Diocese says it must end all state-funded adoption, foster services

[idav]

A lot of times non-profit and tax exempt organizations are not subject to anti-discrimination laws. If the government wants to step in and stop discrimination they have every right to. There are exceptions courts make like allowing the girl scouts to have only girls but boy scouts not allowing gays is still an issue.

 

[Draka]

That's right. I think people should only discriminate about things actually relevant to the tenancy or the roommate relationship.

I do have to comment on this point. Safety and responsibility is also relevant in regards to whom you rent to. This is why people do background checks. If you did a background check on an applicant to rent a room in your house and you found out they were a convicted child molester, and you have young children in the house, would you feel compelled to rent to that person in the name of "non-discrimination" or would you err on the side of safety and most likely chuck their application to the side and consider someone else? Presumption of harassment is another issue. If you are homosexual, would you be willing to rent a room in your house to a member of the WBC? There would be a rightful fear of harassment and maybe even danger if you rented to that person and they found out about you. The safety of yourself and others in your care/home is paramount and is certainly a deciding factor in whom you decide to share your personal space with. In fact, deciding to rent a room in your house, where you have children, to a convicted child molester or otherwise considered "dangerous" felon, could be considered child endangerment on your part by the state. In these types of cases, discrimination is not only allowable, but required. Safety is foremost.

 

[waitasec]

I do have to comment on this point. Safety and responsibility is also relevant in regards to whom you rent to. This is why people do background checks. If you did a background check on an applicant to rent a room in your house and you found out they were a convicted child molester, and you have young children in the house, would you feel compelled to rent to that person in the name of "non-discrimination" or would you err on the side of safety and most likely chuck their application to the side and consider someone else? Presumption of harassment is another issue. If you are homosexual, would you be willing to rent a room in your house to a member of the WBC? There would be a rightful fear of harassment and maybe even danger if you rented to that person and they found out about you. The safety of yourself and others in your care/home is paramount and is certainly a deciding factor in whom you decide to share your personal space with. In fact, deciding to rent a room in your house, where you have children, to a convicted child molester or otherwise considered "dangerous" felon, could be considered child endangerment on your part by the state. In these types of cases, discrimination is not only allowable, but required. Safety is foremost.

this is interesting. if you were to have young children, would it be wise for you to be renting out a room from your home, or your garage, or even an apartment adjacent to you home? i think the bigger picture is, there are some who are in the objectionable position to open a business in their home
and there are those who are prone to discriminate for obvious reasons...having a young child.
iow, why put yourself in a position to discriminate?

 

[Draka]

this is interesting. if you were to have young children, would it be wise for you to be renting out a room from your home, or your garage, or even an apartment adjacent to you home? i think the bigger picture is, there are some who are in the objectionable position to open a business in their home
and there are those who are prone to discriminate for obvious reasons...having a young child.
iow, why put yourself in a position to discriminate?

It's sometimes not the matter of willingly putting oneself in a particular situation, but having one thrust upon you. Example: you have a good size house with your spouse and children. Spouse leaves. You have extra room in house but bills are tight and you need help. Renting the room out to a responsible person whom you could trust to be around your children would be a good idea. Point is, it doesn't really matter how the person got into the the situation, the point is the matter of safety. Could you honestly answer the questions I asked? I don't know if you have children, but if you do and you have an extra room you'd need to rent in your house or a garage apartment like Kathryn, could you, in good conscience, rent to a convicted child molester?

Look, the reason this sticks out so very badly for me is that I live in a duplex. Up until very recently my neighbor was a convicted child molester. I only found this out after they'd been living there a while and I found he gave me the creeps so I did some searching on him. He was on parole after a stint of several years in prison for 3 acts against a minor girl. How comfortable do you think I have been? How worried? If it had been my choice as to whom would rent the other side I would have definitely discriminated against him. And felt no remorse for doing so. I certainly wouldn't let him or any other child molester live within my home. In fact, doing so would be considered child endangerment by the state of Iowa and I could lose my children over it. As I said, in some cases, discrimination is not only allowed, but required.

 

[waitasec]

It's sometimes not the matter of willingly putting oneself in a particular situation, but having one thrust upon you. Example: you have a good size house with your spouse and children. Spouse leaves. You have extra room in house but bills are tight and you need help. Renting the room out to a responsible person whom you could trust to be around your children would be a good idea. Point is, it doesn't really matter how the person got into the the situation, the point is the matter of safety. Could you honestly answer the questions I asked? I don't know if you have children, but if you do and you have an extra room you'd need to rent in your house or a garage apartment like Kathryn, could you, in good conscience, rent to a convicted child molester?

well i do run a business in my garage...even though it is not rented space for tenants... we do provide services...for a profit...and yes i have a son...
and yes my son does come into contact with our clients, but the nature of this type of contact is well within a setting where i do not think he is going to be in any danger whatsoever.
what i am saying...
you put yourself in a position of discrimination because you have to protect your children because of the nature of the business you decided to pursue...

Look, the reason this sticks out so very badly for me is that I live in a duplex. Up until very recently my neighbor was a convicted child molester. I only found this out after they'd been living there a while and I found he gave me the creeps so I did some searching on him. He was on parole after a stint of several years in prison for 3 acts against a minor girl. How comfortable do you think I have been? How worried? If it had been my choice as to whom would rent the other side I would have definitely discriminated against him. And felt no remorse for doing so.
I certainly wouldn't let him or any other child molester live within my home. In fact, doing so would be considered child endangerment by the state of Iowa and I could lose my children over it. As I said, in some cases, discrimination is not only allowed, but required.

i hear you...there are a couple that live on our street!!!
i think the difference here is that you didn't decide to put yourself in that position to discriminate, do you know what i mean?
are you renting, were you there before your neighbors moved in?
i would suppose if you were there first and you do rent, wouldn't it be up to the landlord to advise you of their background, especially knowing you have a child...what a mess.

 

[Draka]

i hear you...there are a couple that live on our street!!!
i think the difference here is that you didn't decide to put yourself in that position to discriminate, do you know what i mean?
are you renting, were you there before your neighbors moved in?
i would suppose if you were there first and you do rent, wouldn't it be up to the landlord to advise you of their background, especially knowing you have a child...what a mess.

I've been here for years and seen neighbors come and go. The building was lost by the previous landlord and bought by a new guy while I was still living here. The new landlord kind of "inherited" me. This is his first rental unit and is brand new to the renting thing. He did no background checks when looking for renters for the other side. In fact, he has had many valid legal reasons he could evict them over the past year or so and he didn't because he just didn't have a clue. They left on their own a couple months ago. This is definitely a live and learn experience for him as they really did a number on the unit and I have been chirping in his ear about certain things they'd done that were a no-no when it comes to renting. I'm 35 and have been a renter since I was 18. Yes, he should have done background checks before considering renting to anyone and yes, he should have told me as I had a right to know. As it was, I was the one who told him. He didn't know. He should have. Anyone who acts as a landlord should know exactly who they are renting to any problems or dangers that may arise because of it.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Is it not Federal law that sex offenders are required to announce their presence door to door when they move to a new neighborhood? I know thats a law in some states, but am unsure if it's a state or federal one.


Btw, just FYI unrelated to the OP, the following website can be used to search your neighborhood for registered sex offenders.

FBI — Sex Offender Registry

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do have to comment on this point. Safety and responsibility is also relevant in regards to whom you rent to. This is why people do background checks. If you did a background check on an applicant to rent a room in your house and you found out they were a convicted child molester, and you have young children in the house, would you feel compelled to rent to that person in the name of "non-discrimination" or would you err on the side of safety and most likely chuck their application to the side and consider someone else?

Safety is a relevant issue. If you have good reason to believe that a person would be a safety risk to you or other people in the house, then this would be a good reason to turn someone down as a roommate. I think that sort of record would be entirely relevant: if a person would be barred from the grounds of an elementary school, why would it be appropriate to have him in the same home as elementary school-aged children?

But I should point out that I think that this is a case where there's a difference between a roommate arrangement and the rental of a separate apartment: in the case of the apartment, the person's living in a different dwelling unit that's separated from the homeowner's area by locked (or lockable) secure doors. In the case of a roommate, you're literally sharing a home.

In the case of a tenant in an accessory apartment, you have your home, he has his, and you only share some common areas. In that case, if you choose to invite your tenant into your home, it's not really any different from inviting a neighbour.

Presumption of harassment is another issue. If you are homosexual, would you be willing to rent a room in your house to a member of the WBC? There would be a rightful fear of harassment and maybe even danger if you rented to that person and they found out about you.

Harassment? Maybe. Physical danger? Not so much. They're very convinced that God will smite homosexual people, so I don't think they see any need to do it themselves.

But why base your decision on a presumption at all? If a WBC member actually did come to you looking to rent a room, why not simply ask how they would behave? He or she might very well tell you flat out that they'll tell you every day that you're an evil sinner who is doomed to Hell... in which case, feel free to send them on their way.

OTOH, the person might tell you that the reason they're looking for an apartment is that they've just left the church because they find the WBC's views repugnant... which is something that's happened more than once.

Speaking for myself and with the benefit of hindsight, if an 18-year-old Nate Phelps (one of the Phelps children, who left home early in the morning of the first day he was legally able to do so) had shown up on my doorstep looking for a place to stay and I had turned him away because I had seen him a few years earlier carrying a "God Hates ****" sign, I'd regret my decision today.

The safety of yourself and others in your care/home is paramount and is certainly a deciding factor in whom you decide to share your personal space with. In fact, deciding to rent a room in your house, where you have children, to a convicted child molester or otherwise considered "dangerous" felon, could be considered child endangerment on your part by the state. In these types of cases, discrimination is not only allowable, but required. Safety is foremost.

I'm not saying that any form of discrimination is inappropriate; I'm just saying that any discrimination has to be relevant and reasonable. For instance, if a person has a bad credit history, that's relevant... if you want to get paid your rent, anyhow.

Look, the reason this sticks out so very badly for me is that I live in a duplex. Up until very recently my neighbor was a convicted child molester. I only found this out after they'd been living there a while and I found he gave me the creeps so I did some searching on him. He was on parole after a stint of several years in prison for 3 acts against a minor girl. How comfortable do you think I have been? How worried? If it had been my choice as to whom would rent the other side I would have definitely discriminated against him. And felt no remorse for doing so. I certainly wouldn't let him or any other child molester live within my home. In fact, doing so would be considered child endangerment by the state of Iowa and I could lose my children over it. As I said, in some cases, discrimination is not only allowed, but required.

It strikes me that your concerns aren't really a function of ownership, but proximity. A child molester is more of a danger to his next-door neighbour than to a landlord who lives on the other side of town.

And in the case Kathryn described of an accessory apartment... it's often the case that the next-door neighbour is closer to the apartment than the property owner is. Does this mean that the next door neighbour should have a veto on any prospective new tenants? If a sex offender applies to rent a unit in an apartment building, should the rest of the tenants on the floor (or in the whole building) get the right of approval over the wishes of the building owner?

 

[Draka]

And in the case Kathryn described of an accessory apartment... it's often the case that the next-door neighbour is closer to the apartment than the property owner is. Does this mean that the next door neighbour should have a veto on any prospective new tenants? If a sex offender applies to rent a unit in an apartment building, should the rest of the tenants on the floor (or in the whole building) get the right of approval over the wishes of the building owner?

While I don't have much issue with the rest of your post I will address this one.

The neighbors or other renters of a complex may not have "veto" rights, but in most states I am aware of they have a right to know. If some states don't have that law in place where people residing within a certain radius distance to the felon have to be informed, then one would think it should just be a matter of conscience on the part of the landlord to at least give his/her tenants a heads up that their new neighbor is a convicted child molester. While, financially speaking, they might be the best candidate for the landlord, the other tenants have a right to know that their safety might be compromised. I had no idea that the man living on the other side of my basement access door in my bedroom was a sex crime felon. It wasn't until after several months of the "heebie-jeebies" feeling about him that I was able to get his correct full name and do a search on him. "Heebie-jeebies" then had "repulsed" added to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While I don't have much issue with the rest of your post I will address this one.

The neighbors or other renters of a complex may not have "veto" rights, but in most states I am aware of they have a right to know.

And fair enough... but Kathryn's argument against renting to someone was based on the idea that she shouldn't be forced to live near to someone who she felt was a safety risk.

This applies just as much if the person is her tenant, if the person is her neighbour in a building where they're both tenants, or if they're both owners of adjacent houses. IMO, if her argument holds water as a justification for why she should be exempt from normal discrimination laws, then I think it applies just as much as an argument for why her neighbours should get a say in who she does or doesn't rent to.

IMO, if it works for her as an "out" from normal equality rights for the prospective tenant, then it works for her neighbour as an "out" from normal property rights for her.

Edit: according to her one example, it's reasonable for a Muslim family not to want to live in close proximity to a Pentecostal who will bombard them with proselytizing material all the time. She used this to explain why a Muslim family should be able to reject that Pentecostal as a tenant. However, what if the Muslims are her next-door neighbours and she's the one considering renting to the Pentecostal? If the Pentecostal is the sort who would harass Muslims, they'll be the victims of it as much as if they had rented a room to him themselves. Should that family be able to prevent her from renting her property as she sees fit?

If not, then why should she?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is it not Federal law that sex offenders are required to announce their presence door to door when they move to a new neighborhood? I know thats a law in some states, but am unsure if it's a state or federal one.


Btw, just FYI unrelated to the OP, the following website can be used to search your neighborhood for registered sex offenders.

FBI — Sex Offender Registry

... but keeping in mind that many people who bear the scarlet (S) are not dangerous at all. Sex offenders include people who were teenagers having consentual sex with someone just one year younger -- and the age of consent varies from state to state.

 

[Draka]

... but keeping in mind that many people who bear the scarlet (S) are not dangerous at all. Sex offenders include people who were teenagers having consentual sex with someone just one year younger -- and the age of consent varies from state to state.

Just as a note here, my neighbor was a man in his 50s and his victim was between the ages of 3 and 13. This was not a statutory rape thing.

 

[waitasec]

... but keeping in mind that many people who bear the scarlet (S) are not dangerous at all. Sex offenders include people who were teenagers having consentual sex with someone just one year younger -- and the age of consent varies from state to state.

but there is almost always a way of knowing what kind of sex offender they are...like some bloke who got caught peeing in the bushes...gets labeled sex offender...there are levels.

 

[Kathryn]

And fair enough... but Kathryn's argument against renting to someone was based on the idea that she shouldn't be forced to live near to someone who she felt was a safety risk.

This applies just as much if the person is her tenant, if the person is her neighbour in a building where they're both tenants, or if they're both owners of adjacent houses. IMO, if her argument holds water as a justification for why she should be exempt from normal discrimination laws, then I think it applies just as much as an argument for why her neighbours should get a say in who she does or doesn't rent to.

IMO, if it works for her as an "out" from normal equality rights for the prospective tenant, then it works for her neighbour as an "out" from normal property rights for her.

Edit: according to her one example, it's reasonable for a Muslim family not to want to live in close proximity to a Pentecostal who will bombard them with proselytizing material all the time. She used this to explain why a Muslim family should be able to reject that Pentecostal as a tenant. However, what if the Muslims are her next-door neighbours and she's the one considering renting to the Pentecostal? If the Pentecostal is the sort who would harass Muslims, they'll be the victims of it as much as if they had rented a room to him themselves. Should that family be able to prevent her from renting her property as she sees fit?

If not, then why should she?

Two words: PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Now I know this concept crawls all over some people - especially people who do not own much property.

But as a HOMEOWNER, I have every right to decide who I allow onto my homestead property - whether that property is a 1/4 acre lot in the center of town or 200 acres in the country. Homestead and homeowner rights trump a small sole proprietorship or business run out of a garage or home office.

This is exactly why the government has different laws based entirely on the size of a company and the number of employees - or in the case of a garage apartment, the number of rental units. That's why, if you are going to rent your basement apartment out, and a Korean couple reeking of kimchi interview, you are allowed to ask them if they plan on cooking kimchi and if they say yes, you can decide, no matter how credit worthy they are, NOT to rent to them. They can cry "racial discrimination" all they want, but the point is, with one rental unit on homestead property, you can discriminate FOR ANY REASON regarding who you allow on your own property - whether for a visit or to live there.

As for the neighbors, they have every right to be unhappy about whoever moves in next door - and they have the right to move. They do not have the right to tell you who you can allow on your property though - and you don't have the right to tell them who they can have on their property. That's why we have noise ordinances, zoning laws, neighborhood restrictions on building types, RVs, etc, even age restrictions on certain neighborhoods. That's also why we have sex offender registries. In fact, here in East Texas, all I have to do is type in my own address and a radius, and the site pulls up every registered sex offender - WITH PHOTOS - within that radius. I can't make the guy move, but I can move my kids out of there if I feel unsafe.

But I don't have to let him move onto my property - nor do I have to let the woman who weighs four hundred pounds move into my upstairs garage apartment (I actually listed a pier and beam house once where a 400 pound woman had lived - and the foundation literally had to be repaired under her bed, the tub, and her favorite chair before the house could be sold). You can call it discrimination based on disability if you like (gross obesity is a disability) but it doesn't matter. It's my homestead property and I control who lives there, works there, and sleeps there - I don't care how good their credit is or how sweet a person they are. Because IT'S MY HOUSE.

Now - a business open to the public is another scenario altogether and falls under a different set of laws regarding discrimination - as it should.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Two words: PROPERTY RIGHTS.

"Equality rights" is two words, too. But I guess because I didn't type it in caps, it's not as important.

Edit: I think it's interesting that in a discussion of ethics, you focus on the law.

 

[waitasec]

"Equality rights" is two words, too. But I guess because I didn't type it in caps, it's not as important.

Edit: I think it's interesting that in a discussion of ethics, you focus on the law.

yes it is rather interesting isn't it?

 

[Draka]

"Equality rights" is two words, too. But I guess because I didn't type it in caps, it's not as important.

Edit: I think it's interesting that in a discussion of ethics, you focus on the law.

I thought this was a discussion of the law. Isn't it? The law about separation of church and state? That it would not be legally correct for the state government to allow exemptions for the Catholic Church to discriminate regarding a state-sponsored program such as adoption and foster care? This whole discussion has been based on the law hasn't it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I thought this was a discussion of the law. Isn't it? The law about separation of church and state? That it would not be legally correct for the state government to allow exemptions for the Catholic Church to discriminate regarding a state-sponsored program such as adoption and foster care? This whole discussion has been based on the law hasn't it?

I meant the tangent that Kathryn and I have gotten off onto. From the start of it, I tried to approach things by focusing on what's ethical or moral, or what the law should be, rather than focusing on what the law currently says:

I have no doubt that what you did was legal in your jurisdiction. I just think that the law allows some rather sleazy activities.

 

[Kathryn]

"Equality rights" is two words, too. But I guess because I didn't type it in caps, it's not as important.

Edit: I think it's interesting that in a discussion of ethics, you focus on the law.

You can type in caps if you want -- it makes no difference.

As has been pointed out to you by others already, this entire thread has been a discussion of law AND ethics. Ethics and the law are intertwined. Law is based on ethics. You immediately brought this up yourself in this conversation by discussing why you thought it was illegal for me to "discriminate against" the mentally disabled woman whose caseworker was trying to place her in my garage apartment.

You have gone on and on in various posts about why or why not things are or should be legal.

But we can talk about ethics if you like.

I think it's unethical for government to try to mandate to a homeowner who she will allow to live on her homestead property - which is just one more reason why I love living in Texas. I get to choose who lives in my backyard. I think that's about as ethical as it comes on the topic of home ownership.

I believe it would be VERY sleazy if the law only gave me two options - don't rent out your garage or get a roommate - or - you have to let anyone who qualifies credit wise move into your house. No other factors can be considered.

Or are you saying - I can refuse them if they smoke - but I can't refuse them if are a sex offender? If I'm a 22 year old college student looking for a roommate, I have to accept a 75 year old man with dementia as long as his caretaker pays the rent? It's unethical for a woman to place an ad in the paper for a female roommate?

Come on, man. Like I said, property rights trump a lot of other issues. We are allowed much more freedom with our own personal property and family, and even family owned businesses, than we are with businesses opened to the public and strangers. And I think that's very ethical.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think I would prefer to know up front if a potential landlord had something against me before renting from them. I would rather them reject me as a tenant than rent from a resentful landlord who's prejudiced towards me. I wouldn't want someone like that with any sort of power over me.