Reply With Quote
private residence she should do whatever the she wants
Unbelievable....or rather sadly, quite believable.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/12/us/us-...tml?hpt=hp_bn1
The case was brought by Michael Gunn, a white man who said had unrestricted access to the pool area for himself and his guests during the nearly two years he lived in the duplex, he said in a December interview.
Gunn, a software engineer, said he and his girlfriend, who is also white, lived upstairs; their 31-year-old landlord lived downstairs. However, he said their relationship soured in May 2011 when he invited his 10-year-old biracial daughter to visit and swim in the pool.
"Complainant states that the owner, Jamie Hein, accused his daughter of making the pool 'cloudy' because she used chemicals in her hair," the commission said in its summary. "Days later, the owner posted a sign on the gate to the pool which read, 'Public Swimming Pool, White Only.'"
private residence she should do whatever the she wants
Saw this on the news this morning. Totally wrong. Sad really.
Since the place is being rented out the Fair Housing Act probably comes into play.
doesn't the whole "Public Swimming Pool" sign kind of... cir vent that?
I wonder who this guy voted for in 2008...
except there was no denial of service, if his little half breed kid went into the pool and she kicked them out then sure. He left which was well within his rights, and he probably successfully argued for his deposit back, being the environment he felt the sign created
no cause it's an antique sign, if i hang a old miller lite sign in a room that has alcohol that doesn't make it a bar.
A miller lite sign that said "Open Bar to the Public" ??? And not in your room, on the outside where passersby can presumably see it.
The FHA doesn't apply - that's why the suit is based on the Ohio Civil Rights Act.
ok a sign on my private residence door that says open bar to the public dated 30 years ago and with a different city. Does not make my house a bar. And when i put decorations up at christmas that say "Santa stop here" that doesn't mean I expect Santa or anyone dressed as Santa to actually stop there.
as much as I see where you've gone with this, it doesn't change the fact that if you lived on a busy street downtown and hung that up, people would come in looking for drinks.
no, a landlord cannot do whatever she wants on the property when it interferes with her tenants rights/privileges.
You are right especially in the story where she kicked the girl out of the pool. Bit that's not in the story cause it didn't happen. The Guy moved out.
The landlord decided to restrict the use of the pool to white people only. Where do the non-white tenants swim? Where do tenants take their non-white guests to swim? She cannot restrict use and enjoyment of the facilities because the tenants have the right (through the lease presumably and common-law) to enjoy the common areas. It's a fairly new concept that's existed for several hundreds of years.
so when did she restrict that when she posted a sign from the 1930's and stamped with a different city's name? The guy never actually swam with a minority in the pool after the sign was posted, he left. Had he tried to swim with his daughter and they said get the out the pool then you'd be onto something.
you're a moron. not worth debating
cause you have nothing to argue the landlord didn't break any laws cause the guy left, its that simple. I acknowledge that if she did kick his little kid out of the pool than of course she would be wrong. But as of now her version, collecting antiques is plausible, I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying it's plausible.
I guess the landlord's argument is that the sign is freedom of expression. It's art?
She was ruled against, so I'm thinking she did violate some law. If you wanna defend racists, go ahead. She told non-white tenants through her sign that they had less rights than the white tenants. She didn't have to physically kick out the girl at the time, she prevented all non-whites from entering the pool.
Trainwreck logic: the injured party can't sue because they left after being insulted and after the damage had already been done. He left, therefore no violation occurred.
1)she has no nonwhite tenants
2)The guy didn't confront her about the issue he left
3)It's a sign, signs around pools say "no diving" and people dive in anyway, in no way did it restrict them from doing anything.
4)I gladly defend people's rights to do whatever the they want to in their own place. The guy didn't like it, the guy moved without confronting the landlord about the sign. If he said "hey your sign is offensive can my daughter not swim in your pool" and she said "that is correct your daughter can't swim in my pool" Then I would be on that guys side. But as of now there is no recorded history of colored tenants being barred access to that pool.
what damage? He left so there would be no damage? But yes I'm a firm believer that damage has to occur in order for you to sue for damages.
he'd get lynched if he hung around.
get it......lynched......hung around?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
