storm1977 0 #1 October 24, 2003 The City of LA is $200 million in the red. So, the politicains decided they needed to cut some spending. That is understandable and I applaud them for it. So, what do they do? They cut $36million in road and sidewalk repair.... OK - not what I would have cut but hey you had to cut it from somewhere. So what is the big Deal???? The city of LA just approved the building of a retirement home for Gays, Lesbians, and trans gendered people of the age of 65. It will cost the LA taxpayers $18million. First of all, is that unconstitutional? Can you use tax money for public housing but discrimate toward the sexual preference of the people living there???? Secondly, Why can't Gays and transgenders live with the rest of the retired population. Third, why the Fuck is the City spending 18Million on this place when they are trying to cut spending???? Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #2 October 24, 2003 Well... If I were gay, and I'd paid taxes my whole life and been a good US citizen, I'd like to retire someplace where I could just be myself without people bugging me. If I were not gay, and I'd paid taxes my whole life and been a good US citizen, I'd like to retire someplace where I could just be myself without people bugging me. Live and let live dude. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #3 October 24, 2003 Ok, but if I own an apartment complex and I have rooms for rent, but I tell people that ONLY Whites can move in, is that OK? If I understood the law correctly, you cannot discriminate based on race, color, creed, sexual orientation or preference. So, Is the City allowed to do that with Public Funds? Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quatorze 1 #4 October 24, 2003 I think this sounds a lot like the High School in New York, yes it is reverse discrimination in my book, but I think that the government and not the people in question are mishadling this, we as a society are finally becoming more tolerant of one another and things like this that our oh so enlightened leaders do, accomplish nothing but alienating one group of people from another, IMHO, now let the flames begin I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #5 October 24, 2003 Live and let live dude. Life is too short to get pissed off about stuff like this. Let it ride. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #6 October 24, 2003 QuoteIf I understood the law correctly, you cannot discriminate based on race, color, creed, sexual orientation or preference. Yep...that's the law...but! (you knew that was coming...) You are allowed to discriminate on age based on senior citizenship. Therefore, if there is a senior community which is based on age, that would fly 100%. by that, I mean, you can't discriminate based on ages under seniorship, and you absolutely may not discriminate because a person has a child, but you may say "no, you can't live here unless you're a senior citizen". And there are certain funds set aside for the senior citizenry. So perhaps because it's a senior community you could make it exclusively gay/transgendered. But I don't know. I will ask my broker today (if I remember), and see what he says. Interesting question. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayruss 0 #7 October 24, 2003 It shouldn't be the city's responsibility to build such a facility, especially in this economy. If Gays, Lesbians, and trans gendered people want a retirement home let them build their own just like straight people have to do. __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #8 October 24, 2003 HERE HERE!!!! But after all this is California we are talking about. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #9 October 24, 2003 Ok...so I'm gonna start lobbying apartments for LEFTY people, it bugs me that everything is designed for righties, I feel frustrated and discriminated, I need the company of my lefty peers. 21st Century, century of BULLSHIT.__________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #10 October 24, 2003 how about they take the 18mil and plow it into chaning society so les/gay/bi/trans people can intergrate into it without being marginalised. why seperate them, sounds a lot like seperate schools for black kids to me. can you see a report on the holo-tv of the future where the governator of cal in 60years time defiantly blocks the door of an all hetero retirement home when the first gays are admitted only to be shifted by an MP? no? then why create an all gay retirement home/school, seems a lot like stepping back in time to me. like tonto says, live and let live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScubaSteve 0 #11 October 24, 2003 I think the problem is that most civilized do "live and let live" and thats the problem. The politicians (right and Left) like to divide the population in segments for control. They use fear as a means of control. Fear of what the other groups will get and you will not. All groups could function fine without being divided into groups. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #12 October 24, 2003 I can see some truth in that!!!! Dem's use minorities Repub's use corporations.. That is why I try not to listen to what they say most of the time because both sides spin so freakin much. It is tough though... Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #13 October 24, 2003 QuoteIf I understood the law correctly, you cannot discriminate based on race, color, creed, sexual orientation or preference. Um, actually, I think this is the entire crux of the problem. See, the anti-discrimination laws DON'T include sexual orientation. Creed, gender, race, etc, yes. Sexual orientation, no. This is the very thing that gays are fighting for...the protection of the law AGAINST discrimination. They want those laws to read how you typed it. Ironically, if the law DID include sexual orientation, this retirment home probably would be considered illegal. An interesrting legal conundrum. In many states it's perfectly legal to evict someone from their apartment, deny them a job, or even not allow them to enter an establishment because they are gay.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 October 24, 2003 A law based on sexual orientation need only have a "rational basis" to be upheld. There are three levels of scrutiny in a Constitutional sense. "Strict Scrutiny" is the toughest. Laws based on race are viewed this way. Any laws based on race must be "supported by a compelling state purpose and the means chosen to accomplish that purpose must be narrowly tailored." Basically, the law must do something crucial, and be the least costly way to do it. It is a double edged sword. Laws discriminating against race are almost automatically overturned. But laws in favor of race are viewed with similar scrutiny and almost always overturned. "Intermediate Scrutiny" is where the law must serve an important governmental purpose and be substantially related to those objectives. Gender gets this one. It's easier to uphold a law with this. "Rational basis" is the thrid level, where the law need only be rationaly related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Rarely are these laws overturned. Laws regarding sexual orientation are evaluated this way. Thus, any law about orientation will usually pass Constitutional muster. So, what this means is that the government _can_ create a home for homosexuals only. - rational basis The government _might_ be able to open the home for gay males. - intermediate scrutiny because of guys now The government _won't_ be able to open a home for gay black males only - strict scrutiny due to race involvement. I hope this explains the Constitutional basis for this. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #15 October 24, 2003 QuoteI hope this explains the Constitutional basis for this Sort of. On what basis are the different categories of scrutiny laid out? _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #16 October 24, 2003 OK, so where in the CONSTITUTION does it give the judges the power to scrutinize in this fasion??? This seems unconstitutuioal to me. I am going to call the ACLU and see if they would take my case. HA HA HA... that would never happen. However, can the state open a STRAIGHT ONLY retirement home under the same scrutiny??? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #17 October 24, 2003 Not a lawyer, but from lawrocket's description above, I would say the answer to your question is YES. Is there anything in California law that specifically prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation? I dunno, I don't live there. But if there isn't, I don't see how opening a "straight-only" retirement home could be considered illegal, as much as that sucks. Public scrutiny is another matter, however Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #18 October 24, 2003 QuoteOn what basis are the different categories of scrutiny laid out? Strict srutiny will be given to the suspect classes (this on the basis of past Supreme Court Jurisprudence). Discrimination based on rac, religion, national origin and alienage (in some cases) will receive this review. Other classes typically fall into the intermediate scrutiny category, such as gender or illegitimacy (I don't know why illegitimates are treated this way). Fundamentally, there are typically found to be too many good reasons to treat women and men differently, unless it implicates a fundamental right, like voting, travel, privileges and immunity, etc. Matters of sexual orientation are new to the court, for the most part, I guess since it is a matter of lifestyle and not something visible on its face or identified in papers like religion, nationailty or race, or even gender. Thus, laws can be passed with a disparate effect on, or benefit to, these communities. Rational basis applies to those rights not fundamental, such as a higher tax rate on business owners, or government housing for the poor (not a suspect class) or homosexuals, or farm subsidies. There must only be a legitimate governmental purpose, and the law and policy may only tangentially touch it for effectiveness. I hope this helps a bit. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 October 24, 2003 Actually, Marbury v. Madison gave this right. The Court is the ultimate trier of law. The Congress creates a law. The President enforces the law. The courts interpret the law. Say Congress makes a law saying that all meteorologists named Chris in New York shall be subject to an income tax of 95 percent. Then, let's say the Executive branch enforces this law. You say, "That's Unconstitutional." Without the Court deciding whether it is, there is a collective "SO WHAT?" pointed to that poor guy's direction. Under rational basis review (New York meteorologists named "Chris" aren't a suspect class) this law would still be overturned. The courts have to develop tests for Constitutionality. Why? So that everyone and all the courts know how to decide. It makes it so that the decisions aren't arbitrary. And, some right are more important than others. Why? Because the Court said so, as directed under Article III and Marbury v. Madison. Satisfied? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #20 October 24, 2003 Quote don't see how opening a "straight-only" retirement home could be considered illegal Exactly! And to think, I spent $100k to be taught this stuff.... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #21 October 24, 2003 LOL, actually, I'm *considering* going to law school when I get out of the prison that is the Air Force. Think they'd take someone with 2 engineering degrees? Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #22 October 24, 2003 Like I said in a different thread... That same education you spent $100K on, you could have gotten for $1.50 in late fees at your local library. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #23 October 24, 2003 Yeah, I know... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #24 October 24, 2003 Quote However, can the state open a STRAIGHT ONLY retirement home under the same scrutiny??? Well, yes! I think the important question, that you're neglecting to ask, is WHY the state would want to do that. I can see a whole lot of very legitimate reasons why gay people might choose to live in an inclusive community, gay bashing is unfortunately still quite common. The fear of gay-bashing is still very rampant in the communities I've been exposed to. I do not see a whole lot of very legitimate reasons why straight people would want the same right. Many gay people have chosen to live togeather in cities, so called "gay villages". There are no exclusive "straight villiages" in any city I've ever been to. Of course straight people COULD do this if they wanted to - it's not like gay people needed laws enacted to move to the villages. Striaght people could do this, they just don't feel the need. I do wonder why gay issues are so important to you. I really do think you should just step out of the closet. I'm reminded back in College all the guys complaining when the Women's Center opened. They were all complaining that they weren't allowed to open a Mens Center. Of course, they WERE allowed to open a Mens Center, its just that nobody bothered because none of us really wanted one. These guys were just complaining just to hinder the women. I can't help but think the same thing is going on here. Do you really want to create a community where a bunch of straight people can hang out relishing in their striaght-ness? It sounds like a pretty boring place to me... _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #25 October 24, 2003 My university had Men's Studies. It was called the History Department... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
