>>6522833

>The law is geared toward denying a rental on the basis of sexual orientation.

>The law is geared toward denying

an individual's private personal reasons for discriminating against likely tenants.

so if i'm het/cis/normal/whatever and get refused i got nothing

but HEY if i'm gay i have an angle to complain and pursue.

great.

or, if i choose between a creepy thug filled with tattoos and a healthy nicely presented person, is that rayciss? discriminashun?

evil?

and if the thug is gay, they can complain and pursue?

>>6522930

>"The governor’s office was not informed of this decision,"

hey, open borders, bro.

Dreamers don't take appointments

>>6522951

> based upon sexual preference or orientation

and how do you determine the reasons for someone being selected or not without getting into someone's head?

how is that not thought-crime?

what if i have no problem with people being gay but i just have a terrible, awful feeling about someone and really would prefer anyone else to rent the apartment?

>>6522984

>simple - don't tell them why you won't rent to them

that's a yuge part of why the law is so wrong.

it's a direct invitation - if not obligation - to lie.

unless you wish to be punished for preferences.

i'm all for tolerance and accepting people, but where's the damn line?

where's the tolerance and acceptance for people who disagree? for people who are disgusted by the very thought?

don't they get freedom, too?

>>6523001

>Not sure what the answer is to that is.

the answer is that DISCRIMINATION IS A NORMAL AND NATURAL THING THAT WE DO ALL THE TIME.

landlords having to dance around the law is a symptom of a deeply dysfunctional system

so if a flaming gay landlord is visited by some good ole boys rednex tenants, he's not allowed to discriminate against them either… right? RIGHT?

>>6523013

lovely.

proving the presence or absence of thoughtcrime should go splendidly.

let's put in more laws like this