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.

Could be, yes.  In the US, anti-discrimination laws list the features for 
which you're not allowed to discriminate. For example

"The Fair Housing Act declares a national policy of fair housing throughout 
the United States. The law makes illegal any discrimination in the sale, 
lease or rental of housing, or making housing otherwise unavailable, because 
of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin."

"The Equal Credit Opportunity Act makes discrimination unlawful with respect 
to any aspect of a credit application on the basis of race, color, religion, 
national origin, sex, marital status, age or because all or part of the 
applicant's income derives from any public assistance program."

So technically, you're allowed to tell someone they're not allowed to buy a 
house in the retirement community if they're only 25 years old, for example, 
because age isn't one of the "protected categories."

>   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.

You could argue it is. Having a lawyer in the community is expensive, 
because they get free legal advice. Indeed, that was why the rule was 
instituted: everyone living there voted to exclude lawyers so they wouldn't 
have to pay for frivolous lawsuits.

We had a similar problem here: the community had planned to add a 
playground. We knew it a year before our house was done being built, and 
signed all kinds of papers saying we knew it and accepted it. The house near 
the playground was finished six months after we moved in.  A lawyer bought 
it, and within a month had filed a lawsuit to try to stop the playground 
from being built.

>   (One could ask what would be a "very good reason which can be justified"
> to discriminate against anyone. Well, one good example is movie casting:
> If the movie needs a young man for a role, it's logical that they would
> hire a young man, rather than an old woman.)

Here we've even had lawsuits where men sued because they couldn't get hired 
to work at a topless restaurant. (I.e., a "hooters" type place.)

I always wondered what would happen if a black man sued some group like the 
KKK for not hiring him as a receptionist or some such. Would that be "fair"?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message