Blade Runner Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 When setting new laws there must be a distinction between not renting to people or people with things or habits that may damage your rental property and discrimination because of race/ sexual orientation I would have thought? Children, pets and smokers can and most likely will, even if they are careful, damage the rental property. Your race/ religion or sexual orientation will not damage the property unless you are in a cult that celebrates days of the week with a Y in them by burning elephant dung on your living room floor.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 so where do we stand or should we stand about letting to people who love electric sheep or who are on benefits and what should the law protect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Are you saying John that you cant distinguish between people who may damage the property just by being there, smokers, people with pets/ children then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 so where do we stand or should we stand about letting to people who love electric sheep or who are on benefits and what should the law protect Hey.... I have several electric sheep. I love their blue fuzzzzz..... It's an interesting point tho. If I was a private landlord I would have no issue at all with renting to dog owners, kid owners, lesbians, gays, trekkies, or whatever. Even Everton fans would get the keys. But if the DHS approached me wanting to rent my property to a junkie couple evicted from a council house for not paying their rent...... Would it be descrimination if I said no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris C Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Good point, poor people are one of the few groups it is still widely acceptable to discriminate against. Listening to talking heads today about overseas aid it was incredible to hear the number of people phoning in to explain where the recipients were going wrong & what they could do to help themselves (having less children was suggested several time. A modern day "let them eat cake" & the word discrimination wasn't even mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Im just trying to point out that there are no easy answers and some answers will be wrong for some or more people some or all of the time. and SA the DSC don't arrange tenancies. How would you know they were a junkie couple, would they have it stamped on their foreheads and is being an addict a disability under the medical model of addiction? How woud you know they had been evicted? What if its a guy with autism who would be living supervised and supported in the community? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 The more I think about it the more complex it becomes John, you are right. What on the face of it seems pretty straight forward is anything but. Might be a hell of a lot easier just to ban people from buying second houses as an investment for their retirement and renting them out. Or does that discriminate against Daily Mail readers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Im just trying to point out that there are no easy answers and some answers will be wrong for some or more people some or all of the time. and SA the DSC don't arrange tenancies. How would you know they were a junkie couple, would they have it stamped on their foreheads and is being an addict a disability under the medical model of addiction? How woud you know they had been evicted? What if its a guy with autism who would be living supervised and supported in the community? Exactly my point John. There has to be a start point and and end point. Should we legistate what they are or should people be fee to decide for themselves. The junkie example was extreame. But I do know of people who were re-housed intto the private sector after being evicted from the public. And the public pick up the tab. As I recall, the landlord just charged a bit more. Is it a case of the state subsidising the worst in society, while allowing the unsubsidised to be descriminated against? This is very complex. Should we have laws or just go with the flow? I dont know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 But some forms of discrimination have more damaging affects on society as a whole than others. That's why some forms are prevented by legislation and why people complain when some forms are not covered when they ought to be (such as disability on the Island). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I am all for there being laws, just pointing out that the boundaries are not easy in an imperfect world. I interviewed a guy last weekend for a life stories project. 25 years ago he went to prison for sex with a 16 year old when gay sex on the Island was a criminal offence and the age of consent was 21 in England. Now it is legal, bt his conviction ands criminal record stand. Society and what is seen as being wrong and damaging are fluid. Its like the Talking Heads overseas aid debate. Have fewer children, but they have more kids because of high infant mortality and to support them in old age in societies without benefits and social care. Of course as economies improve health care improves, so does life expectancy and birth rates drop, but that leads to other issues, aging populations without the children to care for them when they get old, cancers, alzheimers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I am all for there being laws, just pointing out that the boundaries are not easy in an imperfect world. I interviewed a guy last weekend for a life stories project. 25 years ago he went to prison for sex with a 16 year old when gay sex on the Island was a criminal offence and the age of consent was 21 in England. Now it is legal, bt his conviction ands criminal record stand. Society and what is seen as being wrong and damaging are fluid. Its like the Talking Heads overseas aid debate. Have fewer children, but they have more kids because of high infant mortality and to support them in old age in societies without benefits and social care. Of course as economies improve health care improves, so does life expectancy and birth rates drop, but that leads to other issues, aging populations without the children to care for them when they get old, cancers, alzheimers Yup. I see what you mean. Sort of.... some bigot refusing to let a house to a gay couple is not the end of the world sort of thing. The world as a whole has much bigger things to worry about. So lets stop messing about with equality rights. Its a no brainer..Equality and same sex marriage can be voted in on the morning sitting. After a nice lunch they can do a foi act. By Tomorrow it can all be sorted. It has to happen anyway. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 SA Im not saying that. I listed above a set of areas where I think we ought to have equality legislation. It includes sexuality. What I am saying is that socially accepatble boundaries change with time and from society to society, they arent fixed. One hopes that they continue to move forward, but they may move backwards. That is why the European Convention on Human Rights is so important. To try and ensure we dont have another dark shadow and backwards move as happened in totalitarian Europe between the late 1920's and, including Russia and the former USSR states, ongoing today in some places Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 You said it yourself LDV , as a gay person, you find 'straight' sex distasteful, I fail to see why a straight person thinking gay sex is distasteful comes as a shock to you. I can fully understand that you cannot help who you like, and the state should help anyone whoever they like to feel safe from this sort of discrimination. I really do not understand why you have to twist every comment I make into an argument, you remind of of the only gay in the village at times, you are in uproar, but generally because whatever topic has not been blown out of all proportion yet., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Either you are being intentionally obtuse or you're being just plain stupid. This isn't about bringing up an argument but sending out the 'question marks' when something you say is questionable. I mentioned the distasteful thing as a example of a hypothetical situation from the other side to demonstrate how weird and unnecessary it is to comment (and comment in a manner that you did). And again, the procreation stuff is completely irrelevant and a very weird thing to come out with. What benefit does it serve to comment? You sound like the idiot who has to preface something with 'I am not racist, I have loads of black friends, but fuck me I saw...blaa blaa blaa (racist talk).' Not about being the only gay in the village. It is being familiar to common modes of straight thinking from certain people that need to be addressed, as people who aren't so aware might give them credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.