confused.

I don't give a shit either way. It's ridiculous that it's even an issue but............this is the world today, crazy as all hell.

(03-31-2015, 04:04 PM)Duchess Wrote: I'm so confused.

I'm sorry.

Indiana's governor passed a state law that many felt would allow anti-gay businesses to get around federal anti-discrimination regulations with a state law/shield that would hold up in court. In that regard, the verbiage behind Indiana's law was more concerning than most.

So, Apple CEO Tim Cook (among many others) has been very vocal about that potential license to gay discrimination being issued in the state law and made it clear that his company would divest from Indiana (and Arkansas, if Hutchinson passed a very similar RFRA there).

Under the pressure of nationwide public outcry and intense criticism from big business market leaders, Pence has agreed to reword the RFRA to remove the possibility that "religious freedom of expression" would stand up as a legal defense for discrimination against gays by employers and service providers. Once he does that, the Indiana law will be largely the same as the federal RFRA provisions and everything will be set right back to where it was.

All just my take. Sorry for the confusion.

(03-31-2015, 04:34 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: All just my take. Sorry for the confusion.

You didn't add to the confusion.

I never really understood why it was signed in the first place given I have always thought the anti-discrimination law already on the books had the power to override anything that may come out, including this. Have I misunderstood that?

(03-31-2015, 04:38 PM)Duchess Wrote: You didn't add to the confusion.

I never really understood why it was signed in the first place given I have always thought the anti-discrimination law already on the books had the power to override anything that may come out, including this. Have I misunderstood that?

Kinda.

Federal law covers individuals' rights to religious expression. Most state RFRAs are similar.

The wording of Indiana's RFRA (and Arkansas') is such that individual rights of religious freedoms are also potentially afforded to business entities.

So, the state law would go where the federal laws and regulations don't -- potentially allowing for employment and service discrimination against gays to be shielded in state court by businesses using a "religious freedom" defense.

It's is sorta confusing. I found this article that sums it up better than I can.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/polit.../70729888/

I imagine that once Muslims start trying to deter gays from their Mosques that the shit will hit the fan. Lord knows that Christians have gotten a ton of slack from doing it. That and abortion. The administration and the media will fight it tooth and nail. Right?

Here's a question I've been mulling over, semi-related to this topic and the interesting turns it has taken in recent days: with the internet blowing up bullies and badguys by the dozen, and protests springing up against people like the Westboro clowns and Spence...are we entering an age of militant liberalism? Seems like a natural reaction to the era of neocon fox news xenophobic religious fervor. One thing is for sure: we live in interesting times.