Housing Discrimination
In Michigan
Positive Atheism Forum
Housing Discrimination
In Michigan
3 January 1999
From: Michael Morrison
Sent: Thursday 14 January 1999 5:44
To: editor@positiveatheism.org
Subject: Re: Religious Housing Discrimination
Dear Cliff,
There is something very backward, even vicious about this court ruling: "Living in sin" is protected by the court, but freedom of thought and supposedly-Fourth and Fifth Amendment-protected property rights are outlawed.
(Back in the bad old days, the U.S. Supreme Court once ruled the states could not properly forbid couples of different races from "living in sin," but could properly forbid them from getting married!)
In other words, irreligious behavior is OK, that is legal, but obedience to a moral code is not, at least if it is a Christian moral code.
Are you familiar with the story of Alvin York? He was not allowed to claim conscientious objector status simply because he believed literally in "Thou shalt not kill."
No, his church didn't have government sanction; so he was forced into the military.
The parallels are not exact, but the analogy is there: Only the politically correct beliefs are allowed protection by law. Nowadays the Christians are the oppressed minority. Oh, sure, there may seem to be a delicious irony: Turnabout and all that. But we cannot rejoice in the oppression of anyone for his beliefs, not even Christians. Would it be right for the court to tell an asthmatic homeowner he had to rent to smokers? That he couldn't "discriminate" against them, since, after all, smokers are addicts and thus are, by ADA definitions, "handicapped"?
I am an atheist because I believe atheism and rationality go together. I want to be rational, and I believe rationality says that liberty and freedom of conscience go together. And, therefore, even Christians should be allowed freedom of thought and freedom of belief.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Morrison
From: Cliff Walker <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Thursday 14 January 1999 9:51
To: Michael Morrison
Subject: Re: Religious Housing Discrimination
However, this landlord is conducting business on the property in question, and that changes the property rights somewhat. My landlord, who owns the building, is not allowed to enter my unit without notice and/or good cause. I am held responsible if someone gets hurt in my unit unless I can prove landlord neglegence.
Fair Housing (Act?) prevents the landlord from discriminating against me when renting units. I think this is the bottom line, and the court carried this issue one step further when hearing this admittedly tricky case.
Housing Authority (HUD) must recognize unwed couples, particularly gays and lesbians, when renting units in projects or when granting Section 8 vouchers.
Would it be right for the court to tell an asthmatic homeowner he had to rent to smokers? That he couldn't "discriminate" against them, since, after all, smokers are addicts and thus are, by ADA definitions, "handicapped"?
There is such a thing as smoke-free housing now. I don't know how they are pulling it off. I don't want to get into the "addict is handicapped" thing right now (it's pure bullshit from every conceivable angle), but the line of reasoning I would use against a smoking neighbor is, Okay, as long as your smoke never enters my unit. Another angle is the ol' oxygen tank ruse -- I've actually used that one before -- before I started smoking again.
Cliff Walker
From: Michael Morrison
Sent: Friday 15 January 1999 6:38
To: editor@positiveatheism.org
Subject: Re: Religious Housing Discrimination
Dear Cliff,
Thanks for the response.
However, this landlord is conducting business on the property in question, and that changes the property rights somewhat.
That cannot be true. Either a person has the right to his property, or he doesn't. If government "allows" rights, but only in certain cases, then there are no rights. Whether it is a business or a private home, the owner is the only one who has any rights. In fact, collectivist (and erroneous) courts have ruled owners cannot "discriminate" on religious grounds in situations of renting out an apartment that was part of the house in which the owner lived. In fact, one of the most egregious also involved a woman not wanting to rent to a couple "living in sin."
My landlord, who owns the building, is not allowed to enter my unit without notice and/or good cause. I am held responsible if someone gets hurt in my unit unless I can prove landlord neglegence.
Right: As long as you have paid your rent, and except in cases of emergency, such as a broken pipe or a fire, the landlord should have to stay out.
Yet, based on the court ruling, you will NOT have the right to your property.
Fair Housing (Act?) prevents the landlord from discriminating against me when renting units. I think this is the bottom line, and the court carried this issue one step further when hearing this admittedly tricky case.
But it's not tricky. The owner is the only one who has rights. Now, we may well agree, you and I and the justices, that the owner is a wacko, believing in something as irrational as God and the Bible, but, he does have that right IN A FREE COUNTRY.
Laws cannot be (thought currently they are but should not be) based on aesthetic opinions.
Look, if we agree that the Religious Right should not be allowed to impose its moral code on us or on anyone else, then we must agree that the Left should not have the right to impose its moral code on us. In this case, the Left code is something opposing "discrimination," which boils down to, the Left code is against freedom of choice when the choice is not something the Left likes.
Yes courts have been making such rulings, but it is violative of the Constitution and of plain common sense.
Heck, justices can be just as blind as Justice.
Housing Authority (HUD) must recognize unwed couples, Particularly gays and lesbians, when renting units in projects or when granting Section 8 vouchers.
Governments should not discriminate, though of course they do, in such examples as affirmative action. By any rational standard, all individuals have equal standing before the law. (Hah! As the old cliche goes, neither the rich man nor the poor man is allowed to sleep under the bridge.)
But individuals are supposed to have freedom of choice, even if that choice disgusts us. E.g., vegetarians are disgusted by others' eating meat; Seventh-day Adventists are disgusted by heathens such as Baptists going to church on the wrong day; we atheists are disgusted by the religionists going to church any day.
But that's freedom, isn't it? It's individual choice. Of course there is another problem: Government taking money from the working people, including Christians, and spending it on others, including people whom Christians disapprove of.
Would it be right for the court to tell an asthmatic homeowner he had to rent to smokers? That he couldn't "discriminate" against them, since, after all, smokers are addicts and thus are, by ADA definitions, "handicapped"?
There is such a thing as smoke-free housing now. I don't know how they are pulling it off. I don't want to get into the "addict is handicapped" thing right now (it's pure bullshit from every conceivable angle), but the line of reasoning I would use against a smoking neighbor is, Okay, as long as your smoke never enters my unit.
Right again. Your unit is the one to which only you have rights.
Another angle is the ol' oxygen tank ruse -- I've actually used that one -- before I started smoking again.
In my opinion smoking is a very dumb thing to do. And I've never met a smoker who disagrees with me.
I have just moments ago come from an Irish (type) pub (in Macon, Georgia) and I absolutely reek. There were probably two people not smoking.
But we made that trade: For the company and ambiance, we accepted the stench.
And, to show you how contrary I am, with the fascistic Clinton administration constantly harping on the evils of smoking, I'm GLAD more people are smoking.
Have you ever read Erik Frank Russell's "And Then There Were None"? (I bet his first name is Eric, though.)
If you haven't, find it and read it. It's great. Lots of fun. And answers a lot of questions dealing with rights and choices. On our Christian Libertarianism list, someone asked the question, What is the difference between religion and superstition. Someone else answered, no difference (which should set off some more fireworks). I guess the real answer is, "Religion is what I believe; superstition is what you believe."
You know: I supply means of self defense; you are an arms dealer; he is a merchant of death.
But it boils down to one important point. Even if our numbers are growing, we are still a tiny minority in the world, and it is to our advantage, as well as being the moral position, to support freedom at every level.
If we accept the premise that imposing a moral code is OK, especially if it's a good and sensible and rational moral code, that is OURS, then we cannot gripe when the bad guys seize the power and impose their code on us.
Yours,
Michael Morrison
From: Michael Morrison
Sent: Sunday 17 January 1999 2:49
To: editor@positiveatheism.org
Subject: Re: PosAth/ Quotes section; Q&A section; Chat list
Cliff,
Did you see this?
Those Ninth Circuit justices seem often to run counter to the prevailing politically correct nonsense.
If an individual is fighting for his rights, for genuine justice, the Ninth Circuit is the place to be.
The Religious Right loves to badmouth the Ninth, but on the rare occasion the RR guys are in the right, even they can win in the Ninth.
Hoping you're enjoying your weekend (and WE get to sleep late on Sundays, thanks to not being superstitious), I remain
Sincerely,
Michael Morrison
From: Cliff Walker <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Monday 18 January 1999 7:47
To: Michael Morrison
Subject: Re: PosAth/ Quotes section; Q&A section; Chat list
This could open a whole can of worms.
What if someone is a member of that Christian sect called the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and wants to discriminate against blacks? Our culture has already had that discussion, and I think this one is an extension of that.
I say that the landlord is conducting business with the public, and therefore may want to seriously consider getting out of the landlord business. It is not unlike the Christian guy who owned a Shell station and wanted to close it on Sunday. Shell said seven days or no days.
I'll try to track down all our correspondence and post it, and then throw it up to the group for discussion.
Cliff Walker
From: Cliff Walker <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Monday 18 January 1999 8:13
To: Undisclosed.Recipients
Subject: PosAth/ Question: Christian Housing Discrimination; &c.
Christian Housing Discrimination Discussion Explodes!
"There is nothing with which it is so dangerous to take liberties as liberty itself."
-- André Britain (1896-1966), French surrealist. Surrealism and Painting (1928).
Earlier this month, I sent an article (above) about the Michigan Supreme Court's decision that a Christian landlord cannot forbid an unwed couple from renting.
Now in a separate case, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Alaska and seven other western states, has said that such laws interfere with property owners' free exercise of religion as well as their property rights and freedom of speech (also see above).
What do you think and why?
I say this whole question opens up a huge can of worms, and have discussed this issue extensively with one of the list members. With his permission, I will eventually post these and any other comments we get. However, I will not prejudice the members of the list by giving you my initial thoughts.
Cliff Walker
From: Michael Morrison
Sent: Monday 18 January 1999 20:17
To: editor@positiveatheism.org
Subject: Re: PosAth/ Quotes section; Q&A section; Chat list
Hi, Cliff,
You said
This could open a whole can of worms.
But I think the opposite. I think it could close that can. Part of the premise of America is freedom of choice. (Unfortunately, that phrase today seems to be monopolized by people preaching a premise of a perceived right to kill babies. Another story entirely.) But freedom of choice is still the basic human right, one denied by every tyranny in history, including the modern ones of Naziism and Communism, as well as fascism and socialism.
Freedom of choice is the basic human right -- and it means humans have the right to choose, even if you and I disapprove of their choices.
What if someone is a member of that Christian sect called the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and wants to discriminate against blacks? Our culture has already had that discussion, and I think this one is an extension of that.
To some extent it is, but even Ku Kluxers do have freedom of choice. Again, the cliche comes into play: Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
You have the right to your life, including liberty and honestly acquired property. I have the right to my life, including liberty and honestly acquired property.
Rights do not -- rights never -- conflict.
Interests and desires might. Rights never.
The property owner is the only one here with any rights to that property.
And it does NOT matter if the property is being used as a home or a brothel, as a church or a casino, as a bunkhouse or a grocery store. It is still the property of someone, and ONLY the owner has any right. Another example is the insane government attempt at forbidding smoking in places of business.
I am highly sensitive to smoke. If a restaurant or store is smoky, I just shop elsewhere. No rights are violated.
The business owner has the right to choose his customers, just as the customers have the right to choose where to spend their money.
I say that the landlord is conducting business, and therefore may want to seriously consider getting out of the landlord business. It is not unlike the guy who owned a Shell station and wanted to close it on Sunday. Shell said seven days or no days.
That too is perfectly right. The man who wants to own a service station can choose among all the oil companies, or can be an independent. Just as you wouldn't want "The Cliff Walker Church" to be used in violation of your name and your rules, Shell doesn't want its (far less sacred) name to be used thus.
Why does a human lose his human rights just because he owns property with which he tries to make a living?
I'll try to track down all our correspondence and post it, and then throw it up to the group for discussion.
I like the idea. If you don't have all my posts, I probably still do. Let me know.
By the way, a Cliff Walker Church begins to sound like a good idea. I'm an ordained minister, and if you want to be one too, let me know, and I'll do the honors -- cheap.
Michael
From: James Call
Sent: Monday 18 January 1999 22:46
To: Cliff Walker
Subject: Re: PosAth/ Question: Christian Housing Discrimination; &c.
Isn't that André Breton? The French surrealist. I've always seen his name spelled Breton.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruling and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling seem to contradict one another. In both cases the objections to renting to unwed couples were based on religious beliefs. I think the federal court errs in its ruling and don't believe that it could stand up to a Supreme Court hearing. Even with the current Supreme Court. The property rights in question are that a landlord can rent or refuse to rent to whomever he pleases. That right is abridged by certain rights that renters have. No one would argue with a landlord's right to attempt to find renters who will not abuse his property and who will honor their financial contract. The landlord has a right to interview and secure information from other sources that will help him make those determinations. That would include credit checks, and speaking with employers, references, and former landlords. These considerations are fair and do everything that need be done to protect and a landlord's property and protect his business of renting property. Requirements beyond those necessary to protect property and business then begin to erode a renter's rights.
A person's right to housing is such a basic, bread and butter issue and the problems for the community so great when there is a lack of housing for any segment of the population, that the community has a compelling interest in keeping access to available housing as open and fair as possible. Hence, laws abridging a property owner's right to discriminate against race, religion or sex. How can discrimination against unwed couples not be construed as discrimination against religion? A landlord decides not to rent to prospective tenants based on their views and beliefs. This in no way goes to the issue of safeguarding the property and business of the landlord. Nor, despite the opinion of Judge Scannlain, does compelling a landlord to rent to people with beliefs different than his own, impinge upon his own free exercise of religion, or freedom of speech.
From: Hanna
Sent: Tuesday 19 January 1999 1:43
To: editor@positiveatheism.org
Subject: Re: PosAth/ Question: Christian Housing Discrimination; &c.
I assume this should follow the same kind of guidelines as the Civil rights act, which I see you mentioned. Just a thought... So now that in some places you have to be married or single to rent, does that mean no more roommates.. I mean, if a man and a woman are not allowed to rent, how bout two men, or two women. Certainly the objecting Christians will have a problem, assuming that living together = sex. I could get extremely sarcastic about this. This to me is obvious, almost laughable, but hey...
Hanna
From: Wayne Aiken
Sent: Thursday 21 January 1999 4:11
To: editor@positiveatheism.org
Subject: Re: PosAth/ Question: Christian Housing Discrimination; &c.
Discrimination against others regarding renting, hiring, doing business, etc. might not be what we would consider enlightened and civilized behavior, but that doesn't mean that every social interaction, every prejudice, every faux pas -- must be a matter of law.
Ultimately, cases like this delve into the very foundation of a free society, and one of those foundations is, for better or worse, that a man is "king of his castle". To the extent that property -and the freedom that goes along with it- means anything, it means that a person must be free to use -or not use- his own property however he may like, as long as doing so doesn't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. In a free society, laws are used only to protect these rights and freedoms. Being a jerk might bring social censure and condemnation, but it is not an action rightfully under the penumbra of law.
As atheists, we can and certainly should insist that our own property -including communally owned "government" property- be kept free of religious intrusion. To the extent that we insist on our own rights, however, is precisely the measure to which we must respect the rights of others do do as they wish. Consider the reverse-- should an atheist landlord be permitted to refuse to rent space to an evangelical, anti- abortion, proselytizing religious group? Whose space is it, anyway?
In a properly functioning free society, people are quite able to vote with their feet and their wallets to register their disapproval of bigots; forced-association laws only confirm and deepen the bigotry, and in the end, really do nothing to change people's minds. Our right of free association necessarily includes the right to not associate with whomever we choose in precisely the same way that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. One shouldn't be forced upon us any more than the other. That some people may choose to isolate their property and themselves from others based on their beliefs may be unfortunate, both for society at large as well as themselves, but this is one of the consequences of freedom. Given a choice, not everyone will make the best or nicest choice, but thats the price we pay for freedom for ourselves-- that we must support that same freedom even for those with whom we disagree or oppose.
From: Michael Morrison
Sent: Thursday 4 February 1999 4:07
To: editor@positiveatheism.org
Subject: Re: PosAth/ Quotes section; Q&A section; Chat list
Cliff,
Nice to hear from you again.
This is still, to me, far from being a cut-and-dried issue. One quote from Jefferson ought to enter this discussion:
If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market.
-- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers, 1:548
This sounds unlike the Jefferson of the Declaration of Independence, and more like the Jefferson of the adulterous relationship with his "property."
Seriously, we need some definitions here: If a minister (Ian Paisley type maybe?) propose ... no, not propose. That's freedom of speech. If a minister actually perpetrates an act of violence or fraud, even in a religious meeting, then, yes, he is as guilty as an atheist. If that minister calls for the overthrow of the government, then he still has the same rights as any other person -- and that's usually what sedition means.
"Contrary to the public peace"? "I oppose the killing of women and children in Iraq. Impeach Clinton!" By some standards, That's "contrary to the public peace," and is, in fact, just exactly the speech and acts Jefferson defended when he opposed the Sedition Acts of President John Adams.
In other words, religious liberty ought not cover the violation of laws that have been established for the public peace. I think the laws prohibiting discrimination when doing business fit squarely into this definition. These laws focus particularly on housing, hiring, and lending, but also apply to a restaurant that refuses to serve certain types of people.
Well, what about this, Cliff? Even though I am (hypothetically) a Christian, I believe in freedom even for the heretical Jews. So when the Gestapo knocks on my door to ask if I have hidden any Jews on my property, should I cooperate? Should I go along with "the public peace"? Any law that deprives me of control of my own property, whether I'm using it to hide Jews, to grow wheat or other vegetation, or using it to rent to otherwise homeless people -- and I'm making a living for myself at the same time -- that law is immoral, illegal, un-Constititional, and un-American, and is very contrary to human rights.
Why is a property owner, as I asked before, deprived of his rights, just because he IS a property owner?
Why is he a bad guy?
Why is a property owner not allowed the same freedom of choice that every other class of people is allowed?
It's one thing to have private property, and it's a different thing altogether to engage in business with the public.
There is one place you err: No one is doing business with "the public" except a government.
Every other person or business is dealing with other individuals or businesses. Those individuals may be part of "the public," but no business any where is big enough to be dealing with "the public." Besides, those members of "the public" are allowed freedom of choice as to the businesses they offer their money to; why can't the businesses be allowed freedom of choice in the customers from whom they wish to take money?
Here is one example: In Oregon, if you burglarize my office, you (theoretically) get five years, as a second-degree burglary. If you burglarize my home, though, it's first-degree burglary, with a (theoretical) penalty of ten years. Clearly, the State of Oregon sees my home as being different, in at least one respect, from my business. Based on the penalty for burglary, one would suspect that Oregon sees the home as being more "sacred" (for lack of a better term at the moment) than a business. Of course, there are other differences; this is just one.
Just because one more reactionary, backward government makes such a discriminatory law is not any reason for us rational, forward-thinking people to go along.
Here's where I think it starts to get tricky, and where I would be tempted to side with you: If I own a row of apartment houses, it is clear that this is a business and is not my home. However, if I am a single person living in the house that Mom left me, and want to have roommates, it seems that it would be a different matter. I would speculate that at least some of these cases are of the latter nature. I don't see the owner of a chain of apartments getting very far in court because the structure or make-up of the "families" fail to live up to that person's definition of "family" -- even if the argument is based on religious grounds. Such discrimination is clearly the type of behavior the discrimination laws had in mind: you are doing business with the public, and to discriminate -- especially in hiring and housing and lending -- is against the law. The roommate situation, to me, would seem different. I can't see anyone prevailing against a homeowner for not renting the spare bedroom to them, and would probably side with that person even though he or she is, technically, conducting business.
Believe it or not, a person cannot advertise, at least in rags like the Los Angeles Times, for "Christian" roommates. It is considered "discriminatory."
The big question, to me, would be where to draw the line.
The easy answer is: No where.
Property is property, and as long as the owner is not initiating force or fraud, then what he does with it is no one else's business. What too many people are trying to do is establish their own aesthetic opinions as law: I love opera, so I will create the National Endowment for the Arts to force Garth Brooks fans to subsidize my preferences; I believe God was sincere when he said to rest on the Sabbath, so I will pass laws mandating the closing of stores on Sunday; I think naked bodies are obscene, so I will pass Internet censorship laws to protect the children (until they become White House interns, anyway); I believe racial preferences are ugly, so I will pass laws forbidding individuals the right to have racial preferences, unless their preferences are politically correct, of course, and of course governments may discriminate all they want ... for the politically correct reasons. If we are going to allow governments, politicians, majorities, bureaucrats, to direct our individual choices, then we had better start setting our alarm clocks to awaken Sunday mornings: We will find the principle of majority rule forcing us into churches -- and on the wrong day of the week, too. (Sabbath is Saturday, despite the belief of the majority of Christians that Sunday is the Lord's day.)
Thanking you again for your interesting and stimulating responses, I am
Yours sincerely,
Michael Morrison
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.