Republican Congressman Says Homeowners Should Be Allowed To Discriminate

[Gaga Monster 13,001]

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher loses endorsement for saying it's OK to not sell homes to gay people.

Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California is facing criticism and has lost an endorsement from a Realtors group for saying that people should be able to refuse to sell their homes to gay people.

The Orange County Register reported on Thursday that Rohrabacher, who is up for re-election this year, expressed that view during a meeting with a group of Realtors last week in Washington. Wayne Woodyard, who is a member of the National Association of Realtors and met with Rohrabacher last week, told The Orange County Register that Rohrabacher said during the meeting, "Every homeowner should be able to make a decision not to sell their home to someone (if) they don't agree with their lifestyle."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/politics/dana-rohrabacher-congressman-homeowners-lgbtq-people/index.html

 

[Ryusei 61,502]

yeah cause being LGBT is a lifestyle.. what a c*nt

[Chromatislaps 34,854]

[Bayonetta 9,844]

I agree with her to an extent I guess. If the homeowner truly believes that homosexuality is evil or whatever, due to religious purposes, I think they have every right to not sell their homes. It's still completely unethical imo. 

[rumours 45,521]

I always find a story like this super conflicting. 

On one hand, it makes perfect sense to add members of the LGBTQ to the Fair Housing Act as people who can’t be discriminated against. Moreover, discrimination in any form really is quite deplorable, especially since it is 2018 for Christ’s sake. Furthermore, what kind of idiot would come out and say something like that? 

On the other hand, it’s a piece of private property (not in the public domain) that’s being sold/bought. I guess I personally don’t really  have a problem with people deciding who they will and will not sell their personal home to. It’s not really the same as something like the “gay wedding cake” situation a couple years back.

[ryanripley 86,575]

why do ppl care who they sell their home to smh you're not living there anymore

just take your pennies and go

[Matangi 3,050]

7 minutes ago, Rumours1977 said:

I always find a story like this super conflicting. 

On one hand, it makes perfect sense to add members of the LGBTQ to the Fair Housing Act as people who can’t be discriminated against. Moreover, discrimination in any form really is quite deplorable, especially since it is 2018 for Christ’s sake. Furthermore, what kind of idiot would come out and say something like that? 

On the other hand, it’s a piece of private property (not in the public domain) that’s being sold/bought. I guess I personally don’t really  have a problem with people deciding who they will and will not sell their personal home to. It’s not really the same as something like the “gay wedding cake” situation a couple years back.

the issue is more that a law like this creates a precedent which enables housing discrimination in other forms. :-/ That has been a big issue.

[SolidSnake 2,804]

10 minutes ago, Rumours1977 said:

I always find a story like this super conflicting. 

On one hand, it makes perfect sense to add members of the LGBTQ to the Fair Housing Act as people who can’t be discriminated against. Moreover, discrimination in any form really is quite deplorable, especially since it is 2018 for Christ’s sake. Furthermore, what kind of idiot would come out and say something like that? 

On the other hand, it’s a piece of private property (not in the public domain) that’s being sold/bought. I guess I personally don’t really  have a problem with people deciding who they will and will not sell their personal home to. It’s not really the same as something like the “gay wedding cake” situation a couple years back.

The problem with this sort of thinking is it will be incredibly hard for LGBT folks in rural communities to find homes. We shouldnt allow anyone to discriminated based on sexual orientation. 

[SLAG 7]

44 minutes ago, QuickKthought said:

I agree with her to an extent I guess. If the homeowner truly believes that homosexuality is evil or whatever, due to religious purposes, I think they have every right to not sell their homes. It's still completely unethical imo. 

What if they believed being black or Asian was “evil or whatever”? You see how absurd it is? They should not be allowed to discriminate, as a matter of fact it shouldn’t even be their business what the buyers’ “lifestyle” is.

[TEANUS 16,140]

While I don't personally discriminate against anyone and believe no one should, if the person who owns the house doesn't wanna sell it to a certain person/ people, they don't have to. It sucks but it's hard to prove discrimination.

Good she lost endorsement and LGBTQ should be included in Fair Housing

[RAMROD 117,004]

This kind of nonsense is why they are not well liked

 

[misunderstood 8,736]

 

[Ziggy 14,009]

1 hour ago, QuickKthought said:

I agree with her to an extent I guess. If the homeowner truly believes that homosexuality is evil or whatever, due to religious purposes, I think they have every right to not sell their homes. It's still completely unethical imo. 

I strongly disagree with this because if we allow this argument to hold weight then we are then opening the door for religious and sociocultural discrimination on a broader level. “I don’t want to sell to xyz because I don’t believe in black lifestyle.” Or “I can’t support Jewish lifestyle.” That’s ridiculous and discriminatory. If a prospective buyer is an upstanding citizen to the neighborhood and perfectly great contributors or at the very least do not detract from the neighborhood and aren’t a detriment to those around them then there’s absolutely nothing substantial to support the homeowners’ stance other than blatant discriminatory and unjust opinions.

When you start manufacturing vague terminology to mask your prejudice and that excuse is tolerated that’s when things start going backwards. I’m all for someone maintaining their opinions regardless of what they are but those opinions should not come at the expense of anyone or cause them undue stress or harm. That is a morally bankrupt and a supremacist sort of attitude when America is supposed to stand firmly for equal treatment and at the absolute minimum tolerance. We can’t start fudging the standards just because the person putting them into question is being silently subversive rather than violently incendiary.

[androiduser 7,438]

personally _i wouldn't sell my house to a biggot or a homophoboic conservative, so I guess I am doing the same thing.

[luckyanderson 379]

30 minutes ago, androiduser said:

personally _i wouldn't sell my house to a biggot or a homophoboic conservative, so I guess I am doing the same thing.

Nah. You're doing the right thing.