New Rule to stop LGBT Housing Discrimination

[DuckiesDarling]

http://www.freep.com/article/20120310/NEWS01/203100352/U-S-enacts-rule-to-put-a-stop-to-LGBT-housing-discrimination


Rather than wait for Congress to amend the Fair Housing Act to include anti-discrimination measures against gays and lesbians, Donovan said, the agency pushed through the rule as part of the White House's commitment to lesbian and gay equality. The rule follows changes to the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
"No housing challenge is as profound as homelessness," Donovan said. "All of us deserve a place to call home."

[Long Duck Dong]

when I first read ya post, I thought in terms of " we are refusing service / tenancy because " but reading the article.......damm

try shit like that in NZ, and you will end up in one of the many different tribunals and disputes courts that we have...... we can not really sue in NZ so we do not need all the courts like the US has, but we are trying to make it up with tribunals and disputes courts.....

I think I told you about how our system is fucking useless, with the case of the mongrel member females in the housing NZ houses that were evicted cos of breachs of the tenancy agreements, and it took 2 years, over $100K and fighting thru the mediation tribunals, the tenancy tribunal, right thru to the human rights courts, for housing NZ to finally get them out of the houses....... and the ladies only defence was that it was discrimination cos their BF's ( who were not allowed to stay at the properties under the tenancy agreements ) were gang members...... never mind the long list of tenancy agreement breaches they had committed....

discrimination is easy if a person is careful how they do it, but you are fucked in NZ, if the person you are trying to * keep out *, gets the service they want any way, cos they can then cost you $10ks of dollars and make your life a living hell.......

while I do not like discrimination, sometimes its the lesser of two evils for landlords, employers and service providers

[void()]

Rather than wait for Congress to amend the Fair Housing Act to include anti-discrimination measures against gays and lesbians, Donovan said, the agency pushed through the rule as part of the White House's commitment to lesbian and gay equality. The rule follows changes to the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Don't take me wrong, I am glad something was done and can appluad it. At the same time it makes me wonder how they were able to bypass the legalities and 'push' it through. Does that mean oh say, the Department of Transportation could push through a law that we import or create X number more cars this year? Not quite following how this happened. Lobbist push the fed, the fed pushes a law through? No wonder our system is a mess.

[darkeyes]

when I first read ya post, I thought in terms of " we are refusing service / tenancy because " but reading the article.......damm

try shit like that in NZ, and you will end up in one of the many different tribunals and disputes courts that we have...... we can not really sue in NZ so we do not need all the courts like the US has, but we are trying to make it up with tribunals and disputes courts.....

I think I told you about how our system is fucking useless, with the case of the mongrel member females in the housing NZ houses that were evicted cos of breachs of the tenancy agreements, and it took 2 years, over $100K and fighting thru the mediation tribunals, the tenancy tribunal, right thru to the human rights courts, for housing NZ to finally get them out of the houses....... and the ladies only defence was that it was discrimination cos their BF's ( who were not allowed to stay at the properties under the tenancy agreements ) were gang members...... never mind the long list of tenancy agreement breaches they had committed....

discrimination is easy if a person is careful how they do it, but you are fucked in NZ, if the person you are trying to * keep out *, gets the service they want any way, cos they can then cost you $10ks of dollars and make your life a living hell.......

while I do not like discrimination, sometimes its the lesser of two evils for landlords, employers and service providers
First of all I think the emboldened expression in ur post is extremely offensive and was unnecessary.. what the case was about I do not know and do not need to know, but while I do agree that landlords, employers and so on have rights to end a tenancy or employment of anyone this must be done within the law... if u mean the system is useless, for whom is it useless? If it makes it difficult for employers or landlords to sack or end a persons tenancy.. good.. it should be.. it should not be impossible, but it should be fair and it should not be easy... we too have a system of tribunals and it is quite right that we do... for often they are the only thing that stands in the way of much illegal discrimination and victimisation of both employees and tenants, but the fact is it easier for a landlord or an employer to get shot of people from their job or home than it is for people to stop illegal discrimination or victimisation by landlords and employers.

As both an employee and (one time)tenant I have been at the sharp end of employer and landlord breaking or attempting to breach conditions of employment or tenancy agreement.. on innumerable occasions.. although in employment I have always had a trade union on my side, this is not so when it comes to a landlord refusing to live up to the lease I signed by dealing with problems which were his legal responsibility.. there are legal means to redress this, but many will not take such action because most leases are short term or middle term and even then some landlords do have long memories and victimisation often occurs around the time a tenant may wish to sign a new lease..... once a lease expires of course a tenant has few options but to look for somewhere else in such circumstances but it does illustrate that landlords, just like employers are often anything but saintly...

..discrimination will always be with us.. and much discrimination we can accept... such as choosing the best candidate for a job or which prospective tenant a landlord selects to take possession of his property.. legal discrimination.. illegal discrimination , such as deciding based on a persons ethnicity or sexuality are not things we can accept.. and deciding upon the best candidate or prospective tenant based on such illegal criteria does not make them the best candidate at all... but proving that illegal discrimination took place is often a very difficult thing indeed... but to defend the rights of people, landlords and employers as well as tenant and employee, is why we have such tribunals and law... just how fairly such tribunals and law apply to all concerned is quite another question..

[The Bisexual Virgin]

Although they had no right to kick her out like they did, or harass her, they could have just asked her to leave, but I can see why they kicked her out. If this person felt they were a girl all long inside a males body, and she tried to change that, then what's the point of going to an all male school? She's wants to be a girl there's was no need for her to go to that school anymore.

[DuckiesDarling]

when I first read ya post, I thought in terms of " we are refusing service / tenancy because " but reading the article.......damm

try shit like that in NZ, and you will end up in one of the many different tribunals and disputes courts that we have...... we can not really sue in NZ so we do not need all the courts like the US has, but we are trying to make it up with tribunals and disputes courts.....

I think I told you about how our system is fucking useless, with the case of the mongrel member females in the housing NZ houses that were evicted cos of breachs of the tenancy agreements, and it took 2 years, over $100K and fighting thru the mediation tribunals, the tenancy tribunal, right thru to the human rights courts, for housing NZ to finally get them out of the houses....... and the ladies only defence was that it was discrimination cos their BF's ( who were not allowed to stay at the properties under the tenancy agreements ) were gang members...... never mind the long list of tenancy agreement breaches they had committed....

discrimination is easy if a person is careful how they do it, but you are fucked in NZ, if the person you are trying to * keep out *, gets the service they want any way, cos they can then cost you $10ks of dollars and make your life a living hell.......

while I do not like discrimination, sometimes its the lesser of two evils for landlords, employers and service providers

Yeah, hon I do remember you telling me about that case with the female members of the Mongrel Mob causing issues for everyone around. All in all this is a good ruling for the US, one step closer to everyone being allowed to live wherever, with the notable exception of child molesters not being allowed near schools.

[Long Duck Dong]

Fran, either learn to google things or take a chill pill

the mongrel mob happen to be one of two gangs in NZ, the mongrel mob and the black power...

try googling the mongrel mob, before you get on my case about being offensive....cos I was actually talking about females that associate with the mongrel mob gang members and if you want offensive, I could have mentioned what they call the females, as I have friends in the mongrel mob and black power gangs.....

[darkeyes]

Fran, either learn to google things or take a chill pill

the mongrel mob happen to be one of two gangs in NZ, the mongrel mob and the black power...

try googling the mongrel mob, before you get on my case about being offensive....cos I was actually talking about females that associate with the mongrel mob gang members and if you want offensive, I could have mentioned what they call the females, as I have friends in the mongrel mob and black power gangs.....
Thats ok... but u should have made it more clear thats what u were referring to.. Darlin Darlin obviously knew... but u should have made it clear to what u were referring... not everyone wants to or is prepared to google everything.. and I'm quite chilled tyvm considering..

[Long Duck Dong]

I think my post was pretty clear on the issue with the housing and the fight to evict some tenants in NZ..... what you reacted to, was something you read and misunderstood and I will not be hold responsible for other peoples reactions to something that they assumed..... specially english teachers that can not say sorry when they get something wrong

[darkeyes]

I think my post was pretty clear on the issue with the housing and the fight to evict some tenants in NZ..... what you reacted to, was something you read and misunderstood and I will not be hold responsible for other peoples reactions to something that they assumed..... specially english teachers that can not say sorry when they get something wrong
An English teacher would not have written the words "mongrel female members" (hint although the closing inverted commas would have been placed other than where I have and the word mongrel would have been spelled with a capital M) in the way u did if they were referring to women who were gang members... it would have been made more clear to what they referred and in what context.. indeed if u had done it right and made it more clear there is in fact no need for the inverted commas at all...

[Long Duck Dong]

I was not referring to females that were gang members, females are not gang members, they are associated with the gangs but only males can be prospects or patched members, females are there on..... how can I put this in a non offensive manner ? ... they are there for the satisfying of carnal desires for one or more persons in a occasional or regular basis and in the role of property, without value

once again, you misread, as I clearly stated " try googling the mongrel mob, before you get on my case about being offensive....cos I was actually talking about females that associate with the mongrel mob gang members "

do I hear a "sorry" this time....???

[darkeyes]

I was not referring to females that were gang members, females are not gang members, they are associated with the gangs but only males can be prospects or patched members, females are there on..... how can I put this in a non offensive manner ? ... they are there for the satisfying of carnal desires for one or more persons in a occasional or regular basis and in the role of property, without value

once again, you misread, as I clearly stated " try googling the mongrel mob, before you get on my case about being offensive....cos I was actually talking about females that associate with the mongrel mob gang members "

do I hear a "sorry" this time....???
No u dont..