quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- leaping to the probably correct conclusion that Phanto's a white heterosexual Protestant male. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is this probably the correct conclusion? Further, why should this matter?
That's a probably correct conclusion because this is Hatrack, and I number among the two-and-a-half minority members we have here.
Also, to resort to stereotypes, Phanto's brand of liberatarianism/neo-conservatism is most often found, in my experience, among relatively affluent heterosexual white teenage male Christians. Of course, there are variations -- there's also the middle-aged variety, and I've found that some of the fiercest advocates of that position can be those who've worked their way to affluence from poverty, but Phanto's political views seem to match the general profile fairly well.
As far as how it matters? If Phanto has never been subject to discrimination, he probably has no understanding of its principles, which renders his dismissal of it to a poorly drawn caricature of a white boy in Utah telling black people to get over themselves. I'd be far more reassured of the validity of Phanto's political views if he were, say, a black woman in Arkansas. Or even, as you pointed out, a black woman anywhere in the country -- the South has no monopoly on bigotry.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Phanto, be consistent -- if you think this apartment complex has the right to discriminate against the disabled, support their right to deny housing or equal access to colored people for no other reason than their unwanted appearance at the front door where others can see them
Where have I been inconsistent? I agree with the part about unwanted apperance.
I don't really get what you're saying. Besides for your Ad Hominem (since you, based on the way you're posting, probably don't know what it means, http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) attack, do you have anything to say?
posted
It's a cheap appeal to authority (or, I suppose, a denial of authority). It's not conducive to discussion and amounts to little better than rabble-rousing. There's lots of ways to refute Phantos's position. Name calling isn't the best way.
For that matter, neither are sweeping generalizations about a region of the country. Despite the fact that there's plenty of room for more progress, there have been a lot of changes since Jim Crow rode through the south. Further, if you take an average person who expresses the views Phantos does, I'd bet there's a better than even chance they're not from the South.
Basically it's cheap and mostly irrelevant, since it didn't serve to advance any reason for preferring one side of the argument or another. Unless you think, "He's white" is a valid reason to reject someone's arguments.
posted
Lalo, I probably am also affected by the syndrome that bad things that happen in my home are not indicative of a general climate or disposition in the bad direction, yet I am quoting black friends.
The family who lived next door to me had lived in Tennessee, Detroit, Los Angeles, a small town in California, and somewhere in the Northeast, I think. The mom was a doctor, and had been to undergraduate and medical school in different parts of the country, too. They were very sure that the Southeast was the least racist part of the country.
Another friend, an engineer I worked with, who was very candid about race, telling me about his uncle having been lynched and left for dead when he was a child, and so on, grew up in Virginia and had traveled all over the country. His family had been well off for several generations, owners of a funeral home with mostly African American customers. His two brothers had gone to schools in the Northeast, and he had traveled all over because of his job. He also said there was no question that the Southeast was by far the most advanced part of the country as regards to racism.
Our city government is mostly African Americans. We are home of the Civil Rights Institute, a foundation for remembering the civil rights movement and promoting human rights worldwide. Civil rights historical sites in the area are major tourist draws, and local businesses are proud of that and help to promote it. I wish I could say there was no racism here. That's certainly not true. But I do believe it is the least racist part of the country, and for that I am glad. Why not visit before you decide?
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The interesting thing about disability discrimination is it there is absolutely no geographical centers - either now or historically.
It cuts across all kinds of political, religious and cultural boundaries as well. Although the forms of the discrimination can vary from group to group.
It's fascinating, actually, the way the Americans with Disabilities Act has played out politically. Some of the architects and promoters were closely tied to the Reagan administration. (One of the many paradoxes of that era)
Makes you wonder if the Gipper knew what his underlings were doing when they started pushing this. (Note - over the years, Republican enthusiasm for the ADA waned, except for some of the people I've alluded to and the task of championing it fell to Democrats. But it really DID start with Reagan's people.)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
1) The South is not nearly as racist-oriented as people in the North & West think it is.
2) The only people I ever hear using racial epithets when I travel around this fair land of ours seem to come mostly from Upstate NY and Ohio. I don't know why that should be the case, but it is nonetheless true based on my experience. Go figure.
3) Rules for rental units are different from rules for property sales. Discrimination in selling a property (which is what applies to condos) is against the law for the very good reason that such discrimination invariably leads to exclusion of people based on race, religion, disability and a few other things that we as a society have said we will not tolerate. Basically, if someone has the money to buy a place at your asking price, you either sell it to them or take it off the market for a suitably long period of time to avoid the obvious conclusions of biased selling practices. And even then, you might still get sued.
Renting is different because of the clause that Stephen mentioned regarding owner-occupied small buildings. Basically, an owner occupant of such a property can legally decide not to rent to someone and even to kick existing tenants out without running afoul of federal law. It just doesn't apply to small properties. State laws may, however, regulate such things.
4) Now...here's the real question...what's the right thing to do? A condo board does not OWN any more of the building than anyone else. They are simply serving a term as a sort of board of directors of the cooperative that owns the exterior walls (each owner has a share of the structure as well as ownership of their own interior space). These people often go power mad. I call them condo commandoes and not without reason.
But...they do not have the right to violate the law. And they often don't know this, or know the applicable laws.
Many condo boards don't have ongoing access to lawyers for advice. They might have a lawyer they use when necessary, but rarely would they have one on retainer so that they can just run things by them.
So, basically, what we have is a corporation run by amateurs who don't know their @ss from their elbow, but feel empowered to make ANY decision that comes their way. No need to consult the other owners or seek legal counsel.
This is why I hope never to live in a condo again. Being part of a home owner's association is bad enough, sometimes. But a necessary evil in a world where people lack the common sense necessary to maintain the value of their own property (and thus affecting the value of other people's property in the vicinity).
What should happen in this case? The board should be voted out immediately through an impeachment process. An apology should be written to this kid and his family, and they should be begged to drop their lawsuit and to use the front entrance henceforth.
What is likely to happen? The condo association will pay out a huge sum of money as a penalty for this one woman's arrogant behavior and THEN she will be voted out.
Stupid. A waste.
And all because people don't get involved and let others do their talking for them.
Heck, this family could end up owning the building (through a lein) by the time all is said and done.
Ironically, the fine will be paid for through a special assessment on ALL the owners, so the family that started the lawsuit will end up paying into the fund that pays them for this.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Phanto, be consistent -- if you think this apartment complex has the right to discriminate against the disabled, support their right to deny housing or equal access to colored people for no other reason than their unwanted appearance at the front door where others can see them
Where have I been inconsistent? I agree with the part about unwanted apperance.
Read more carefully, dude. I didn't accuse you of consistency, only asked you to remain consistent by supporting other discriminatory policies the Homeowner's Association may put out.
quote:I don't really get what you're saying. Besides for your Ad Hominem (since you, based on the way you're posting, probably don't know what it means, attack, do you have anything to say?
If so, state or restate it in a calm manner.
While I'm charmed by the hypocrisy in that post, dude, would you mind pointing out an ad hominem attack I made?
quote:It's a cheap appeal to authority (or, I suppose, a denial of authority). It's not conducive to discussion and amounts to little better than rabble-rousing. There's lots of ways to refute Phantos's position. Name calling isn't the best way.
For that matter, neither are sweeping generalizations about a region of the country. Despite the fact that there's plenty of room for more progress, there have been a lot of changes since Jim Crow rode through the south. Further, if you take an average person who expresses the views Phantos does, I'd bet there's a better than even chance they're not from the South.
Basically it's cheap and mostly irrelevant, since it didn't serve to advance any reason for preferring one side of the argument or another. Unless you think, "He's white" is a valid reason to reject someone's arguments.
Dag, methinks you may have misunderstood Javie's point. I don't think he meant to call Phanto names, only point out that Phanto may not understand discrimination, having probably never suffered from it.
What authority did Javie appeal to or deny? While I wouldn't have made it the thrust of my argument to point out Phanto probably has little comprehension of the mechanics of bigotry, it's a legitimate point and worthy of mention -- I fail to see the rabble Javie roused by pointing out Phanto's probable inexperience.
As far as your second paragraph goes, nobody's denying that the South hasn't had some major reform. And with today's largely homogenized America, I wouldn't be too surprised if the racial stereotypes held by today's youth in Georgia aren't very different from the racial stereotypes held by today's youth in New York, given the lack of variety in mass media. No doubt the South is heading toward a brighter future than its long past would suggest, and you'll find no greater celebrant of that than me.
Phanto's views aren't as bigoted as they are free-market, and that's certainly not necessarily a stereotype of the South. You're debating a point I never made.
And again, pointing out Phanto's inexperience with discrimination isn't necessarily a bad point to make, though I'd make it supplementary to the many arguments that you pointed out already exist to refute Phanto's position. And if Phil weren't sick as a dog, I'm sure he would have gone into greater depth -- as it is, I hope I've served to make his point clearer.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lalo, I probably am also affected by the syndrome that bad things that happen in my home are not indicative of a general climate or disposition in the bad direction, yet I am quoting black friends.
The family who lived next door to me had lived in Tennessee, Detroit, Los Angeles, a small town in California, and somewhere in the Northeast, I think. The mom was a doctor, and had been to undergraduate and medical school in different parts of the country, too. They were very sure that the Southeast was the least racist part of the country.
Another friend, an engineer I worked with, who was very candid about race, telling me about his uncle having been lynched and left for dead when he was a child, and so on, grew up in Virginia and had traveled all over the country. His family had been well off for several generations, owners of a funeral home with mostly African American customers. His two brothers had gone to schools in the Northeast, and he had traveled all over because of his job. He also said there was no question that the Southeast was by far the most advanced part of the country as regards to racism.
Our city government is mostly African Americans. We are home of the Civil Rights Institute, a foundation for remembering the civil rights movement and promoting human rights worldwide. Civil rights historical sites in the area are major tourist draws, and local businesses are proud of that and help to promote it. I wish I could say there was no racism here. That's certainly not true. But I do believe it is the least racist part of the country, and for that I am glad. Why not visit before you decide?
Anne Kate, while I'm sure these are all worthy people, your evidence seems to be anecdotal and circumstantial. I can match you anecdote for anecdote, starting with my own father's experiences in the Deep South, without proving anything. As far as the existence of the Civil Rights Institute in the South, it's based there precisely because that's where the civil rights marches took place -- and the marches took place in the South precisely because the South has no long history of being tolerant of other races, creeds, or sexualities. It's rather as though you're pointing at a war memorial in Korea as evidence of how peaceful the region is.
That said, I have no doubt that great strides have been and are being made in the South toward equality, and that soon nobody will question the validity of interracial or homosexual marriages anywhere in the country. However, I'm not going to pretend the South's dominant white class has ever championed the cause of civil rights for any minority I know of, and I think anyone who tries to paint the South's history as anything else does the region a great disservice.
As far as visiting goes, I may very well do exactly that -- I'm considering an extension of my national bike tour to include the entire nation. Your place is a definite stop, though the extension is pretty indefinite in and of itself. Dag's place can play host to some Coronas and a tired Mexican, too, if he's willing -- where are you in the country, dude?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm surprised at your posting. It's quite vicious. Please be calmer.
quote: Read more carefully, dude. I didn't accuse you of consistency, only asked you to remain consistent by supporting other discriminatory policies the Homeowner's Association may put out.
Oh, I'm sorry. I somehow misread your statement telling me to be consistent as being reproach.
Ad hominem
quote: If Phanto has never been subject to discrimination, he probably has no understanding of its principles, which renders his dismissal of it to a poorly drawn caricature of a white boy in Utah telling black people to get over themselves. I'd be far more reassured of the validity of Phanto's political views if he were, say, a black woman in Arkansas. Or even, as you pointed out, a black woman anywhere in the country -- the South has no monopoly on bigotry.
quote: Javie's annoyed at this, so asks, essentially, if Phanto's ever been the subject of discrimination -- leaping to the probably correct conclusion that Phanto's a white heterosexual Protestant male.
Phanto holds view A. Phanto holding view A means he or she is a white heterosexual Protestant male. Phanto since Phanto is a white heterosexual Protestant male he or she has no right to hold view A. View A is invalid
I'll repeat myself.
I hold view A, which has alreay been explained.
Could you in point by point form, the simpler the better as I am an idiotic person, expound on your arguements?
quote:Later that night, Stollberg told the Trujillos that the association's rules required furniture, strollers and wheelchairs be moved through the rear service entrance, the suit says.
Really? As in, a parent pushing a baby in a stroller would be required to use the rear entrance? Hardly believable.
And "persons in strollers and wheelchairs" does not equal "strollers and wheelchairs."
I'm also puzzled by the lack of foresight, all issues of fairness aside. Any damage to a building which could be done by someone in a wheelchair couldn't compare to the damage that could be done to someone in a wheelchair by going through an entrance obviously not designed or maintained for personal use. From a purely financiolegal standpoint, this makes no sense.
The condo association assumes much more risk with the course that it insisted on.
Could it really be so simple (and so blatant) as that the association -- or at least, certain members of it -- just did not want to have to view someone with a disability?
posted
Alright, Lalo - I'll chalk this up to mutual misunderstanding between Xavier and me. I still think the ploy would be more effective by listing and defining the harms of private discrimination and explaining why they warrant an intrusion on the property right. Neither case is hard to make and neither alienates the potential convert.
I'm in Virginia - Charlottesville during the school year and DC suburbs during breaks. Weekends are a tossup. If you make it here, be sure to give me warning so I can be in a specific place at a specific time. First half of August I'll be on my honeymoon, so you're on your own then.
quote:Could it really be so simply (and so blatant) as that the association -- or at least, certain members -- did not want to have to view someone with a diability?
I'm doing everything I can to believe this isn't the case. I'm failing miserably.
I'm consoling myself with the hope that this is a petty official run amok and that the condo association would do something to stop this if they were fully aware.
posted
Wow, Dag. That's incredible. I mean, really incredible.
(I'm still stuck with the image of this child ripping out chunks of the supporting walls with his bare hands as he enters the doorway. )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. Scuff marks, or a chip off a corner, or handprints on glass is all I can come up with. Surely they would realize that it is not in their best interest to encourage anyone to routinely use a service entrance unnecessarily. I mean, those sites just aren't designed for pedestrian use, and any barriers (spills, snow, whatnot) will not come to the attention of maintenance crews as quickly.
Absofrequinlutely bizzare. I'd expect the young man to be denied the use of the service entrance if he were able to use the front door.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm taking advocacy right now, and we're concentrating mostly on civil cases. I'd love to cross-examine whoever made this decision on the stand.
I'd put a PI with a videocamera on the door and ask her each and every time a stroller comes through, "Did you fine this person $50?"
Repitition. A trial lawyer's friend. As you might be able to glean from my posts in the more lively topics, I'm a bit better at cross-ex than I am at direct...
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, Dagonee. Of course, there are a thousand reasons why this is a stupid decision, but ... why would you make your association assume so much greater risk?
It is wrong on so many levels. Arrrgh.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm betting this is, in fact, against the law - but I definitely don't think it should be.
Private individuals and business should have the right to discriminate against whoever they want for whatever reason they feel like. That's their right, as an individual, or privately owned organization. If I invite Joe over to dinner, but not Steve, I think it would be outrageous if the government told me I was unfairly discriminating against Steve - and forced me to invite everyone to dinner, just to be fair. It's my right to select who I do and do not want to deal with, associate with, and work with, and I don't see why it should be any different for private businesses.
I'm sure it would be nice if we could FORCE everyone to be fair and equal towards everyone else, but in America we have committed ourselves to freedom and individual rights. We believe in the right to be mean, or selfish, or cruel. We believe that people can do all sorts of things privately, ranging from watching porn in one's living room, to being gay, to having whatever religion you want, to painting your house bright orange. We believe that, although it would be nice to force people to be "good", to do so would be tyranny. Don't we?
As much as I'd like to promote fairness and equality, we can only go as far as the government has a RIGHT to go. And it has no right to tell private condo owners what entrance to allow residents to use.
I must add, though, that only an absurdly stupid condo owner cares more about the damage done to its entrance by a wheelchair than it does about the damage done to i's reputation by denying access to the handicapped. The government should not need to step in here. The invisible hand should do well enough by itself.
posted
Xas, there's probably a property claim to be made on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case. They own the common areas as much as any other owner. It's not always majority rule in these cases if the rules unfairly burden one owner. Enforcing rules arbitrarily (strollers being allowed in, etc.) would greatly weaken their claim.
There's also a guaranteed entrance/egress argument to be made - if the service entrance can be shown to be dangerous or inappropriate this claim might work as well.
It's not at all clear the Condo is making a defense right now. I need to check with Max on a couple of things.
One thing he told me about the court arguments is that the lawyers for the condo tried to claim the letter didn't really say that the kid couldn't use the front entrance.
In fact, that is exactly what the letter says. But, as I heard a legal instructor say once (proudly) he had students "who could find ambiguity in a 'no smoking' sign." That's part of what lawyers do.
A good clear sign that they don't have a defense is the refusal to talk to a reporter. No official statement. I think this caught the legal reps of whoever the owners are and they're trying to figure out how to minimize the damage.
I'll let people know how this develops. I don't think this will be one of those cases that takes months or years to come to a conclusion.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A few things I'd wonder about: 1- Many commercial mortgage loans to businesses have some kind of equal opportunity clause. It may be worth a look to see if the mortgage of the condo complex owners contains such a clause.
2- If they're worried about damage to the entrance, are they also limiting the tenents footwear to soft,white-soled shoes?
3- Is there a homeowners association and what is their stance on wheelchairs and strollers? Typically, it's the homeowners association that negotiates with the property managers to decide what is common area maintenance to be divided equally between all tenents and what is an expense that will be paid by other means.
posted
So, if a black doctor walked into your mini-mart with a wallet full of credit cards that could buy your business 16 times over to buy some twinkies, and you don't sell them to him because you think that all black people are out to rob you or something, that's okay simply because you own your store? If it is, I'm effing moving to Canada.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, if a black doctor walked into your mini-mart with a wallet full of credit cards that could buy your business 16 times over to buy some twinkies, and you don't sell them to him because you think that all black people are out to rob you or something, that's okay simply because you own your store?
Yes, or at least it should be. Why should the owner not have the right to refuse to do business with whoever he wants?
It's no different from trying to fine or punish Joe Smo for being a racist jerk. It'd be helpful to everyone if he did not act racist, but he's entitled to act as he wishes in his private life. That's freedom.
posted
You'll have trouble competing for women with the natives, dude. I hear they're all hung like Canadians.
Posts: 641 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to derail the thread more than is socially acceptable, but everything I would say has been said, and I'm fascinated by the following comment:
quote: I number among the two-and-a-half minority members we have here.
Two and a half? Who are they? Does that mean being Jewish, being gay, and being Mormon don't count as minority? Is it all about context? If it refers to physial disability, I'll bet there's more here than we know. This also means you can't count Asians as a minority, because I KNOW there are more than two and a half here.
So, how are you counting? I'm not arguing with you on it - I want to know your methodology. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it similarly ok for the Black Doctor to refuse to cure the racist owner, just because he's white?
Of course, there are plenty of ways to make this Condo COmpany retract their stupid policy.
1) Sue for breach of contract. The condo contract says that the wheel chair bound boy must travel in and out via the back door. HOwever, the back door is not serviceable for this, since it is too small. The Condo owners are in breach of their contract, and since they continue to accept payments from this family, they are guilty of fraud.
2) Advertise all over the place that this condo is anti-disabled, and dangerous to sick children.
3) If all wheeled traffic must go through the back entrance, then medical gurneys must as well. This is dangerous if there is an emergency in the building. As such, it does not meet health codes.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortuantely Tres, in real life it doesn't work that way. People, here in the US have bled to death on the street while onlookers simply stood by and watched because it wasn't "their problem". Now if you have any sort of emergency medical training, and are in the crowd watching, and they find out about it, you can be prosecuted if you didn't help the victim.
White doctors did stuff like this in ERs for years, to black patients. It isn't pretty but it happens. Even if a patient is brought to a private practice in distress rather than an ER the doctor still has a duty to save life, regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation etc.
Maybe it is different when someone you know and love could be directly affected by such things. But I have occasionally seen the odd looks that Steve and I are given when walking into predominately white establishments. Steve isn't even obviously black, a lot of people actually guess he is Arabic, which means that he occasionally recieves anti-Arab discrimination instead. It doesn't matter which kind of discrimination it is, it is just plain wrong. (Wrong morally speaking, I mean, but I'm certainly glad it is mostly legally wrong as well.)
quote:Unfortuantely Tres, in real life it doesn't work that way. People, here in the US have bled to death on the street while onlookers simply stood by and watched because it wasn't "their problem". Now if you have any sort of emergency medical training, and are in the crowd watching, and they find out about it, you can be prosecuted if you didn't help the victim.
I am aware that in real life we have a lot of laws that aren't fair. Freedom is easily infringed upon by governments - it always has been to the best of my knowledge, because people consistently want to legally enforce their morals on others without regard for their rights.
Having said that, are you talking about an emergency life-threatening situation or a doctor just treating someone in the normal course of business? They are very different. A doctor is much more entitled to refuse treatment of someone in the case of an everyday check-up than they are in a sudden emergency.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, someone who refuses a patient for racial reasons under normal circumstances, isn't likely to treat them in an emergency either. It's human nature, unfortunately.
posted
I realized that I have an internal paradox here.
Because in general I'm not for the government "legislating morality". Yet, at the same time if people aren't willing to behave decently and fairly on their own, what option do you have? Sometimes the stick is the only option if any sort of carrot of a good or clear conscience is ignored.
Take a simple issue like discrimination and y'all run wild with it.
Was thinking of posting this on the "what is a minority?" thread, but decided it fits better here.
Dag and others wanting to dig into something thoughtful from a legal scholar on these matters, I really recommend Making all the Difference - Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law by Martha Minow.
In the introduction to the book, she shares this from Holly Near and Adrian Torf:
quote: "Unity" One man fights the KKK But he hates the queers One woman fights for ecology It's equal rights she fears; Some folks know that war is hell But they put down the blind. I think there must be a common ground But it's mighty hard to find.
(Have undoubtedly unmasked myself as a fan of "A Mighty Wind.") Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
