Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (74322)	9/10/2003 4:40:33 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Are you so sure?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (74322)	9/10/2003 4:50:09 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

There was a lot of tadoo made about this in Denver and was the primary publicity for promoting Amendment #2 (illegal to discriminate against homosexuals or bisexuals) in Colorado. The amendment was passed in Colorado but overturned at the US Supreme court. The arguments against Amendment #2 were not that small land lords should be able to discriminate against gays, it was that it was unnecessary since it was already illegal. A large percentage of "out" Gay people of Colorado seem to live in and around the capital hill area. There is a lack of suitable housing in that area so discrimination on the basis of orientation was pertinent. I am not 100% sure what the failure of Amendment #2 meant but don't think it was licence to discriminate. The small landlords who did complain, complained that they should be able to pick and choose compatable residents, and generally did not accept various kinds of applicants. Sexual orientation was not their big target, and some small landlords selected gay tenents based on their likelyhood of compatability with other tenents.