You Can’t Live Here If You Are Voting For Donald Trump
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. (CBS4) – A landlord in Grand Junction is not breaking the law by refusing to lease an apartment to anyone who <span><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:100%;color:rgb(0,153,0);background-color:transparent;">supports </span></span>Donald Trump for president.
According to The Daily Sentinel in Grand Junction, Mark Holmes is renting out a two-bedroom apartment on Main Street, but he refuses to rent to anyone who supports Trump.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/03/20/gr...ald-trump/
... Is that a brown shirt?
If they support Hillary or Bern, won't they be expecting to live there for free?
Property rights are a cornerstone of conservative thought.
Quote:Property rights are a cornerstone of conservative thought.
^Good post. This is very true.
I'm all FOR property rights, even if the owners do something I may not agree with. It's his property, and his right to do so.
Here's the difference, Trump voters will just go stay somewhere else. Had this been "Democrats cant stay here", they would organize some kind of protest and likely get violent outside in front of the building. Maybe they would press charges for violating civil rights. They want to force you into submission, because they are totalitarians.
Quote:Here's the difference, Trump voters will just go stay somewhere else. Had this been "Democrats cant stay here", they would organize some kind of protest and likely get violent outside in front of the building. Maybe they would press charges for violating civil rights. They want to force you into submission, because they are totalitarians.
I wish people would stop making these wild generalities about groups like you just did about democrats.
If you really want to live there, tell the landlord what he wants to hear and then vote for Trump. Seems perfectly ethical to me.
Quote:I wish people would stop making these wild generalities about groups like you just did about democrats.
What generality?
Could you imagine if this was done during Obama's campaign. They would have been called racist and every other name in the book. The place would have had a protest in front of it on a daily basis.
Are you really arguing that? I keep trying to figure out how those who dislike Trump can say that he is such a hateful person when they seem to have more hate for him and those that support him than any of them have. It's a sad world we live in.
Let me include this disclaimer in any Trump presidential post.....I in no way support Trump for president.
Quote:What generality?
Could you imagine if this was done during Obama's campaign. They would have been called racist and every other name in the book. The place would have had a protest in front of it on a daily basis.
Are you really arguing that? I keep trying to figure out how those who dislike Trump can say that he is such a hateful person when they seem to have more hate for him and those that support him than any of them have. It's a sad world we live in.
Let me include this disclaimer in any Trump presidential post.....I in no way support Trump for president.
You really think all democrats would do that? That is what I am calling a wild generality. It would be like someone saying all republicans are rich country club types, or all republicans are racists, or all republicans are snobs. It's true that if someone put up a sign saying "no democrats allowed" there would probably be a demonstration, and it would probably be democrats doing the demonstrating, but that is a long way from saying "they" would do this and "they" would do that. Who is "they?" There are wackos and extremists on both sides, but to take the wackos among the democrats and say this is they way democrats act, is grossly unfair.
Without commenting on the validity or constitutionality of either, there is a difference between refusing to rent or lease based on race versus political affiliation.
Quote:Without commenting on the validity or constitutionality of either, there is a difference between refusing to rent or lease based on race versus political affiliation.
I think we're all aware of that
Quote:You really think all democrats would do that? That is what I am calling a wild generality. It would be like someone saying all republicans are rich country club types, or all republicans are racists, or all republicans are snobs. It's true that if someone put up a sign saying "no democrats allowed" there would probably be a demonstration, and it would probably be democrats doing the demonstrating, but that is a long way from saying "they" would do this and "they" would do that. Who is "they?" There are wackos and extremists on both sides, but to take the wackos among the democrats and say this is they way democrats act, is grossly unfair.
Yes, obviously not ALL. I was simply trying to come up with something on the other side. I could have chosen "No Bernies allowed" but I didn't want Billary supporters to feel left out.
Quote:Without commenting on the validity or constitutionality of either, there is a difference between refusing to rent or lease based on race versus political affiliation.
No there's not its a property rights issue if he doesn't want to rent to someone no matter the reason it's his property. Unfortunately when it comes to specific groups we discontinue property rights but there shouldn't be any difference.
Quote:You really think all democrats would do that? That is what I am calling a wild generality. It would be like someone saying all republicans are rich country club types, or all republicans are racists, or all republicans are snobs. It's true that if someone put up a sign saying "no democrats allowed" there would probably be a demonstration, and it would probably be democrats doing the demonstrating, but that is a long way from saying "they" would do this and "they" would do that. Who is "they?" There are wackos and extremists on both sides, but to take the wackos among the democrats and say this is they way democrats act, is grossly unfair.
Obviously all is a generalization, but you don't think that during the Obama campaign that if someone who was against Obama did the same thing there wouldn't be protests in front of that building on a daily basis?
By the way, many in the democratic party would like you to believe that most in the republican party are racists and they are rich snobs. If you are a Trump supporter you are a bigot and have no morals....end of story.
I think too often now in our country others would rather point at others and say they are the reason for their situation (whether it be financial, happiness, social status, etc) instead of looking in the mirror and realizing they control much of their own destiny.
Quote:No there's not its a property rights issue if he doesn't want to rent to someone no matter the reason it's his property. Unfortunately when it comes to specific groups we discontinue property rights but there shouldn't be any difference.
This is where I part with pure Libertarians.
Quote:This is where I part with pure Libertarians.
If you don't like it then get your own property and rent it to whomever you want.
Quote:If you don't like it then get your own property and rent it to whomever you want.
Ya, I get the logic. Still don't agree with it 100% of the time. In most cases the free market system works. In others, laws are needed.
It's not just in this area. There are other areas when regulation is necessary for society (short and long term) to prevent abuses. Leaving it up to free market is not always the best solution. jmo
Quote:This is where I part with pure Libertarians.
Why just because someone can do it doesn't mean we approve of it. Doesn't mean there wouldn't be public backlash, social pressure to change ect.... It just means the state can not use its monoploy of force to change how and who is allowed to access private property. Either we have the right to freely associate with whomever we please, and the right to use our property as we wish or we don't.
Quote:Ya, I get the logic. Still don't agree with it 100% of the time. In most cases the free market system works. In others, laws are needed.
It's not just in this area. There are other areas when regulation is necessary for society (short and long term) to prevent abuses. Leaving it up to free market is not always the best solution. jmo
Is it up to the state to prevent abuse? Is that the purpose of the state?
In that case you can't object to any restrictions of freedom as a case go prevent abuse can always be made.
The state was never intended to prevent abuse. The best we can hope for is that the state does not become the ultimate abuser since it has a natural monopoly on force.