Racist homeowners refuse to sell to black couple

[Acala]

just

it's still probably true in some places, so what?

the seller can't be held accountable after they're gone, and the buyer will have to deal with the unwelcoming neighbors.

Just making a historical observation.

 

[WaltM]

In this market, they can afford to be this picky? *shrugs* It's going to bite them in the ass, to be sure, but I whole-heartedly support their right to transact business with "whites only" if they want to.

I support their right, but I think choosing the buyer is hardly one that's enjoyable.

As far as protesting, if the protest or anything associated with it is infringing on the homeowners or their neighbors, it's not cool.

I wonder what rights a neighbor has? Right to be free from seeing people they don't like? Or just hearing noises?

If I say I'm not selling my house to anyone over the age of 40, and a bunch of old folks (and middle aged, for that matter) show up on my lawn, they're still trespassing.

Yeah, but not if they stood right in front and not ON.

And, there ARE closed gate retirement communities that not only forbid OWNING, BUT ALSO LIVING of people under 50.

The understanding is that, the community is reserved for retired and old people, for safety, calmness, cars, income....lifestyle basically.

If they're "only" on the sidewalk and yelling and wandering around and making it next to impossible to use the sidewalk and driveways, that's a problem, too.

But if they made it possible, just uncomfortable to use?

Now, if my neighbor is upset by my not selling my house to a qualified "black couple," then that neighbor can volunteer their property to stage a protest, or even put up a big sign with an arrow pointing at my house that says "RACISTS" or something along those lines. Would they be wrong?

No, I don't think so.

Unless maybe they know that would lead to you being harassed or harmed and they purposesly assisted criminal activity.

None of this should be enforced by law. That's moronic in so many ways it's hard to keep count.

yep. moronic a person would even care who he's selling to when he can take the money and run.

 

[WaltM]

Not true.

Say you and I operate competing restaurants and you exclude blacks and I don't. My guaranteed customer base consists of all blacks and all whites who oppose racism.

Or people who care more about the food, the price than whether a person is racist.

Your guaranteed customer base consists only of hard-core racists.

Or people who care more about the food, the price than whether a person is racist.

We compete for those who don't care one way or the other. Unless hard-core racists outnumber all blacks and all anti-racists, I win. The market will bless my business and slowly rot yours. And every day my business operates, it spreads racial tolerance. This is exactly why the Klan had to prevent racial integration.

so then, you better be able to afford the competition by either quality food, service or price. Otherwise some people might not let racism blindsight them.

The market can work the other way too, depending on preference.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The market punishes racism. Consider this:

One of the main functions of the Klan was to intimidate WHITE business owners to not serve blacks. The market inexorably pushes toward rational behavior and punishes ignorance and irrational behavior. The market rewards businesses that cater to customers and punishes businesses that do not. A business that excludes customers for irrational reasons - like skin color - will not be able to compete with businesses that act rationally. Now absent the use of force - by the Klan and by the government - there would probably have been businesses that would have catered to racists by excluding blacks. But over time they would have been eroded and finally have died out after several generations were exposed to the subtle integrative force of the market.

Another example:

In South Africa the apartheid laws were needed by racists to prevent WHITES from hiring blacks or selling them homes. Once again, the racists needed force to counteract the anti-racist pressure of the market.

The free market is relentlessly anti-racist.

This post is full to the brim with win.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/bridgeport-couple-charged_n_677473.html

Now in trouble with the law. What do you think?

I think we should quit using the "R" word. There exists no such person as a racist today just as there never existed such a person as a "N" igger. Doing away with the term "R" acist will cause people to think. Then we will stop all this stupid thinking and start sleeping with each other.
In the end, I think the evidence is over whelming that everyone of every race, creed, and color is pretty much sleeping with everyone of every race, creed and color.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I think we should quit using the "R" word. There exists no such person as a racist today just as there never existed such a person as a "N" igger. Doing away with the term "R" acist will cause people to think. Then we will stop all this stupid thinking and start sleeping with each other.
In the end, I think the evidence is over whelming that everyone of every race, creed, and color is pretty much sleeping with everyone of every race, creed and color.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The market punishes racism. Consider this:

One of the main functions of the Klan was to intimidate WHITE business owners to not serve blacks. The market inexorably pushes toward rational behavior and punishes ignorance and irrational behavior. The market rewards businesses that cater to customers and punishes businesses that do not. A business that excludes customers for irrational reasons - like skin color - will not be able to compete with businesses that act rationally. Now absent the use of force - by the Klan and by the government - there would probably have been businesses that would have catered to racists by excluding blacks. But over time they would have been eroded and finally have died out after several generations were exposed to the subtle integrative force of the market.

Another example:

In South Africa the apartheid laws were needed by racists to prevent WHITES from hiring blacks or selling them homes. Once again, the racists needed force to counteract the anti-racist pressure of the market.

The free market is relentlessly anti-racist.

According to the laws of American Literature, when taking away the apartheid laws of South Africa and the Klan of the south, one is only left with the non-prejudice of the Puritans of the Northeast, the worshipping of witchcraft, the dancing naked around a maypole, and the eating of mincemeat pie!

 

[JustinTime]

and what if they find out later that lower offers are considered?

you can't hide that for much long, you can discriminate on price, and keep changing your mind, just don't get caught so obvious about it.

Actually, IMO, they should be able to discriminate with their own property right out in the open. They can face consequences from individuals who choose to protest in their front yard, refuse to do business with them, etc, but nothing from government at all.

 

[idirtify]

Who cares? People can sell to whoever they want. And I think the idea of protesting these people simply because you don't agree with their opinion is asinine. People need to stop being so sensitive. You might as well go protest someone for having bad taste in music.

So in a more free/perfect world: the seller could legally refuse to sell, the protesters could protest the refusal, the critics of the protest could protest the protesters, and we LF members would still manage to disagree with all of them from the comfort of our homes. Who would have ever thought that the face of real freedom would be MASS DISAGREEMENT?

 

[WaltM]

Actually, IMO, they should be able to discriminate with their own property right out in the open. They can face consequences from individuals who choose to protest in their front yard, refuse to do business with them, etc, but nothing from government at all.

thats what i said, they should be allowed that

but i meant to say, its easy to catch today (as it is technically illegal)

and regardless, its stupid on its face for purposes of selling

 

[cindy25]

they might have had a valid personal or economic interest in refusing.

not so much now days, but in the 60s and 70s selling to a black family would cause the value of neighboring property drop; if they owned other homes in the area, or were close to their neighbors then selling to whites only makes economic sense. it shouldn't, some day it won't but it does.

 

[jmdrake]

Quite untrue. Our rights are Unlimited and Freedom of Association is one of them. Learn, grasshoppa:

No they're not caterpillar. I bet your going to misinterpret the 9th amendment by ignoring the 10th.

- 9th Amendment to the US Constitution

Yep. Right on queue. Here's the 10th amendment you ignored.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Just because because a right isn't enumerated doesn't mean the states can't restrict it. It simply means the federal government can't unless it specifically has the enumerated power to do so. People hue and cry about "property rights". Well states had the power to restrict your property rights long before there was a civil rights act. For example, way back to the beginning of the republic states could through the common law grant the general public an "easement" to your property just because you didn't stop someone from open and adversely using it multiple times. There's nothing in the constitution to prevent this. But nothing in the constitution gives the federal governmentt that authority.

Bottom line, even though that fact that a right isn't enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that it must exist just either. The 9th amendment only means the federal government isn't allowed to grant itself new powers to restrict rights out of thin air. The whole abortion mess came from the Supreme Court making up rights. If a state wanted to pass a law restricting some made up right not listed in the federal constitution or state constitution there's nothing to stop it.

 

[WaltM]

they might have had a valid personal or economic interest in refusing.

I don't think they need a valid or justifiable one.

But I can't imagine how that can even be, if the offer is money.

Why do you care, when you can take the money and walk?

(please dont tell me they think it's more responsible to sell to white people because they dont want blacks to be foreclosed on)

not so much now days, but in the 60s and 70s selling to a black family would cause the value of neighboring property drop;

it still would, and vice versa, in some areas.

if they owned other homes in the area, or were close to their neighbors then selling to whites only makes economic sense. it shouldn't, some day it won't but it does.

if that's the case, they shouldn't even put it on the market.

they should sell it to a neighbor and let them deal with it.

Now, I don't think there's anything wrong or illegal with "I dont want to sell you because I dont like blacks" or "I want to charge more because you're black", but I just don't see any reason anybody would care, AT ALL.

if they think blacks will drop the property value, they should raise the price so only rich blacks can buy it. If one house can ruin an area, it can also raise an area.

 

[WaltM]

No they're not caterpillar. I bet your going to misinterpret the 9th amendment by ignoring the 10th.

Yep. Right on queue. Here's the 10th amendment you ignored.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Just because because a right isn't enumerated doesn't mean the states can't restrict it.

First of all, what's with the OR?

Who comes first? The People or the States?

So, as long as a right isn't enumerated a State is authorized to restrict it?

It simply means the federal government can't unless it specifically has the enumerated power to do so. People hue and cry about "property rights". Well states had the power to restrict your property rights long before there was a civil rights act. For example, way back to the beginning of the republic states could through the common law grant the general public an "easement" to your property just because you didn't stop someone from open and adversely using it multiple times. There's nothing in the constitution to prevent this. But nothing in the constitution gives the federal governmentt that authority.

So by this reasoning, any state can restrict property, and then authorize the federal government to act on their behalf for whatever they've enabled.

Bottom line, even though that fact that a right isn't enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Why not?

Why does or should a person have any rights that aren't written on paper?

, that doesn't mean that it must exist just either.

I'm leaning towards it doesn't exist. Can you tell me why I'm wrong?

The 9th amendment only means the federal government isn't allowed to grant itself new powers to restrict rights out of thin air. The whole abortion mess came from the Supreme Court making up rights.

The Supreme Court is authorized to interpret the Constitution, which is de facto law and rights creation, is it not?

The Supreme Court CAN, in theory, and effect say "The first amendment really means a person can murder as long as it's part of his religion" right?

 

[jmdrake]

Really. It's a dumb thread. The only think truly worth noting is that the federal government doesn't have any jurisdiction in the matter. But I care no more about the "right" of some racist white owner to be stupid and not sell to the highest bidder than I care about the "right" of some black couple to by the home of a racist. And in this particular case it sounds like the white couple violated the terms of their initial agreement anyway. The right of contract anyway? I can't tell from the description if the black couple had already paid earnest money. If so that's a contract regardless of any federal housing statute. And yeah, if it wasn't for the federal law they probably would have made it clear in the listing that "only whites need to apply". But if they care so much about being racist jerks they could have done due diligence before accepting the bid to find out the "complexion" of the highest bid. Their fault for being stupid on top of being racist.

 

[libertybrewcity]

Typical anti white racism. Refuse to sell to blacks yer a racist! Fucking bs. I can't stand the government.Its their own damn choice if they don't want to sell to those 2 whiners they couldn't find a suitable home for themselves and their kids so they took it off the market end of story. If they didn't want to sell to blacks they would have never let them make an offer or they would have said no to their offer.

oh whatever. typical white protectionism. it is clearly racist if you refuse to sell to a black family based on the fact they are a black family.

they can sell to whoever they want but if they are clearly denying a sale based on race, that is called racist.

 

[WaltM]

Really. It's a dumb thread. The only think truly worth noting is that the federal government doesn't have any jurisdiction in the matter.

who disagreed?

But I care no more about the "right" of some racist white owner to be stupid and not sell to the highest bidder than I care about the "right" of some black couple to by the home of a racist.

yeah, which is why I don't believe in rights.

And in this particular case it sounds like the white couple violated the terms of their initial agreement anyway. The right of contract anyway? I can't tell from the description if the black couple had already paid earnest money.

good questions, too bad people here don't want the details.

If so that's a contract regardless of any federal housing statute. And yeah, if it wasn't for the federal law they probably would have made it clear in the listing that "only whites need to apply". But if they care so much about being racist jerks they could have done due diligence before accepting the bid to find out the "complexion" of the highest bid. Their fault for being stupid on top of being racist.

yeah, that's essentially what it is. being stupid.

 

[WaltM]

oh whatever. typical white protectionism. it is clearly racist if you refuse to sell to a black family based on the fact they are a black family.

they can sell to whoever they want but if they are clearly denying a sale based on race, that is called racist.

I can't wait until it's criminal to tell your child whom they can't marry.

 

[jmdrake]

First of all, what's with the OR?

Who comes first? The People or the States?

So, as long as a right isn't enumerated a State is authorized to restrict it?

Basically. Look at the prohibition of alcohol for example. When the federal government was acting with in its proper boundaries it couldn't restrict the sale of alcohol, so the temperance movement needed the 18th amendment. But states could prohibit alcohol. Even today you have "dry counties" and "wet counties". Drinking alcohol isn't an enumerated right. On the flip side a state law banning any newspaper that criticized the governor would be struck down.

So by this reasoning, any state can restrict property, and then authorize the federal government to act on their behalf for whatever they've enabled.

I'm not following you. First what would even be the point of that? The states collectively have more enforcement officers than the federal government. Secondly, states restrict property all of the time. Zoning laws for instance. Can you think of any example where or local government passed an zoning law and then asked the feds to enforce it? Third I've never heard of a "state to federal delegation doctrine" on anything. But even if that did happen, why would it even matter? In the grand scheme of things if your property right has been restricted anyway, does it matter if it's a local sheriff or a federal agent that enforces the restriction? It matters who passes it because you have a better chance fighting city hall then you do the federal government.

Why not?

Why does or should a person have any rights that aren't written on paper?

I'm leaning towards it doesn't exist. Can you tell me why I'm wrong?

Ummm....I'm not the one arguing for an unenumerated right. That said there are common law rights. Ok, they're written in court decisions but still.

The Supreme Court is authorized to interpret the Constitution, which is de facto law and rights creation, is it not?

The Supreme Court CAN, in theory, and effect say "The first amendment really means a person can murder as long as it's part of his religion" right?

The Supreme Court authorized itself to interpret the constitution. Kind of circular reasoning. The current court view on religion is that you have and unfettered right of your religious belief but not an unfettered right of action based on your belief. So you can't murder someone just because your religion says so. You can believe someone deserves death and even tell others of your belief as long as you aren't directing them to carry out the murder. Its the same reasoning by which the court should overturn that state school's decision to try to force that Christian counseling student to change her views about homosexuality. That is if the court follows its own precedence.

But back to the subject at hand, if we accept that whatever the court has already said is constitutional really is, then the whole discussion about this racist couple is moot. The court has already made it clear that the federal government can do all sorts of things in the name of "interstate commerce" even when there is no real interstate transaction involved. But the court has revisited the commerce clause somewhat in recent years and started to reverse itself. It came close to totally undoing the broad definition of the commerce clause in Gonzales v. Raich, but Scalia apparently couldn't bear the death of the federal drug war.

Side note, the only reason the court gave a broad definition of the commerce clause in the first place is because FDR bullied it my threatening to increase the number of justices just so he could stack the court with people who would agree with him.

 

[WaltM]

Basically. Look at the prohibition of alcohol for example. When the federal government was acting with in its proper boundaries it couldn't restrict the sale of alcohol, so the temperance movement needed the 18th amendment. But states could prohibit alcohol. Even today you have "dry counties" and "wet counties". Drinking alcohol isn't an enumerated right. On the flip side a state law banning any newspaper that criticized the governor would be struck down.

Where does "or the people" come in?

I understand States have rights to make laws, but what does "or the people" mean? That they come only last after federal and state failed to present what's legal?

I'm not following you. First what would even be the point of that?

Save time? Get help?

The states collectively have more enforcement officers than the federal government.

even today?

Secondly, states restrict property all of the time. Zoning laws for instance. Can you think of any example where or local government passed an zoning law and then asked the feds to enforce it?

No. I can't.

But has it ever happened when a local ordinance or state law was challenged in a federal court (to be overturned , overridden)

Third I've never heard of a "state to federal delegation doctrine" on anything. But even if that did happen, why would it even matter?

it would effectively make "federal government can't do this" arguments useless.

In the grand scheme of things if your property right has been restricted anyway, does it matter if it's a local sheriff or a federal agent that enforces the restriction?

no, that's my point. Which is why I find it funny people argue these things at all.

It matters who passes it because you have a better chance fighting city hall then you do the federal government.

fair enough.

Ummm....I'm not the one arguing for an unenumerated right. That said there are common law rights. Ok, they're written in court decisions but still.

thanks.

The Supreme Court authorized itself to interpret the constitution.

No, the Constitution authorized itself to be the Constitution.

And let the Supreme Court interpret it. (and in today's context, it would be the new circular starting point)

Kind of circular reasoning. And certainly the Supreme Court has made some whacky decisions. The current court view on religion is that you have and unfettered right of your religious belief but not an unfettered right of action based on your belief.

I see.

So you can't murder someone just because your religion says so. You can believe someone deserves death and even tell others of your belief as long as you aren't directing them to carry out the murder. Its the same reasoning by which the court should overturn that schools decision to try to force that Christian counseling student to change her views about homosexuality. That is if the court follows its own precedence.

But back to the subject at hand, if we accept that whatever the court has already said is constitutional really is, then the whole discussion about this racist couple is moot.

I agree.

I find it funny why people want it every possible way, never sticking to a consistent set of rules when arguing this stuff.

The court has already made it clear that the federal government can do all sorts of things in the name of "interstate commerce" even when there is no real interstate transaction involved. But the court has revisited the commerce clause somewhat in recent years and started to reverse itself.

Side note, the only reason the court gave a broad definition of the commerce clause in the first place is because FDR bullied it my threatening to increase the number of justices just so he could stack the court with people who would agree with him.

ha. under what authority or law is a President allowed to do so?