Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: 42 on June 26, 2003, 12:37:25 AM
-
So I've decided that apartment hunting sucks.
I attribute most of this to living in "Happy Valley" Utah where half of the landlords refuse to rent to me because I'm single and therefor will cause the gates of the netherworld to open-up in any apartment I rent.
I hate being treated like a kid just because I'm not married. This is such a Utah County thing too.
So the best excuses so far are:
"Well, we really would prefer a married couple to live here."
"I don't think you can handle being next to a family."
and
"The place just isn't ready for singles."
Well, they can jsut take their little breeding-holes and BURN. At least that's what happened in my hallucinatory head.
-
Thats the way to be 42.
-
I thought that community steering was illegal. Kind of like, "oh we dont want a black person in our neighborhood". Or "oh I didn't see that you were a jew, Im sorry, we're all full up!"
Refusing to rent to you because you are married seems illegal too.
It may not be, but it seems that way.
Is there a housing authority or something tht you could talk to and ask about it?
If you have the cash and look respectable and follow your lease I just dont see how they could be allowed to refuse you.
-
It is in Provo when it comes to married and unmarreid people. Supposedly there's a bill that the Provo city counsel is wanting to pass that won't let more then one single person live in a non BYU approved house.
-
There are a lot of foolish things that happen in Utah towns. Many of them unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to matter to Utah.
-
It is in Provo when it comes to married and unmarreid people. Supposedly there's a bill that the Provo city counsel is wanting to pass that won't let more then one single person live in a non BYU approved house.
Hmmm so when you sue the City Council because they've made it impossible to afford housing anywhere nearby you'll probably make bank.
Thats ridiculous. Its a violation of your rights as a human being in the name of someone elses morality. I hate it when people think they have to legislate my morality. I suppose it would have been illegal for me to have lived with my fiance for a year before we got married there, where as here it was almost a neccesity. I pay over 1400 dollars a month in rent to live close enough to my work that I dont have to worry about my car dying next year because I've piled on the miles and I COULDN'T have done it without her.
I remember why I never want to be a Utard!
-
considering it's BYU that controls most of the houseing laws sueing the city councel wouldn't do much good. BYU is a private institution and basicaly what it does is legal, just not fair to provoians. That's why I want to move away from the student center here to orem or near Fell (so I can poke him with a stick).
-
The City Council (which you said was going to vote on the bill) is not BYU and therefore their attempt at forcing everyone in the municipality to live a certain way is unfair and could probably be sued succesfully. A city is not a college, forcing everone in said city to live at the whim of college standards is ridiculous.
-
Lately I've been stuck only posting on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so I don't want to get into a big involved argument, but I would like to say this:
1) I agree with the complaint that Provoan society is a little married-oriented, and I agree completely with everything 42 said.
2) However, it's not illegal. According to the Fair Housing Act, landlords can't discriminate according to family status. Unfortunately, the only family status' that can't be discriminated against are:
*Families with children under 18
*Pregnant Women
So, if 42 miraculously gets pregnant, then he can live anywhere he wants. Otherwise, discriminating against singles is perfectly legal.
3) Mad Dr. Jeffe: What are laws if they don't legislate morality? You take away morality from law, and all you have are a bunch of traffic restrictions.
Morality is basically the line between "right" and "wrong". All laws, to some extent, are based on morals. Laws against murder, burglary, rape, etc. are all based on morals.
One might argue that such laws are not in place to enforce the morality of the criminal, but rather to protect the innocent. This argument is flawed, however. By protecting the innocent, the government is saying "Murder is wrong, we won't let it happen to you" or, in other words "Infringing on your rights is wrong and we aren't going to let anyone do that to you."
4) Spriggan: BYU influencing the City Council is not a big conspiracy, and it's not terribly unfair to Provoians (or at least not more so than the influence of any large institution in a small community).
Cities need income, and they are more than happy to change a few rules to ensure that large money-making institutions are happy. It's no different from a small town with a couple of big power plants, or a small farming community. The City Council will do everything it can to keep the institution happy. It may not be perfect, but it's common goverment/corporate practice.
-
Crap - that was a lot longer than I meant it to be. I don't know my own longwindedness.
-
I disagree with you, and while I do want to get into it later Im at work and can't spend tons of time on the topic right now. Suffice it to say that I feel writing a law to arbitrairily enforce morality is wrong and against the constitution of the United States. I feel confidant that law is not just designed to enforce morality and can cite the very recent ruling of the US Supreme Court that strikes down state Sodemy laws as a violation of privacy. Since most people still find homosexual activity immoral and the previous laws made the immoral activity of Sodamy illegal I find it hard to say all laws are based on a standard of morals.
Furthermore I belive Law is created when different cultures or sets of ideals come into conflict forcing a Government to arbitrate between two or more parties.
Laws on Murder and theft in our country are based in a merging of old germanic and latin traditions where the person wronged has lost "property" be it his possessions or his life. Not because it is immoral, although morality can play into a trail by peers lawyers try to keep it from being an issue and try to get the Jurists to focus on matters of law and fairness rather than morality and emotion.
In closing I feel that housing should be availible to everyone who can afford it. To deny someone housing based on their marital status when they can clearly afford to live there is wrong. Eventually the courts will agree that its wrong and amend the fair housing act to include a broader definition of family status than one coined in 1969. In a civil court one could indeed prove that they were discriminated against with a good lawyer and probably get a nice fat check.
-
Did you read my post?
Let's back up.
You said that you don't like legislated morality. I said that all laws are based on morals, in the sense that all laws are based on an inherent sense of right and wrong. Then you said that since sodomy is now legal, then laws must not be based on morals. Huh?
I wasn't saying that laws are based on Judeo-Christian morals, nor was I saying that laws against murder, burglary and rape are based on the Ten Commandments. My argument had nothing to do with religion. I was simply saying that laws are based on abstracts such as "right" and "wrong".
You are saying (in the third paragraph) that laws are not moral, merely administrative - a way of keeping the peace and arbitrating arguments. That would work, if there were not natural rights explicitly laid out (things that cannot be infringed upon because it is against nature, i.e. immoral).
Let's look at your housing argument, taking all morals out of the picture:
Why should the landlord not discriminate? What is the problem with discrimination? I challenge you to explain the problems of discrimination without resorting to morals (try explaining it without saying that it is "wrong" or that people have natural rights.
What about all the social welfare laws? They are not administrative - they're not in place to arbitrate. They are done to help the less fortunate homeless, poor, unemployed etc... It is charitible, another incarnation of morals.
As for your complaints about the Fair Housing Act: Yes, it might be lacking. However, I merely brought it up for the purpose of quoting the law, responding to your post "I thought that community steering was illegal." No, it's not. Whether the FHA is out of date or unfair or whatever, it is currently not illegal to discriminate based on marital status.
-
I'm not saying that's a conspericy it's just well known that BYU has a lot of influence.
-
I agree. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
-
Another thing to remember, Jeffe, is that the city council action was referenced somewhat incorrectly by Spriggan. It is an addition to the zoning restrictions that happens to make a few concessions to BYU (because, as mentioned, BYU holds tremendous sway). Zoning restrictions are discriminatory by nature, if that's the word you want to use, because they are designed to structure communities: we'll put the stores here, the families here, and the students over here. The fact that the proposed bill makes concessions to BYU is actually the only redemmable part about it, because otherwise students would find it nearly impossible to get housing at all. Suffice it to say that almost nobody likes the bill, because it limits housing options and removes a major source of income for a lot of the elderly people in Provo who subsist solely on Social Security and rent checks. People are fighting against it, and I imagine that it will be killed.
Just wanted to set things straight. I could tell from your statements that you thought the bill was designed by or catered to BYU as a means of enforcing the Honor Code on an unwilling populace, and that's not true.
-
Thank you Fell for clairfying that,... That makes much more sense than Spriggans post which implied that it was a morality issue (an extesion of the BYU honor code into the community)
-
The problem is that Provo zoning laws don't account for normal singles. They assume all singles are students, which isn't true.
-
That's what I figured. Miscommunication has sparked many an interesting discussion.
-
I wasn't saying that laws are based on Judeo-Christian morals
But lets not be coy, since we live in the USA and we arn't talking about India I can infer that you meant Judeo Christian Morals and not Hindu, Buddhist, Stoic, or Confuscist Morals.
Let's look at your housing argument, taking all morals out of the picture:
Why should the landlord not discriminate? What is the problem with discrimination? I challenge you to explain the problems of discrimination without resorting to morals (try explaining it without saying that it is "wrong" or that people have natural rights
Whoah, WHoa, Whoa... since when are natural rights or natuaral law moral or immoral? Since morality reflects the changing view of society and their interpritation of various behaviors to insure "moral" stability the fact that something is a natural law isn't enough to make it moral. It may be a natural law that puppies grow up to be dogs or that Horses eat hay but it doesn't make their state of being moralistic. The fact that all men are created equal doesn't make that creation or the implied equality of the createeany more moral than if all men were created different.
I also never said all law was immoral if you reread what I said in the first paragraph!!
I feel confidant that law is not just designed to enforce morality
you might get that I was saying that morality is not the guiding force of law it is a contributing factor, but one that is often overlooked in the persuit of true justice.
What about all the social welfare laws? They are not administrative - they're not in place to arbitrate. They are done to help the less fortunate homeless, poor, unemployed etc... It is charitible, another incarnation of morals.
Are you actually saying those laws got passed out of the goodness of someones heart and their concern for right and wrong and not because people in the lower classes of society were rioting and killing people? They are there to arbitrate, between social classes...
they effectively say "Ok the government will assure you have a roof over your head and money to buy food, in exchange you wont burn down Salt Lake and kill your boss."
The arbitration comes in when the bosses are forced to pay their workers a minimum salary, assure extra pay for overtime, a 40 hour work week with breaks for the restroom and lunch.
Its not charitable, its scraps designed to keep people just poor enough to not get so ticked off they riot. You think minimum wage and the eight hour day are charity? Excuse me for laughing... HA!
-
Jeffe... here in britain we have this strange little idea.
We call it:
"Making Sense".
Try it sometime, its quite pleasant.
-
What don't you understand, I know I was in a bit of a hurry when I wrote the last post I am at work, but what didn't make sense to you.
-
If I may step in here, I have to argue against Jeffe's concept of natural rights. Are you saying that "all men are created equal" is a natural law without regard to the legal framework? That it is an immutable rule of society which exists outside of concepts of morality? I see no historical basis for that, and I doubt that you could successfully argue it. Cultures have existed (some still do) in which it is considered moral to degrade other people based on race, religion, gender, or whatever. Just because your culture doesn't do this doesn't mean that you're magically right. How can you say that the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge or the American slave owners were trampling on rights that they didn't even believe in, unless you impose your own moral framework on them?
-
I don't want to waste space with quotes, so i'll refer to your paragraphs.
First paragraph.
How many times do I have to say that I was not talking about religious morals. I was refering only to the difference between "right" and "wrong." Thank you for calling me coy, however. I don't think anyone ever has.
Second Paragraph.
You didn't even address my challenge. Explain discrimination without bringing "right"and "wrong" into it.
The natural laws are not moral in themselves. All men being created equal is not a moral law. However, if all men are created equal, and I discriminate against one of them, isn't that immoral (in the sense that it is "wrong"?) Explain the problems of discrimination, without putting it in the context of right and wrong.
Anyway, I am running out of time and need to get back to class.
Okay. I'll play your game. Given your reasoning for why there are social welfare laws "so you don't burn down the city and kill your boss": if you boil it down further it still goes to right and wrong. Burning things down is wrong. Murdering people is wrong. Infringing on the rights of others is wrong.
Did I make ANY reference to minimum wage and the 8 hour day in reference to charity? I believe i mentioned unemployment, homlessness, and poverty. I did mention etc. I guess, so maybe you thought I was meaning labor laws when I actually said social welfare laws.
Anyway, out of time.
-
Are you saying that "all men are created equal" is a natural law without regard to the legal framework?That it is an immutable rule of society which exists outside of concepts of morality?
Wow, that was so not how I wanted it to come out...
Let me reread what I typed and restate.
-
Now it's my turn to agree with Jeffe, because there are obvious cases where moral laws become amoral. As Malcolm X put it, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins." Burning cities and killing bosses is immoral, I'll admit, but that's not why I want to stop it from happening. I want to stop it because I live in the city and don't want all my stuff burned down. The lawmakers want to stop it because they're the bosses and don't want to get killed. Morality takes back seat to self-preservation in this case.
-
Like you said lets back up...
You said that you don't like legislated morality. I said that all laws are based on morals, in the sense that all laws are based on an inherent sense of right and wrong. Then you said that since sodomy is now legal, then laws must not be based on morals. Huh?
Actually I said that
Suffice it to say that I feel writing a law to arbitrairily enforce morality is wrong and against the constitution of the United States. I feel confidant that law is not just designed to enforce morality ...blah blah Supreme Court ...I find it hard to say all laws are based on a standard of morals
Ok the emphesis was my own, but Im sure I never said that no laws were based on morals or that all laws based on morals were wrong.
I did say I hate arbitrary laws that enforce morality on others. Specifically laws that limit my ability to prosper and live in a comfortable manner. This matter is moot because Spriggan quoted the legal circumstance wrong.
The example of the supreme court striking down Sodemy laws was to demonstrate that the original laws legislating a persons morality were wrong and violated a persons right to privacy and in the words of Chief justice Anthony Kennedy "demeans the lives of homosexual persons". The ruling is amoral where as the struck down laws are moral.
and since when do social welfare laws not involve labor laws. Did they become a different ilk just because the Labor movement is organized? They have the same purpose and in many cases the battles to get the laws passed were fought and won by the same people. Just because you never mentioned the 8 hour day 40 hour work week or minmum wage doesn't mean they arent social welfare laws.
But you say I dont address your challenge...
your right because its a bogus one.
You assume I meant that all laws were Amoral or that all moral laws were bad. I don't think thats the case at all. I do think that there is a reasonable line that can be drawn. My example about German and Latin law was not an expression of how I feel but fact. Sure there were feelings involved but the idea of being fined or even serving time are a variation on old verguilt laws that ensured famlies of the wronged got restitution for their property.
Fell What I meant to say about Natural Law is that limiting their use to only the moralistic camp is a cop out designed to rob anyone of the right to reply. Many natural rights arn't always moral, Letting a murder live because a policeman got him to confess after he requested to speak to a lawyer... or allowing a Klansman the right to free speech at a hate rally. I dont know if these are great examples, but natural rights can be just as amoral as moral.
-
As Malcolm X put it, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins."
nice quote, wish I'd thought of it.
-
I know what you're saying, I just think that the concept of "natural rights" is tied up with morals inextricably. You cannot have natural rights without a previous notion of what is right and wrong, and that (as Mustard pointed out) is a moral statement. We have defined certain rights for our nation, among them free speech (I don't think "right to an attorney" is considered a natural right, but whatever), and because of our beliefs we say that these are basic human rights that everyone everywhere is supposed to have. Other nations don't have those rights, or have defined them differently. Just because we label them "natural rights," does that make other countries wrong? Only in relation to our made-up definition of what is right, which we can only hold from a moral perspective. Take those morals away and you have no natural rights, just some cool laws we choose to live by.
-
Unless we doggedly hold to the opinion that all the other nations are wrong... and that only we have it right ;D
After all we are Americans!!! ;D Well Some of us anyways.
Seriously though I do see your point but dont think its an absolute.
-
I was, of course, ignoring the fact that Americans are always right. We are, so the subject is moot, but it's fun to argue occasionally anyway.
And may I say, thanks for keeping it civil. It's very refreshing :)
-
Who are we to take away the inaliable American right to argue ;D
-
weird I replied to you post but it didn't post.
-
Actually one of the most poingant errors with Jeffe's argument is that he keeps relying on the recent sodomy law repeal. This repeal DOES in fact changing morality. CNN spent a good chunk of the afternoon showing stats about how the American populance doesn't think it's wrong anymore for the most part.
-
as long as it's two consenting adults, who cares what they do in their own bedroom.
-
Be careful about that last comment Spriggan. A sadist torturing a sado machoistic - both are concenting, yet i think it is safe to say that allowing them to take the hot irons to each other is a bit beyond the pale.
-
Well here's what the Supreme Court has to say to that
"the Bowers court was of course making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Courts obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code."
Lawrence ET AL v. Texas
-
So the Supreme Court is saying that centuries of people were wrong, and that we know better than they did? That it is wrong to prohibit certain things? That sounds like a moral choice to me.
-
Not to interupt, but I got an apartment. Signed the lease just a few minutes ago.
Now you can go back to your discussion on laws and morals.
-
Don't just leave it at that--where's your new apartment? How soon will you be moving in?
-
The apartment is in south Orem, a couple blocks away from where EUOL and Tage used to live.
It's in the basement of an old house, but the interior has been newly remodeled. Spriggan and Prometheus will be moving with me. It's a three bedroom apartment, and the owners are covering the utilities so I won't have to worry about Spriggan forgetting to pay bills as long as he pays rent on time.
We'll be moving-in in about two weeks