Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 28-32 March 2011 (1891-1895)
akronnick:
--- Quote from: chaironic on 30 Mar 2011, 04:56 ---An illegal question.
--- End quote ---
Pretty much.
She's not allowed to ask about religion in this instance, it's barred by federal law. The reason behind the question is irrelevant, simply by asking she's discriminating.
There's even an federal executive department in charge of enforcing housing discrimination.
Like I said in a previous post, housing discrimination in the U. S. has a long and dark history. State, local, and federal law enforcement takes it very seriously, as well as advocacy group[s like the NAACP, SPLC and ACLU, not to mention independent civil lawyers out to make a quick settlement.
A Real Estate Agent should know better.
--- Quote from: StevenC on 30 Mar 2011, 05:01 ---Is asking if you are an unicorn also illegal? Cause last time I checked, witches and wizards were not real outside of Harry Potter books. Oh America, you so crazy.
--- End quote ---
Unicorns aren't protected by the Fair Housing Act. Wiccans and women ("witch" could also be taken as a sexist comment :wink:) are.
Tergon:
Man. Either I'm ignorant of similar Australian laws, or else US laws are bizarrely harsh. You can be outright sued for asking what is in context a perfectly reasonable (if poorly-phrased) question? That's... several kinds of insane. Yes, discrimination is bad and all, but that's just unbelievable. Hell, the lady never even hinted at a religious significance: I'm quite sure there are folks out there who do not subscribe to any recognised faith but feel they are capable of using magic. In that case "witch / wizard" is a not only the literally correct term, it's also the most widely-recognised and descriptive term for an individual who would ruin a kitchen performing sorcery at home. Hell, if anything, it's a much more PC than the one I'd personally use: "Kitchen-destroying lunatic".
What you're saying is that I can ask someone a perfectly straightforward question, using terms that are applicable and perfectly correct in context, without making any reference whatsoever to religion or faith, with no implication whatsoever against the person I'm speaking to, and that I am actually required to ask given the very specific circumstances I'm in with a client (the landlord made the "No Destructive Sorcery In The Apartment" rule, the Agent must simply explain that)... and in spite of all of that, by virtue of having spoken those words, I can instantly and easily be sued.
That is fucking terrifying. And terrifyingly idiotic.
DSL:
The working rule in the US is: Anybody can sue anyone else for anything. It's not so much a question of who's right under the law, it's who can better afford to keep the lawsuit going. You'll see plenty of cases on American dockets where a defendant agrees to settle because it's cheaper and/or more convenient than fighting the case -- and it doesn't matter whether the defendant is wrong or right. Do a search on the term "SLAPP Lawsuit" for a particularly egregious example of what I'm talking about.
Near Lurker:
Keep in mind that this is the QC verse we're talking about. It's possible the FHA doesn't cover empirical sorcerers...
Skewbrow:
Well. In many parts of the world political correctness trumps common sense.
I have no exposure to US housing laws, but I will testify that my landlord during my 1st year in grad school had a strict "no gays" house rule. May be you are allowed some leeway, if you sublet your basement? I dunno. If the rented housing consists of 3 beds, a bathroom, a TV room and a kitchenette, then you need some rules. Mind you, another rule was "no late night female guests."
Edit: Oops. A possibly essential part of my personal history missing. The said grad school was at Notre Dame, Indiana. I shared that basement with two other guys. I got what I expected to get for $26 /week.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version