https://www.conservativereview.com/florida-mother-to-be-evicted-from-home-unless-she-gets-vaccinated-2655057507.html?utm_source=cr-weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CR%20Weekly%202021-09-22&utm_term=ACTIVE%20-%20CR%20Weekly

QuoteThe landlord is currently requiring all tenants over the age of 18 who want to renew their lease to provide proof of a COVID-19 vaccination

I'd sue his ass for moving costs. Everyone hates court, so he's most likely concede.

She will make a bundle sueing him for illegal discrimination. Many people will.

As I said in the other end, vaccination status is not a protected group under current laws. While I don't agree with what he's doing, but it is his business he has the right to, as long as it does not violate any current discrimination laws, to deny a lease to anybody he wants.

Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 05:54:56 AMAs I said in the other end, vaccination status is not a protected group under current laws. While I don't agree with what he's doing, but it is his business he has the right to, as long as it does not violate any current discrimination laws, to deny a lease to anybody he wants.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2021-09-02/schools-businesses-to-be-fined-in-florida-for-requesting-proof-of-vaccination


 you can not ask to see proof of vaccination in Florida.

QuoteThe Florida Department of Health will issue a "notice of violation to any business entity, governmental entity or educational institution" found violating a coronavirus documentation statute, which prohibits any entity from requiring proof of vaccination. Each violation will result in a $5,000 fine per individual and separate violations against the business, governmental entity or school.

Quote from: Possum on September 23, 2021, 06:10:43 AMhttps://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2021-09-02/schools-businesses-to-be-fined-in-florida-for-requesting-proof-of-vaccination


 you can not ask to see proof of vaccination in Florida.

Looks like typical government overreach. Unfortunate for the owner of the place.

Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 06:42:50 AMLooks like typical government overreach. Unfortunate for the owner of the place.

Over reach is the government telling you not to discriminate? Over reach is the government telling you that medical records are private? That is not over reach, that is following the law.

Quote from: Possum on September 23, 2021, 10:02:45 AMOver reach is the government telling you not to discriminate? Over reach is the government telling you that medical records are private? That is not over reach, that is following the law.

No, overreach is the government telling a property owner who they have to allow onto their property.

Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 10:49:40 AMNo, overreach is the government telling a property owner who they have to allow onto their property.

Not when its against the law. It is a crime to treat the unvaxed different than the vaxed for IN ANY WAY. Why? Because there is not reason. You must have a valid scientific reason and since you cannot even prove covid exists then vax status isnt a scientific reason. We are all EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. If they were allowed to treat unvaxed differently then that would be DIFFERENT UNDER THE LAW. See how thats unconstitutional?

Quote from: T Hunt on September 23, 2021, 11:02:50 AMNot when its against the law. It is a crime to treat the unvaxed different than the vaxed for IN ANY WAY. Why? Because there is not reason. You must have a valid scientific reason and since you cannot even prove covid exists then vax status isnt a scientific reason. We are all EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. If they were allowed to treat unvaxed differently then that would be DIFFERENT UNDER THE LAW. See how thats unconstitutional?

Do you have a link to the law that you keep referencing?

Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 10:49:40 AMNo, overreach is the government telling a property owner who they have to allow onto their property.

The government is not telling the owner he has to turn his property into rental, that would be over reach. The landowner decided to open his property up to the public as rentals. There are all kinds of permits to follow, codes to follow, rules to follow. One of these is you do not discriminate. I understand you see no problem with racial discrimination, you have said as much in other posts, but conservatives are against it and so is the law. 

Quote from: Possum on September 23, 2021, 12:51:49 PMThe government is not telling the owner he has to turn his property into rental, that would be over reach. The landowner decided to open his property up to the public as rentals. There are all kinds of permits to follow, codes to follow, rules to follow. One of these is you do not discriminate. I understand you see no problem with racial discrimination, you have said as much in other posts, but conservatives are against it and so is the law.

I do have a problem with discrimination, just as I have an issue with people using racial slurs or burning the flag but, I support the right of people to use racial slurs and burn the flag as part of free speech. 

So, do you believe Masterpiece Cake Shop should be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding?

Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 01:45:24 PMI do have a problem with discrimination, just as I have an issue with people using racial slurs or burning the flag but, I support the right of people to use racial slurs and burn the flag as part of free speech. 

So, do you believe Masterpiece Cake Shop should be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding?

he did not discriminate, he offered to sell them anything that was out for the public to buy.

Quote from: Possum on September 23, 2021, 01:50:18 PMhe did not discriminate, he offered to sell them anything that was out for the public to buy.

Does Masterpiece cake shop not offer the service of making wedding cakes to the public?

Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 02:22:30 PMJust not a wedding cake.... which they make.

they had wedding cakes on display, they did not have one with two girls on the top as the owner did not make those. they asked for a special custom one made that he did not make, had no history of making, and no plans to start making them. How is that discrimination? It's not and the court agreed.