Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Racial Discrimination and Segregation Alive

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 2:49:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 10:02:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

I don't see any problem with that. If it is private property, then the owners deserve the right to permit whoever he wishes onto the property.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 2:50:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 10:02:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

I don't like it, but it is his property, and he can do what he sees fit with it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2012 12:49:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 2:49:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/12/2012 10:02:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

I don't see any problem with that. If it is private property, then the owners deserve the right to permit whoever he wishes onto the property.

Actually it's not his private property. Note that the article addresses him as the landlord and says that the girl's family was legally living in the building which the pool was a part of. If the family is renting a room then they are entitled to certain amenities within their renting agreement. I'm assuming that since the article implies other renters were likely to use the pool that the agreement includes use of that pool. Denying the use of the pool to a user based on the color of their skin would then be rightfully viewed as a breach of the Civil Rights Act.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2012 3:33:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yea, since it's an apartment building by renting the facility out to that person you would also be agreeing to them using all parts of it, including the pool. An agreement like that is either all or nothing.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2012 10:53:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First, it violates the Civil Rights Act.

Second, it was a breach of contract. They were promised access to the pool when they became tenants of the apartment complex. Denying them access on the basis of race after they were granted access is a breach of contracts and is thus unjust. If they want to, they can completely ruin her life by suing her.

Finally, if she was concerned about the chemicals should could have posted a sign about the chemicals or could have spoken with the girl individually. The manner in which she pursued this was unjust.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:24:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/13/2012 12:49:22 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 1/12/2012 2:49:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/12/2012 10:02:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

I don't see any problem with that. If it is private property, then the owners deserve the right to permit whoever he wishes onto the property.

Actually it's not his private property. Note that the article addresses him as the landlord and says that the girl's family was legally living in the building which the pool was a part of. If the family is renting a room then they are entitled to certain amenities within their renting agreement. I'm assuming that since the article implies other renters were likely to use the pool that the agreement includes use of that pool. Denying the use of the pool to a user based on the color of their skin would then be rightfully viewed as a breach of the Civil Rights Act.

land lords own it, the other people just rent it, a land lord can do as he pleases with the property.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:25:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:24:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/13/2012 12:49:22 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 1/12/2012 2:49:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/12/2012 10:02:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

I don't see any problem with that. If it is private property, then the owners deserve the right to permit whoever he wishes onto the property.

Actually it's not his private property. Note that the article addresses him as the landlord and says that the girl's family was legally living in the building which the pool was a part of. If the family is renting a room then they are entitled to certain amenities within their renting agreement. I'm assuming that since the article implies other renters were likely to use the pool that the agreement includes use of that pool. Denying the use of the pool to a user based on the color of their skin would then be rightfully viewed as a breach of the Civil Rights Act.

land lords own it, the other people just rent it, a land lord can do as he pleases with the property.

This.

But, like I said, I totally disagreed with him doing this.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:25:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/13/2012 10:53:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
First, it violates the Civil Rights Act.

how?

Second, it was a breach of contract. They were promised access to the pool when they became tenants of the apartment complex. Denying them access on the basis of race after they were granted access is a breach of contracts and is thus unjust. If they want to, they can completely ruin her life by suing her.

agreed

Finally, if she was concerned about the chemicals should could have posted a sign about the chemicals or could have spoken with the girl individually. The manner in which she pursued this was unjust.

agreed.

I think that it is morally wrong but is allowed as the land lord owns it by law and contract
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:27:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:24:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/13/2012 12:49:22 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 1/12/2012 2:49:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/12/2012 10:02:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

I don't see any problem with that. If it is private property, then the owners deserve the right to permit whoever he wishes onto the property.

Actually it's not his private property. Note that the article addresses him as the landlord and says that the girl's family was legally living in the building which the pool was a part of. If the family is renting a room then they are entitled to certain amenities within their renting agreement. I'm assuming that since the article implies other renters were likely to use the pool that the agreement includes use of that pool. Denying the use of the pool to a user based on the color of their skin would then be rightfully viewed as a breach of the Civil Rights Act.

land lords own it, the other people just rent it, a land lord can do as he pleases with the property.

How does the landlord own something you're paying for....If you're paying for it, its yours until you're unable to pay.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:33:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:27:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:24:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/13/2012 12:49:22 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 1/12/2012 2:49:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/12/2012 10:02:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

I don't see any problem with that. If it is private property, then the owners deserve the right to permit whoever he wishes onto the property.

Actually it's not his private property. Note that the article addresses him as the landlord and says that the girl's family was legally living in the building which the pool was a part of. If the family is renting a room then they are entitled to certain amenities within their renting agreement. I'm assuming that since the article implies other renters were likely to use the pool that the agreement includes use of that pool. Denying the use of the pool to a user based on the color of their skin would then be rightfully viewed as a breach of the Civil Rights Act.

land lords own it, the other people just rent it, a land lord can do as he pleases with the property.

How does the landlord own something you're paying for....If you're paying for it, its yours until you're unable to pay.

Because he formally bought the land first and can evict you if he gets a warrant. Also you have to pay for damages and he can evict you for making him do it. He controls whether or not you live there.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:39:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:33:30 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:27:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:24:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/13/2012 12:49:22 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 1/12/2012 2:49:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/12/2012 10:02:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

I don't see any problem with that. If it is private property, then the owners deserve the right to permit whoever he wishes onto the property.

Actually it's not his private property. Note that the article addresses him as the landlord and says that the girl's family was legally living in the building which the pool was a part of. If the family is renting a room then they are entitled to certain amenities within their renting agreement. I'm assuming that since the article implies other renters were likely to use the pool that the agreement includes use of that pool. Denying the use of the pool to a user based on the color of their skin would then be rightfully viewed as a breach of the Civil Rights Act.

land lords own it, the other people just rent it, a land lord can do as he pleases with the property.

How does the landlord own something you're paying for....If you're paying for it, its yours until you're unable to pay.

Because he formally bought the land first and can evict you if he gets a warrant. Also you have to pay for damages and he can evict you for making him do it. He controls whether or not you live there.

The government could evict you from your house if given reason, just like your landlord, does your house belong to the government?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:53:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The owners handled this in a crappy way. They should of had a sign that said, "No hair or chemical products allowed."

--- I think that is common sense!

Also, this used to be legal in places even when public discrimination was outlawed. In fact, Michael Moore entered an essay in a "Boy's State" competition (similar to Youth in Gov't) and pressed for banning segregation in private properties. Soon later, it came true. It is in his autobiography.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:55:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:39:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:33:30 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:27:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:24:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/13/2012 12:49:22 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 1/12/2012 2:49:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/12/2012 10:02:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

I don't see any problem with that. If it is private property, then the owners deserve the right to permit whoever he wishes onto the property.

Actually it's not his private property. Note that the article addresses him as the landlord and says that the girl's family was legally living in the building which the pool was a part of. If the family is renting a room then they are entitled to certain amenities within their renting agreement. I'm assuming that since the article implies other renters were likely to use the pool that the agreement includes use of that pool. Denying the use of the pool to a user based on the color of their skin would then be rightfully viewed as a breach of the Civil Rights Act.

land lords own it, the other people just rent it, a land lord can do as he pleases with the property.

How does the landlord own something you're paying for....If you're paying for it, its yours until you're unable to pay.

Because he formally bought the land first and can evict you if he gets a warrant. Also you have to pay for damages and he can evict you for making him do it. He controls whether or not you live there.

The government could evict you from your house if given reason, just like your landlord, does your house belong to the government?

The government is the government, I don't really know TBH.

But here is basically how renting works:

B pays A to live on A's property, according to A's rules.

If A wants to kick B off A's property, A can, as long as he refunds or something.

If A doesn't want B to do something, A can make B stop, as long as its within A's rules.

Now, all we need to know is what A's rules are.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 9:48:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/13/2012 12:49:22 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 1/12/2012 2:49:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/12/2012 10:02:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

I don't see any problem with that. If it is private property, then the owners deserve the right to permit whoever he wishes onto the property.

Actually it's not his private property. Note that the article addresses him as the landlord and says that the girl's family was legally living in the building which the pool was a part of. If the family is renting a room then they are entitled to certain amenities within their renting agreement. I'm assuming that since the article implies other renters were likely to use the pool that the agreement includes use of that pool. Denying the use of the pool to a user based on the color of their skin would then be rightfully viewed as a breach of the Civil Rights Act.

Specifically the OHIO STATE Civil Rights Act, not susceptible to the tenthers.