Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Interestingly, it was 
>> upheld because profession isn't one of the things you're disallowed from 
>> discriminating against.
> 
>   That sounds quite unconstitutional. Well at least by our constitution.
> 
>   Here you can't discriminate against anyone without a very good reason
> which can be justified. Refusing to sell a house to someone because he is
> a lawyer is certainly not such a good reason.

	It wasn't really that they didn't want lawyers. They just wanted the
best ones. As he couldn't win the court case, he was rejected.

-- 
Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message