Reply With Quote
the loss of use of the pool for himself and the guest(s) of his choosing is the damage. She didn't live up to her end of the landlord/tenant relationship. The moment the sign went up, his rights as a tenant were violated.
I wonder why?
So? If someone violates a person's civil rights, they have be told "hey you hurt my feelings" before they can sue?2)The guy didn't confront her about the issue he left
if it said "non-whites cannot dive," you'd have an analogy. The no diving signs are for liability issues and don't restrict activity/acceptance based on race. like I said, you're a moron.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.
It's the tenants' place to possess and use. That's how the landlord/tenant relationship works. the tenants pay to live there. She has certain obligations to them.4)I gladly defend people's rights to do whatever the they want to in their own place.
your opinion of how people should respond or how the law should operate is meaningless.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.
the loss of use of the pool for himself and the guest(s) of his choosing is the damage. She didn't live up to her end of the landlord/tenant relationship. The moment the sign went up, his rights as a tenant were violated.
cause it's a duplex so there can only be one tenantI wonder why?
Not true, which is a big part of why this was definitely racially motivated.
The landlord chooses to rent out the upstairs, but a duplex doesn't HAVE to have a landlord living down/upstairs.
The landlord didn't like non-whitey in the same pool as them. Their joke of an explanation hurts their case.
I would agree that one can do "almost anything" on her own private property, but she gives up that absolute right when she decides to lease it to tenants. At that point, the tenant has his own set of rights.
A question of curiosity.
How many black people don't put that funky jell in their hair these days?
Now I agree posting a "white only' sign was the wrong approach, and I agree the hair jell is a proper concern. The restriction should have indicated such.
What's "hair jell"? If you mean "gel", I suppose you have no idea how many women (and some men) of every race use hair products...
Rofl jell
LOL... Yes, gel.
I never see the stuff in the bottle, can, or whatever, so excuse my spelling. Yes, other races use gel, and partially my point. The sign should have indicated that a person needed to clean their body of foreign lotions, gels, etc, that would come off in the water.
Now maybe this was the land lords way of applying his bigotry, but maybe he was just stupid in his wording. There are very few black people I see who do not use gel to soften their hair. The Afro is out, and other methods of keeping the hair under control gets rather spendy. I'll have to ask my current girlfriend. She has her hair treated and flat ironed.
better hurry and ask. she's paid by the hour.
Just can't stop being a low life with those cheap shots that you initiate now, can you.
Was that you with the small peeing on the dead Taliban?
wc thinking about lol
come out and tell us more lol
What is the proof the hair jelllllll clouded up the water?
And WC judged all the penis sizes on that video?
Damn.
I was looking for something with the gel stain on the couch in the movie "Coming to America."
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 01-13-2012 at 07:41 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
