Hippie discriminates against Guardsman
Daniel sends us this link to the Boston Herald‘s article about a veteran of Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan who was discriminated against by a landlady who is a peace-activist based on his military service;
Sgt. Joel Morgan, 29, said the two-bedroom $1,220-a-month Savin Hill apartment that property owner Janice Roberts, 63, showed him in April was perfect. But he claims Roberts told him in an April 9 voicemail that renting to him would be a conflict, saying, “We are very adamant about our beliefs.”
“It just is not going to be comfortable for us without a doubt. It probably would be better for you to look for a place that is a little bit less politically active and controversial,” Roberts told Morgan, according to his complaint.
Well, I’m sure SGT Morgan wouldn’t be comfortable living next to Roberts, but that’s not the point is it? Roberts is a member of some idiot organization called “Garden of Enlightenment”, I can’t find it on the internet so I can’t comment on it’s goals, not knowing anything about it. But, suppose, just suppose that SGT Morgan was a member of some racial minority group and Ms. Roberts was a member of some racist group and made a relatively similar remark, but in regards to her beliefs and SGT Morgan’s particular racial group. The feds would be all over Roberts for discrimination. So what’s the difference here?
Morgan is taking her to court, but I don’t think that will solve the problem – Ms. Roberts bias which she probably wouldn’t tolerate in another instance, but applies to her own business – and she has no problem putting it into words with the intended victim of her bias.
Of course, being a conservative, I think Roberts has the right to rent to whomever she wants and to deny her apartment to whomever she wants, but the hypocrisy, in this case, is just too blatant to ignore.
Category: I hate hippies, Veterans Issues
Of course, the difference is that Veterans or Acitve/Reserve?National Guard service members are not a protected class. I think this is ridiculous, but agree that she has a right to rent to anyone she wants to. It would hav ebeen better for all involved if she kept her mouth shut.
It must be nice to be in the enlightened class that can discriminate with impunity but demand that the rest of us cannot for equally (perhaps more?) valid ideological reasons.
Not 100% but I think this is their website..
http://jimleisy.com/garden-of-enlightenment/
The lady may well have stepped in it here. Massachusetts law appears to prohibit discrimination based on veteran’s status. I think “currently serving on active duty” would be included under that category.
http://www.mass.gov/mcad/regs804cmr0200.html
Funny thing is, in the libatard state of California, that would be against the law. However, good luck trying to sue the hippie…
She definitely set out to make a point, since the usual tactic is to simply leave a message that the property has been rented already. She’ll get her day in court, I suppose. Any publicity is good publicity, as they say.
It looks like the anti-war crowd is starting to become anti-military, too. Hunh. Imagine that.
I think it’s a stupid law, but I hope he gets tons of cash from her either way.
PN, we have to remember, they support the troops, not the wars./sarc.
As a former landlord, we had to be VERY careful about whom we refused to rent to because of all the laws involved.
Mostly, we got a background check and anything from a police record could be legal grounds for refusing to rent. However, some folks you just KNEW would be trouble, especially after talking to former landlords of theirs. So, the easiest way to deal with it was to simply tell them that others had already looked at the place and had the right of first refusal, etc.
NEVER EVER say why someone was denied a lease. Just tell them that it was rented to someone else.
I also agree that anyone should be allowed to rent to or refuse to rent to whomever they so chose. But yeah, I hope she gets sued mightily and loses big just because she’s a moron. And a hippie.
Tom, I’m pretty sure that is not the droid we’re looking for. THat was a gallery of a photographer from Oregon and the blog was all about art. (Thant’s five minutes of my life I will never get back.)
One of Alinskys tactics is to make people live by the rules they advocate. I think its application here is warranted and is very educational.
she has a right to rent to anyone she wants to
No, not really, and can’t deny based on a plethora of reasons. Tim is right, were I a landlord, simply state that the property was previously looked at and rented out to the first prospective tenant.
And were I her current tenant, assuming she has one, I’d be looking for every legal means to break my lease and ensure any potential tenants knew what an assclown she is.
Well thats a name of Have not heard of in a long time ” Garden of Enlightenment”, I thought they disbanded in the 70’s.
It’s a religious cult thats a mixture of Buddism and a bunch of other stuff.
“. . . I think Roberts has the right to rent to whomever she wants and to deny her apartment to whomever she wants,”
PROPERTY — “without the right to property, there can be no other rights.”
The “lady” is despicable AND stupid, but I would not want to entrust myself to HER property — I would leave and find a better moral climate for my residence.
What if she said “I am not going to rent to him because he is black/African American”? Then the “reverends” (Jesse, Al etc.) and the rest of the pimps would be parading in front of the camera defending this guy’s problem.
“OWB’s” call is spot on!
What gets me is this pig-eyed bitch is discriminating against the very guy who gives her the right to discriminate against him!
What if the roles were reversed? If he (Mr Military) were the landlord, and she (Ms Hippie) were the prospective tenant? And he refused to rent to her because of her social status as a hippie, and said so out loud? Who would be screaming bloody discrimination then?
I agree that a person should be able to dispose of (or rent) their property as they see fit. But the irony and hypocrisy are too rich to ignore or let pass. What’s good for the goose is equally good for the gander. Or, The Golden Rule.
Oh, that would be laughable were it not so pitiful, Anon. (Such a pathetic attempt doesn’t even deserve a “Thanks for playing.”)
Besides property rights, which we here have protected, defended, and rather kinda like, there is another point to consider.
The landlord declared her the sergeant’s enemy. She can not uphold her end of any contract.
Roof falls in, the sergeant’s on his own.
Plumbing goes to shit, maybe literally, the sergeant’s on his own.
He’d be paying top dollar to someone who not only hates him, but will lately use at least a portion of the proceeds to fund groups of humans who will do everything they can to kill him.
So why are folks saying the sergeant should pay for abuse, and his own death? Put this shitbird hippie on Angies List, and put in a complaint to the BBB, and git.
“However, some folks you just KNEW would be trouble, especially after talking to former landlords of theirs. So, the easiest way to deal with it was to simply tell them that others had already looked at the place and had the right of first refusal, etc.”
Tim nailed it and that’s how this woman should have handled it. Yes, I think she’s a jackass for leaving the message she did. However, if you read the entire article –specifically her side of the story- I suspect there’s more to this guy than we’ve heard. I wouldn’t champion him without knowing more about his history. Especially when you raise the question of racism, as it appears the good Sgt himself may well be racist.
This man was over there (ostensibly) “fighting for our freedom”?
One of those freedoms is for property owners to rent their property to whomever they choose — for any reason, or for no reason at all.
“For her to do that to me, it was like a spit in the face,” Morgan told the newspaper. “For what we have gone through overseas, to come home to our country and have people … discriminate against us. … It made me extremely insecure about being a soldier.” [sniff]
Translation: “I faced death daily in the Middle East so that Ms. Roberts may sleep soundly at night. But her refusing to rent me her apartment hurts my feelings, so I’m lawyering up.” [sniff]
I DO NOT agree with Robert’s decision. But it’s HER property, and Sgt. Morgan does not enjoy an inalienable right to rent it!
He needs to put on his big-boy pants, fire the lawyer, leave Roberts the hell alone and get on with his life.
Yat Yas 1833 (16): What gets me is this pig-eyed bitch is discriminating against the very guy who gives her the right to discriminate against him!
E.K.: And what gets me is his sniffling like a little bitch about it.
So, EK – according to you she gets a pass on violating Massachusetts law because you don’t agree with it? (See link in comment 4 above.)
Do you even live in Massachusetts? If not, what’s your beef? If not, by your logic why don’t you keep your nose out of a matter that doesn’t concern you? Isn’t the principle of Federalism – e.g., local laws concerning local matters made by local legislatures – something you endorse?
My point: you don’t agree with a law, fine. But last time I checked, that doesn’t make compliance optional.
I don’t happen to agree with Massachusetts law here 100% either. But the way to fix that is not to ignore blatant and utterly hypocritical violations of the law. The way to fix that is to get the law changed.
“An unjust law is no law at all.” ~ St. Augustine
“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then, dumb and silent, we shall be led like sheep to the slaughter.” ~ George Washington
Hondo,
“By my logic”? Where did I say anything that leads you to “keep your nose out of a matter that doesn’t concern you”?
Injustice concerns me wherever it occurs, especially in the US of A.
And especially when it’s perpetrated at the hands of one who ought to know better.
MA law is what it is. But that doesn’t mean that Sgt. Morgan needed to invoke it against the higher principles he swore an oath to defend.
And as to my endorsement of federalism? Non sequitur. (That’s Latin for “it does not follow.”) I can recognize MA’s right or authority to legislate as they see fit, and still speak out if they legislate unjustly.
And any law that punishes one’s freedom of expression in the marketplace is an unjust law.
IOW, Hondo, Morgan should have been the more mature, the more adult — the better — person, and just smiled, said “Thanks anyway!” and found himself another place.
But instead, he lawyered up.
🙄
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” ~ Shakespeare, Henry The Sixth (Part 2)
EK: I am well aware of what non sequitur means. There’s a fair chance I was using the term when you were still in grade school. However, you are also incorrect in saying that the principle of Federalism is a non sequitur here. SGT Morgan’s oath of enlistment is a Federal oath; state and local law is not covered by a soldier’s Oath of Enlistment (or an officer’s Oath of Office). Further, that oath is threefold, requiring a soldier to (1) support and defend the Constitution of the United States; (2) bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and (3) obey lawful orders from the President and other properly appointed superiors. “Opposing injustice” is nowhere mentioned in that oath, and is not a part thereof. Therefore, your position here is illogical. Morgan’s oath imposes no obligation to “oppose injustice”. Further: as a Federal oath, Morgan’s Oath of Enlistment thus is irrelevant in matters of solely state or local concern. Unless otherwise provided by Federal law (see the supremacy clause), that oath therefore has no effect on matters under jurisdiction of state or local law. It cannot therefore be used as justification for ignoring clear violation of same. I invite your attention to the 10th Amendment. That clearly gives Massachusetts the authority to regulate the rental of housing. The 10th Amendment is a part of the Constitution; Morgan’s oath of enlistment thus requires Morgan to respect state laws. And when they’re not followed, he also IMO has a moral obligation to bring that violation of law to the attention of proper authorities. All Morgan is doing here is insisting on the laws of the state of Massachusetts being applied equally to all. Are you saying you have a problem with the principle that valid law should be applied equally to all persons covered thereby? It would seem to me that the principle of “equality under law” is one you’d endorse. As for your right to comment: yes, you have the right to opine on matters outside your scope of expertise and in which you have no stake. Everyone does. Doing… Read more »
Hondo: Are you saying you have a problem with the principle that valid law should be applied equally to all persons covered thereby? It would seem to me that the principle of “equality under law” is one you’d endorse.
E.K.: 1. As the MA law infringes upon the fundamental property and free speech rights of Ms. Roberts, I don’t consider it a valid/just law. (In much the same way that I oppose laws/court rulings which force Bible-believing wedding photographers to hire themselves out for homosexual “weddings.”)
2. I endorse equal justice, not “equality,” under the law. The property belongs to Ms. Roberts. In choosing not to rent to Sgt. Morgan, Roberts has neither assaulted nor defrauded him. End of story, sergeant. Move along. Do not pass “Go,” do not hire your lawyer to extort Ms. Roberts. Find another place to rent.
Hondo: SGT Morgan’s oath of enlistment … is threefold, requiring a soldier to (1) support and defend the Constitution of the United States; (2) bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and (3) obey lawful orders from the President and other properly appointed superiors. “Opposing injustice” is nowhere mentioned in that oath, and is not a part thereof.
E.K.: True enough. My point was not re. the technical language of the Oath of Enlistment, but rather the spirit behind it.
The Constitution — particularly the Bill of Rights — embodies certain principles of liberty and property.
Although the 10th Amendment may permit MA to legislate against such cases of housing discrimination, such legislation is fundamentally at odds with the property and free speech rights upheld by the founders.
That’s what I meant when I invoked the oath Sgt. Morgan took (as well as his service in “fighting for our freedoms”).
Hondo: … matters outside your scope of expertise and in which you have no stake.
Frank: 1. Take your “expertise” and insert it in a warm, moist and uncomfortable orifice. I doubt most folks here have any more “expertise” in this matter than you or I.
2. Every American has a stake when one American’s property and free speech rights are attacked.
Even (especially?) when that American is a “hippie.”
Everyone likewise has a stake in maintaining the rule of law vice anarchy, EK. And since you have no valid argument left, I see you’ve resorted to crass insults. Figures. That’s what usually happens.
As to expertise: just how much military expertise did you say you have? When you have 30+ years, come talk to me about what a member of the military does or does not swear to do in his oath of enlistment or oath of office. Until then, you have insufficient expertise to discuss the matter with me – especially if you’re going to act like a petulant child while doing so.
You’ve also proven yourself a hypocrite. You talk of respecting the principles espoused in the US Constitution. But when abiding by the Constitution’s fundamental principles (e.g., Federalism) isn’t convenient, you revert to an argument that boils down to “I don’t like that law! It’s wrong, and shouldn’t be allowed! Waaah!!!!” Childish.
Here’s a free clue for you, sunshine: unless you live in Massachusetts, it’s not your call what Massachusetts law prescribes. So long as it isn’t contrary to the Constitution or Federal law, under the Constitution that’s the call of the people of that state. Your opinion is irrelevant.
Keep pontificating about matters that don’t concern you and about which you know little if you like. It’s a free country, and freedom includes the freedom to be a fool.
But can the arrogant attitude first. It’s immature and annoying.
Hondo: Everyone likewise has a stake in maintaining the rule of law vice anarchy … You talk of respecting the principles espoused in the US Constitution. But when abiding by the Constitution’s fundamental principles (e.g., Federalism) isn’t convenient, you revert to an argument that boils down to “I don’t like that law! It’s wrong, and shouldn’t be allowed! Waaah!!!!”
E.K.: In your view, does “federalism” mean that a state may make any law it damn well pleases? May a state make jaywalking a capital offense, or declare theft legal, or jail people for criticizing government officials? (Or soldiers?)
Don’t be a dolt. Laws must comport in some way to fundamental justice. Which punishing a property owner for declaring why she chooses not to rent her property to a soldier does not.
I note again that Ms. Roberts has neither assaulted nor defrauded Sgt. Morgan. She has simply had the temerity to say aloud why she chooses not to rent to him.
But rather than being the better person in this sad exchange and getting on with his life, Sgt. Morgan has decided instead to invoke MA’s unjust law in order to punish Roberts for making him feel “extremely insecure about being a soldier.”
(Which statement alone makes one wonder about how Sgt. Candypants made it through Army basic training.)
Hondo: As to expertise: just how much military expertise did you say you have? When you have 30+ years, come talk to me about what a member of the military does or does not swear to do in his oath of enlistment or oath of office.
E.K.: Because knowing the fundamental principles that undergird the oath of enlistment can only really be known if you’ve served 30+ years?
You’re a real piece of rational thinking there, Hondo.
BTW, to answer your Q: I took the oath, served four years as a jet engine mech in the USAF, and was honorably discharged. My service to this country is as valid as anyone else’s here. (To say nothing of my right to comment on what I consider to be hypocritical or unjust acts by the state of MA or Sgt. Candypants.)
Eagle Keeper, here’s some advice for you; why don’t you start your own blog and see how many people want to read your dick-measuring crap.
Air Force?! Oh shit man I thought you said you were in the military. My bust. 😉
Eagle Creeper:
I agree the law is unjust. So are many. But they are not up to you and me to interpret.
However, this law was undoubtedly enacted by some fine Mass. liberals (like the landlady herself) to protect against discrimination against the supposedly “under-privileged” or “protected”. (Would you be screaming about injustice if the renter being discriminated against was a minority, or gay? I doubt it) In this case, the owner discriminated against this soldier based on his veteran status. It’s pretty simple, yet ironic.
If you don’t like the law, or feel it is unconstitutional, feel free to lobby/petition/run for office and strike it down. Just stop whining already.
Is it just me or do EK’s leaps of logic seem strangely similar to instupid?! Just asking!
JP,
I’m not screaming about injustice, I’m writing about it. Get a grip.
I don’t approve of racial discrimination, yet I think business owners should be free to discriminate racially. That’s the price of liberty. (Besides, the free market would likely put most such businesse out of business.)
I think it’s ironic that Sgt. Fighting For Freedom can’t let hippie Roberts enjoy hers. Instead, he has to invoke a law that you agree is unjust.
Because the hippie made him feel “extremely insecure about being a soldier”?
Score a direct hit for the hippie.
Yat Yas,
I refer you once again to your brilliant inanity at (16).
Redacted 1775,
Yep, that’s actually my line.
When people ask if I was in the military, I say, “Nope. Air Force.”
But as several of the Stolen Valor head-hunters here like to remind us, if you served honorably, you served honorably. No need to lie or exaggerate.
And I served honorably.
Anything else?
Actually, EK – Federalism means exactly that. Subject to the specific restrictions imposed by the Constitution and superseding Federal law, Federalism indeed means that a state may literally make any laws it damn well pleases. If they don’t violate Constitutional restrictions or violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution, they’re valid law. Period. You and I need not like that – but that doesn’t alter the fact. The example you cite of making jaywalking a capital crime is an obvious red herring (and a clumsy one at that), as you know full well. A state making a petty offense such as jaywalking a capital crime would likely be ruled to be “cruel and unusual punishment” under the 8th Amendment and would thus be contrary to the US Constitution. However, laws mandating third-strike life imprisonment do not run afoul of the 8th Amendment – and neither do making laws relating to non-discrimination in housing. The latter is what we’re discussing here. Don’t try to change or obscure the subject at hand. Massachusetts law here is clear: in that state, one cannot discriminate in housing based on a number of defined factors, one of which is veteran’s status. Morgan is merely demanding that this twit pay the consequences for willfully ignoring state law and injuring him by doing so. And while I philosophically have a problem with her being forced to rent to someone she doesn’t want to for any reason, my opinion is irrelevant – as is yours. Massachusetts law requires her not to discriminate regarding rental of an abode or pay the consequences. She admittedly engaged in unlawful discrimination based on veteran’s status. It would be unjust to allow her to flout the law willfully and publicly. And if you think laws must always conform to some abstract concept of justice – buddy, you are one naive individual. Just try explaining to a bereaved father why the man who murdered his daughter was acquitted due to a police error during search or arrest simply because the judge ruled that the murder weapon found during search (or his confession) was therefore not… Read more »
Nah, figured someone had to take you down a peg or two. I can see i succeeded. That will be all. Dismissed.
Hondo – actually, as a member of the Massachusetts Army National Guard, the member also takes an oath similar to the federal oath, but to defend the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (from someone who has taken the enlistment and oath of office from the Commonwealth 6 times).
From 32 USC 304: Each person enlisting in the National Guard shall sign an enlistment contract and subscribe to the following oath:
“I do hereby acknowledge to have voluntarily enlisted this XX day of XXXX, 19X, in the XXXXXX National Guard of the State of XXXXXX for a period of XX year(s) under the conditions prescribed by law, unless sooner discharged by proper authority.
“I, XXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the State of XXXXXX against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to them; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of XXXXXX and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.”
The oath may be taken before any officer of the National Guard of the State or Territory, or of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, or before any other person authorized by the law of the jurisdiction concerned to administer oaths of enlistment in the National Guard.
Bobo: Agreed. All Guardsmen take what amounts to a combined state/Federal oath that adds their State constitution and governor, respectively, to the Federal oath.
The obligations under each oath, however, are otherwise identical: support and defend the Constitution(s); true faith and allegiance; and obey orders given by appropriate military and civilian superiors. And both oaths are generally equally irrelevant regarding a question of whether Morgan (1) was unlawfully discriminated against under Massachusetts law, and (2) whether that oath imposes on him any obligation to oppose or accept a blatant violation of that law to his disadvantage.
The only time a Guardsman’s oath would come into play in such a case as the one being discussed here is if/when said Guardsman was acting – while serving under state authority as a non-Federalized member of the state militia – in a law-enforcement capacity. That’s not the case here.
Redacted1775: Nah, figured someone had to take you down a peg or two. I can see i succeeded.
Frank: Uhhh … yeah. 🙄
Hondo (41): Massachusetts law here is clear: in that state, one cannot discriminate in housing based on a number of defined factors, one of which is veteran’s status.
E.K.: Inaccurate. As has already been established on this thread, Roberts can discriminate for any reason she please, so long as she doesn’t say why (or lies about why). Because MA only makes it unlawful to express certain reasons for exercising discrimination in housing.
Freedom of expression to a protected class has thus been lawfully (if unjustly) infringed, at the expense of the fundamental rights of the property owner (who really ought to be the only “protected class” in cases like this).
Hondo (41): Morgan is merely demanding that this twit pay the consequences for willfully ignoring state law and injuring him by doing so.
Frank: Roberts has neither assaulted nor defrauded Morgan, nor has she impeded his legitimate use of his own property.
Seems your definition of “injury” is about as pliable and elastic as any attorney’s. Or the State’s.
And re. your assertions of me being childish, it makes me no nevermind.
But I find it highly ironic in the face of Sgt. Morgan’s childishness in this matter.
This has made him “extremely insecure about being a soldier”? This guy carried a rifle for Unca Sam?
Feh.
EK: Geez. Yes – anyone can discriminate. Just like anyone can drive a fast car 100MPH on the highway. However, the key question is not whether the behavior is possible. The key question is whether the behavior is legal.
Under Massachusetts law, what has happened here is not lawful.
Further: freedom of expression – in this particular case, speech – does not generally extend to deliberate false statements made for the purpose of causing injury to others. Those have been held by the courts to generally not be protected speech. It is also questionable as to whether free speech protections extend to false statements of fact at all. Federal courts and legal scholars are divided on that point.
The term “injury” very obviously includes the deliberate denial of rights guaranteed by law. To argue otherwise requires the suspension of common sense. You can suspend the use of common sense if you wish. I’ll stick with using same, thanks.
In this case, Roberts denied Morgan rights guaranteed him by Massachusetts law. Specifically, she did so through discriminating against Morgan based on his status as a veteran. And she was also apparently stupid enough to admit that to him in a voicemail. Those facts may not be what you want to hear, but they are facts nonetheless.
Don’t like the outcome? Fine. Argue with the law. But the law is valid and legally binding. Don’t dissemble and claim otherwise because you disagree with it.
Continue to deny reality if you like, and to thus publicly expose your ignorance to the world. As I’ve said previously: freedom includes the freedom to be a fool.
Hondo, looks like EK skuttled off and hid when he was proven wrong. Too bad he can’t find a pair and concede like a big boy.
So why is it, EK, that steaming turds like you always seem use your “honorable service” as an excuse to be a total shithead? I’ve never seen anyone else here repeatedly claim honorable service as much as you and your ilk. But then again, most people here have a degree of common sense and are generally level headed, so I understand completely if you feel excluded. No need to throw a hissy fit over it.