Ohio landlord wants commission to reconsider ruling on 'white only' sign - Polidicks

[QUOTE](CNN) -- A landlord wants the Ohio Civil Rights Commission on Thursday to reconsider its finding that she violated the law by posting a "white only" sign at her swimming pool. Jamie Hein has asked the commission to reverse its initial ruling that found she violated the Ohio Civil Rights Act by putting up a sign that read "Public Swimming Pool, White Only" at her Cincinnati duplex. The commission, meeting this week in Columbus, concluded last year that the sign "restricts the social contact between Caucasians and African Americans as well as reinforcing discrimination actions that are aimed at oppressing all 'people of color.'" The case was brought by Michael Gunn, a white man who said had unrestricted access to the pool area for himself and his guests during the nearly two years he lived in the duplex, he said in a December interview. Gunn, a software engineer, said he and his girlfriend, who is also white, lived upstairs; their 31-year-old landlord lived downstairs. However, he said their relationship soured in May 2011 when he invited his 10-year-old biracial daughter to visit and swim in the pool. "Complainant states that the owner, Jamie Hein, accused his daughter of making the pool 'cloudy' because she used chemicals in her hair," the commission said in its summary. "Days later, the owner posted a sign on the gate to the pool which read, 'Public Swimming Pool, White Only.'" Hein said she received the sign from a friend and posted it in early May, the summary says. Several people interviewed by the commission staff confirmed that they had seen the sign, it added. Hein did not respond to a request for comment at the time. But she told ABC News in December that she collects antiques. She said the sign, which was dated 1931 and from Alabama, was a gift from a friend. "I don't have any problem with race at all. It's a historical sign," she told ABC. Gunn said he was outraged by the sign and made arrangements to find another place to live as soon as he could. "We were extremely upset and moved out on June 21, 2011, in order to not expose my daughter to the sign and the humiliation of the message," Gunn wrote in his complaint. He said he never confronted Hein about the matter, but has no doubt that the sign was intended for his daughter. [img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/111217125429-white-only-pool-sign-michael-gunn-story-top.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/12/us/us-whites-only-pool/index.html?hpt=hp_t3[/url]

Pool's closed.

[quote]Hein did not respond to a request for comment at the time. But she told ABC News in December that she collects antiques. She said the sign, which was dated 1931 and from Alabama, was a gift from a friend.[/quote] Collecting antiques is fine, displaying them publicly with the intent to actually discriminate people is something completely different.

it's to preserve the gene pool

-snip- Baaaaad reading.

If I wanted to display it as an antiquity, I would add a big disclaimer next to it, saying that this is not my actual view nor opinion, and that it serves only as memory of not so glorious past.

My family and I saw those at a swap meet, a bunch of "white only" and "no coloreds" signs, my parents were considering buying some. We aren't white.

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;34176321]My family and I saw those at a swap meet, a bunch of "white only" and "no coloreds" signs, my parents were considering buying some. We aren't white.[/QUOTE] Prominently display them on your front door.

Wow, what a stupid fucking excuse to justify your bigotry. "oh its an antique it should be kept in its historical spot!" It is like saying we should reopen and continue killing people at Auschwitz because it is a historical piece and we must preserve the differing culture.

[QUOTE=1chains1;34176438]Wow, what a stupid fucking excuse to justify your bigotry. "oh its an antique it should be kept in its historical spot!" It is like saying we should reopen and continue killing people at Auschwitz because it is a historical piece and we must preserve the differing culture.[/QUOTE] :godwin:

[QUOTE=hegrec;34176202]Pool's closed.[/QUOTE] Quick, a Facepuncher that lives close there go and tape that picture over it and take a picture. :v:

B..But,what if the water turns black? [IMG]http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/emot-iiam.gif[/IMG]

Ok old =/= historical

Somebody's brains need to be pulled out of their asses...

So what I'd want to know is did the girl leave a cloud of chemicals behind in the pool? Not because it justifies the sign, nothing can justify that kind of sign in my opinion, but because I just want to know what level of racist the landlord is. A parental failure to make sure his kid is properly prepared to go for a swim in the communal pool, by making sure she's washed off any crap from her hair(whether it's dye or any other substance) would explain to me why the landlord felt like she needed to put up a sign. Even if the sign she choose is offensive, at least she has the excuse of being provoked. If part of my resposibiliies were the the care of this pool and someone was contaminating it with chemicals, you can be sure I'd deal with that ASAP. On the other hand, it would make the landlord look much worse if she's lying about the girl's hair, and just put up the sign because she looked at who was in the pool and thought "OMG, she's not white!".

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;34177076]:godwin:[/QUOTE] you realize that "godwin" comparisons are generally acceptable and logical assuming you aren't actually comparing someone to nazis and pretending they're evil and/or hold the same thoughts as a nazi it's like you just read "nazi" or "hitler" in someone's post and reply "godwin" as if its a hilarious logical fallacy

[QUOTE=Kopimi;34178546]you realize that "godwin" comparisons are generally acceptable and logical assuming you aren't actually comparing someone to nazis and pretending they're evil and/or hold the same thoughts as a nazi it's like you just read "nazi" or "hitler" in someone's post and reply "godwin" as if its a hilarious logical fallacy[/QUOTE] it doesn't have to be logical or illogical, hitler/nazis just have to be mentioned, that's what i've understood.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/V9Tkf.png[/img] [b]Requiring equal access to the pool would be a far more egregious abuse of rights than banning the blacks from using it[/b] [img]http://i.imgur.com/V9Tkf.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;34180257][img]http://i.imgur.com/V9Tkf.png[/img] [b]Requiring equal access to the pool would be a far more egregious abuse of rights than banning the blacks from using it[/b] [img]http://i.imgur.com/V9Tkf.png[/img][/QUOTE] heh i like this one.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;34178546]you realize that "godwin" comparisons are generally acceptable and logical assuming you aren't actually comparing someone to nazis and pretending they're evil and/or hold the same thoughts as a nazi it's like you just read "nazi" or "hitler" in someone's post and reply "godwin" as if its a hilarious logical fallacy[/QUOTE] what has that got to do with anything he invoked Godwins law did he not?