Ed Illinois couple sued for deciding not to sell their home...

[GrouchoMarxist]

So some people tour the house on Saturday Jan. 2, and the seller sees those people. Those people are black. An offer comes in via Email that same day. Nobody else has looked at the home that week. The seller then enters into negotiations with those people.

My question is, would the seller - if not wanting to sell to those people - guess that the offer came from those people and simply refuse the offer rather than making a counter offer to those people for less than the asking price?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And why should the action perpetrated by governments in the past constrain the activities or private individuals with respect to their private property now?

It's only their private property for as long as the government says it is.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So some people tour the house on Saturday Jan. 2, and the seller sees those people. Those people are black. An offer comes in via Email that same day. Nobody else has looked at the home that week. The seller then enters into negotiations with those people.

My question is, would the seller - if not wanting to sell to those people - guess that the offer came from those people and simply refuse the offer rather than making a counter offer to those people for less than the asking price?

Huh??? Yes, the seller can refuse the offer. Absent a valid contract, no one (other than the government, in limited circumstances) can make you sell your house.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It's only their private property for as long as the government says it is.

And that's the point.

That is very wrong.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So... you want to foist your opinion on others by force of law, even though you admit you have no authority to do so.

Yes, I would want the law to reflect the Constitution.

 

[Loss Leader]

And why should the action perpetrated by governments in the past constrain the activities or private individuals with respect to their private property now?

Well, lets make one thing clear: the actions in the past weren't only perpetrated by governments but by private individuals. Private citizens bonded together to write restrictive covenants into their deeds. Private real estate agents steered people to and away from certain neighborhoods based on race. Private citizens burned crosses on people's lawns to scare them away from certain real estate purchases.

So, restraining the behavior of private citizens now appears to be the only way to undo these past injustices. In any case, a private citizen probably can refuse to sell property based on race. It is the use of a real estate agent (who gains his/her powers via a license from the state) or public mortgage money (which ultimately comes from and is guaranteed by the taxpayers) that triggers the applicability of civil rights law.

And, of course, the only reason that any private American has security in his/her property is that it is protected by the United States and state governments - protected from invasion by another nation and crime from other citizens. Being required to live up to some very basic rules of fairness doesn't seem like that much to ask in exchange for the right to own property in the first place.

It's only their private property for as long as the government says it is.

And that's the point. That is very wrong.

I cannot think of a system in which people can "own" property without first consenting to abstain from the use of force, centralizing all powers of physical coercion in some sort of government.

 

[drkitten]

The hell? Did you creep inside my head and somehow determine I wasn't telling the truth?

Nope. I looked at what you said and determined that it was false.

In the same way that I don't need to creep inside your head to somehow determine that you're lying if you tell me that you're a tunafish.

I don't see what relevance a lawyer has in relation to my beliefs regarding the extent of personal liberty.

Well, your beliefs about the extend of personal liberty are objectively wrong, and you can be objectively fined and/or imprisoned if you act on your beliefs. As any lawyer can point out.

In the same way that a physician or an ichthyologist can point out, authoritatively, that you're not a tunafish. Irrespective of your beliefs.

You have your beliefs about what the law "should be." Don't confuse them with statements about what the law "is." People who make that particular confusion tend to come to unhappy ends.

 

[KingMerv00]

People who make that particular confusion tend to come to unhappy ends.

Poor Mr. Snipes.

 

[Beerina]

I don't think racism should be a legal choice for not continuing a business transaction.

To put a point on it, it's legal to not want to sell your home for racist (or any other reasons.) It's not legal to actually not sell your home for racist reasons.


I suspect this ad, if pushed to the Supreme Court in the US, might not be illegal: "I want to sell my home, but not to African Americans. However, law requires me to treat them equally, so I will abide by the law. The government is not authorized to restrict my speech. House is located at xxx..."

 

[pgwenthold]

I suspect this ad, if pushed to the Supreme Court in the US, might not be illegal: "I want to sell my home, but not to African Americans. However, law requires me to treat them equally, so I will abide by the law. The government is not authorized to restrict my speech. House is located at xxx..."

The ad itself might not be illegal. However, all it will take is one african-american buyer to make an offer and get it turned down to start a civil suit.

 

[drkitten]

I suspect this ad, if pushed to the Supreme Court in the US, might not be illegal: "I want to sell my home, but not to African Americans. However, law requires me to treat them equally, so I will abide by the law. The government is not authorized to restrict my speech. House is located at xxx..."

Interesting. I think you're wrong...

The current state of the law incorporates certain bans on advertising:

Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c), as amended, makes
it unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling, that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

By stating what you "want," you're expressing a preference, so you'd need to have a very good lawyer to get you off on this one.

The less interesting part is that the advertisement is simply wrong; the government does have both the right and the authority to restrict your speech, as many false advertisers have found to their sorrow.

 

[pgwenthold]

Interesting. I think you're wrong...

The current state of the law incorporates certain bans on advertising:


By stating what you "want," you're expressing a preference, so you'd need to have a very good lawyer to get you off on this one.

The less interesting part is that the advertisement is simply wrong; the government does have both the right and the authority to restrict your speech, as many false advertisers have found to their sorrow.

Thinking about my initial response, I would also figure that anyone could claim that they were thinking about buying a house but chose not to given the racist language of the ad. That would also be grounds for a civil suit.

 

[WildCat]

And that's the point.

That is very wrong.

It sure is! We should go back to the old way of claiming property, using guns and such.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And that's the point.

That is very wrong.

Then form your own country.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It sure is! We should go back to the old way of claiming property, using guns and such.

That's kinda what the U.S. Government's done, essentially. Claimed the whole of the continent, then ceded various folks and institutions rights to it.

Some of the arguments in this thread have stretched the boundaries of credibility. You have every right to the enjoyment of your property and to sell it to whomever you want, as long as you're not caught discriminating in doing so. You only have that property by the grace of the State, anyway*

*With some very rare exceptions like Native Americans, and perhaps someone who ceded to or exchanged with the government for their private holdings, with ownership dating back prior to the Union.

And, no, Grizzly. I don't agree that the law is wrong. I tend to lean more towards thinking you're wrong. Yes, that's an opinion (just in case we're going to veer off into a chocolate versus vanilla argument).

 

[WildCat]

*With some very rare exceptions like Native Americans

Nah, they all claimed lands through extreme violence also. I doubt any tribe anywhere were direct decendants of the first peple to settle the area.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Nah, they all claimed lands through extreme violence also. I doubt any tribe anywhere were direct decendants of the first peple to settle the area.

True - even the native Americans who claim prior rights have also been granted those rights by the guys holding the territory with might.

 

[Dancing David]

It sure is! We should go back to the old way of claiming property, using guns and such.

What was Shay's rebelion? And why?

 

[drkitten]

Thinking about my initial response, I would also figure that anyone could claim that they were thinking about buying a house but chose not to given the racist language of the ad. That would also be grounds for a civil suit.

... but very weak grounds, as those people would have a hard time showing any sort of damages.

 

[pgwenthold]

... but very weak grounds, as those people would have a hard time showing any sort of damages.

Probably as hard as the class of women PhD's who were able to get damage awards from the University of Minnesota after they had been found guilty of sexual discrimination in hiring. People who didn't even apply were included in the award, because, the argument was, the sexist behavior prevented them from applying.

Now, aside from the burden of proving that you didn't apply for that reason, it's a fair argument, and there is certainly damage.

If you have a black buyer who demonstrates that 1) they have been looking at comparable houses, and 2) they could have made an offer on that place but didn't, then they would have an argument that they were intimidated into not considering the place by the racist ad.

Your comment about intimidation is important here. Intimidation is meant to prevent an action from occurring. If it works, how can you complain there wasn't any damage?