• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher says it’s OK not to sell homes to gays; loses support of Rea

JANFU said:
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/...sell-homes-to-gays-loses-support-of-realtors/



Must be channeling Jim Crowe Laws
Click to expand...

That's no what she said. She said that people should have the right to choose who they sell their homes to. The gov't needs to stay out of legal private transactions between two people. If someone is stupid enough to refuse to sell their home to someone because they're homosexual that's on them. Such laws are also unenforceable beyond a civil lawsuit. You're not going to force someone to sell their home because in most cases the home has already been legally sold long before a complaint could be made. Are you willing to pass a law that allows the gov't to take away someone's home and hand it over to someone else just because they won a 2 year long lawsuit? This isn't about racism or any other 'ism", it's about freedom of association and that includes the freedom to choose who you don't associate with. I think that anyone who refused to sell their home to someone else because they're homosexual is a whole new class of stupid, but in our society stupid is still legal.
 
faithful_servant said:
That's no what she said. She said that people should have the right to choose who they sell their homes to. The gov't needs to stay out of legal private transactions between two people. If someone is stupid enough to refuse to sell their home to someone because they're homosexual that's on them. Such laws are also unenforceable beyond a civil lawsuit. You're not going to force someone to sell their home because in most cases the home has already been legally sold long before a complaint could be made. Are you willing to pass a law that allows the gov't to take away someone's home and hand it over to someone else just because they won a 2 year long lawsuit? This isn't about racism or any other 'ism", it's about freedom of association and that includes the freedom to choose who you don't associate with. I think that anyone who refused to sell their home to someone else because they're homosexual is a whole new class of stupid, but in our society stupid is still legal.
Click to expand...

After all that, YES illegal discrimination against sexual orientation should be protected PERIOD. Just like it is for race, religion, gender etc
You know otherwise certain women or races or religions could be in a situation where they cant obtain housing at all in certain areas or without harm/extra distress.

Nobody is talking about FORCING anybody to sell thier home to a certain person or passing any law to take thier home away and "hand it over" LMAO People already have the right to sell thier homes to who they want too, protecting peoples rights and stopping illegal discrimination doesn't change that fact. dishonest nonsensical claims otherwise are just as stupid and illogical as illegal discrimination and bigotry itself.

:shrug:
 
faithful_servant said:
That's no what she said. She said that people should have the right to choose who they sell their homes to. The gov't needs to stay out of legal private transactions between two people. If someone is stupid enough to refuse to sell their home to someone because they're homosexual that's on them. Such laws are also unenforceable beyond a civil lawsuit. You're not going to force someone to sell their home because in most cases the home has already been legally sold long before a complaint could be made. Are you willing to pass a law that allows the gov't to take away someone's home and hand it over to someone else just because they won a 2 year long lawsuit? This isn't about racism or any other 'ism", it's about freedom of association and that includes the freedom to choose who you don't associate with. I think that anyone who refused to sell their home to someone else because they're homosexual is a whole new class of stupid, but in our society stupid is still legal.
Click to expand...

Who on Earth is "she"?

And who was talking about a law taking away someone's home, or forcing anyone to sell his or her home?
 
trouble13 said:
I imagine if he said it was ok to not sell your home to a trump supporter the same people who are complaining about what he said would instead be celebrating it

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think over half the people pretending outrage at Rohrabacher's politics would really be happier with a Trump
supporter as a neighbor than the type of new neighbor that they seem to be championing on this thread
 
slick said:
I think over half the people pretending outrage at Rohrabacher's politics would really be happier with a Trump
supporter as a neighbor than the type of new neighbor that they seem to be championing on this thread
Click to expand...

You mean... a gay person?
 
trouble13 said:
I imagine if he said it was ok to not sell your home to a trump supporter the same people who are complaining about what he said would instead be celebrating it

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well of course you'd "imagine" that. Anything else you'd like to espouse about your imagination?
 
j-mac said:
Yes, there should be laws....In fact we should imprison the man, I mean really, he is dangerous....Better yet can't we just pass a law to place bigoted people on death row, and do away with their kind all together? I am thinking of maybe something along the lines of a camp where we can use their labor while we wait to execute them...Oh, and we could maybe make them wear a "B" on their clothing just so we could identify them when the final solution, ahem, er, a, end plan is put into place.
Click to expand...

GET yer VICTIMHOOD ON!!!11!!!
 
slick said:
I think over half the people pretending outrage at Rohrabacher's politics would really be happier with a Trump
supporter as a neighbor than the type of new neighbor that they seem to be championing on this thread
Click to expand...

And here's yet another hypothetical victim.
 
tres borrachos said:
1.)Who on Earth is "she"?
2.)And who was talking about a law taking away someone's home, or forcing anyone to sell his or her home?
Click to expand...
ooooh oooh i can answer!!!

1.) a very obvious false assumption with people with these types of view points. They thought of course "Dana" is a girl LOL Never mind reading any of the actual articles and paying attention. Thats not needed when ones mind is already biased and made up of false talking points.
2.) nobody just another exposed nonsensical lie.
 
AGENT J said:
ooooh oooh i can answer!!!

1.) a very obvious false assumption with people with these types of view points. They thought of course "Dana" is a girl LOL Never mind reading any of the actual articles and paying attention. Thats not needed when ones mind is already biased and made up of false talking points.
2.) nobody just another exposed nonsensical lie.
Click to expand...

1) LMAO you caught that too. Never mind that reading the article shows that Dana isn't a woman. His picture is right there, pretty big, at the top of the article. Even for the gender confused he is most clearly a man.
2) Agreed. But they sure love hyperbole, don't they?
 
tres borrachos said:
1) LMAO you caught that too. Never mind that reading the article shows that Dana isn't a woman. His picture is right there, pretty big, at the top of the article. Even for the gender confused he is most clearly a man.
2) Agreed. But they sure love hyperbole, don't they?
Click to expand...

What a beautiful woman he is. :D
 
j-mac said:
Yes, there should be laws....In fact we should imprison the man, I mean really, he is dangerous....Better yet can't we just pass a law to place bigoted people on death row, and do away with their kind all together? I am thinking of maybe something along the lines of a camp where we can use their labor while we wait to execute them...Oh, and we could maybe make them wear a "B" on their clothing just so we could identify them when the final solution, ahem, er, a, end plan is put into place.
Click to expand...

I say we go back to the good old days when talking **** would result in a punch in the face and the society's reaction would be "that's what you get".

Or better yet, the duel. Cull these people the old fashioned way.

And the realtors were probably done with him because gay people improve property values.
 
tres borrachos said:
Icky! Ew! A gay person in my neighborhood. How horrifying.
Click to expand...

And you are still alive?

We were all told by the right that the sanctity of our marriages will be ruined once "teh gays" started getting married. I'm still looking for that sanctity gauge so I can measure my marriage's sanctity. I hope all that original sanctity is still there. I'd sure hate to be all sanctimoneousless in my marriage.
 
poweRob said:
And you are still alive?

We were all told by the right that the sanctity of our marriages will be ruined once "teh gays" started getting married. I'm still looking for that sanctity gauge so I can measure my marriage's sanctity. I hope all that original sanctity is still there. I'd sure hate to be all sanctimoneousless in my marriage.
Click to expand...

I'm going to lose sleep tonight wondering what all my neighbors may be doing in their bedrooms.
 
AGENT J said:
After all that, YES illegal discrimination against sexual orientation should be protected PERIOD. Just like it is for race, religion, gender etc
You know otherwise certain women or races or religions could be in a situation where they cant obtain housing at all in certain areas or without harm/extra distress.

Nobody is talking about FORCING anybody to sell thier home to a certain person or passing any law to take thier home away and "hand it over" LMAO People already have the right to sell thier homes to who they want too, protecting peoples rights and stopping illegal discrimination doesn't change that fact. dishonest nonsensical claims otherwise are just as stupid and illogical as illegal discrimination and bigotry itself.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

Then how in the wide world of sports do you enforce such a law?? A seller has two offers on the table, one from a nice respectful family that she really liked and the other from a snotty homosexual couple. The family offers $2000 less than the couple and because she likes the family, she decides to take their offer and reject the other. The couple then sues for discrimination. How do you prove that their claim is true or false since discrimination is all about intent??
 
faithful_servant said:
Then how in the wide world of sports do you enforce such a law?? A seller has two offers on the table, one from a nice respectful family that she really liked and the other from a snotty homosexual couple. The family offers $2000 less than the couple and because she likes the family, she decides to take their offer and reject the other. The couple then sues for discrimination. How do you prove that their claim is true or false since discrimination is all about intent??
Click to expand...

So in your hypothetical scenario, what does "nice respectful" and "snotty" have to do with anything?

You seemed to be implying intent by making it about personalities.
 
faithful_servant said:
1.)Then how in the wide world of sports do you enforce such a law??
2.) A seller has two offers on the table, one from a nice respectful family that she really liked and the other from a snotty homosexual couple. The family offers $2000 less than the couple and because she likes the family, she decides to take their offer and reject the other. The couple then sues for discrimination. How do you prove that their claim is true or false since discrimination is all about intent??
Click to expand...

1.) just like with anything one must follow the rules. in this case one can not illegal discriminate but you are still free to sell to how you want to. there is no force, your house is taken from you and given away. Just like it is now for race:lamo
Sorry your dramatic hyperbole and lies fail once again, par for the course with your posts.
2.) she is completely free to do so, if illegal discrimination took place then just like with everything that would have to be proven. What you speak of already is the standard for many other things. Your lies and false claims have been exposed. theres no force and nobody is taken away peoples houses and giving them away, nobody honest, educated and objective will by nonsense like that and your sky is falling claims LMAO
 
AGENT J said:
1.) just like with anything one must follow the rules. in this case one can not illegal discriminate but you are still free to sell to how you want to. there is no force, your house is taken from you and given away. Just like it is now for race:lamo
Sorry your dramatic hyperbole and lies fail once again, par for the course with your posts.
2.) she is completely free to do so, if illegal discrimination took place then just like with everything that would have to be proven. What you speak of already is the standard for many other things. Your lies and false claims have been exposed. theres no force and nobody is taken away peoples houses and giving them away, nobody honest, educated and objective will by nonsense like that and your sky is falling claims LMAO
Click to expand...

I asked how you would enforce such law and offered a possible scenario for the enforcement. So how do you prove discrimination and enforce this law?
 
faithful_servant said:
1.) I asked how you would enforce such law and offered a possible scenario for the enforcement.
2.)So how do you prove discrimination and enforce this law?
Click to expand...

1.) and i told you the same way laws are enforced now :shrug: what part dont you get?
are people currently being "FORCED to sell thier homes" or having thier homes "taken from them" and "handed to other people" now based on discrimination?
if so please show the law that does that and all the examples, ill be waiting! LMAO
2.) again same way any law like this is proved, evidence. . . . . . just like it is RIGHT NOW lol

are you claiming this would magically change things and create something new?
 
tres borrachos said:
So in your hypothetical scenario, what does "nice respectful" and "snotty" have to do with anything?

You seemed to be implying intent by making it about personalities.
Click to expand...

Because you are allowed to discriminate anyone if you think they are an asshole. If you have someone who is an <insert protected class> asshole, you can still discriminate them so long as you can defend yourself in the eventual <insert protected class> discrimination lawsuit.
 
Samhain said:
Because you are allowed to discriminate anyone if you think they are an asshole. If you have someone who is an <insert protected class> asshole, you can still discriminate them so long as you can defend yourself in the eventual <insert protected class> discrimination lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Um, I don't recall anyone saying you weren't.
 
tres borrachos said:
Um, I don't recall anyone saying you weren't.
Click to expand...

That's his argument. How do you prove you discriminated against someone because they are an asshole vs <insert protected class>.

That's my issue with discrimination laws, since its expensive to defend yourself from false claims.
 
Samhain said:
That's his argument. How do you prove you discriminated against someone because they are an asshole vs <insert protected class>.

That's my the issue with discrimination laws, since its expensive to defend yourself from false claims.
Click to expand...

What do "snotty" and "nice respectable" have to do with his argument?

Is his argument that he wouldn't sell to the "snotty" gay people because they were snotty? That isn't discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom