Remember, this guy has been suspected of being in the pocket of Russians since a year before the election.
That may or may not be related to this decision; you don't need to be paid by the Russians to be a Republican asshole.
Rohrabacher needs to get blue waved, I'll be watching his seat on election night with fingers crossed
I wouldn't want to rent or buy any of your houses either, you bigoted asswipe.
“A homeowner should not be required to be in business with someone they think is doing something that is immoral.”
i think its interesting how he said "someone they think is doing something immoral", and not "someone who is doing something [objectively] immoral"
if I recall correctly, Rohrabacher is in one of the most vulnerable seats, so it'll be nice to see this stooge get washed out
I didn't know this asswipe was one of ours, now I feel extra dumb for entirely forgetting to register to vote
Don't want no faggots in the neighborhood giving your children AIDS
Fuck's sake how long are we going to tolerate this "my religion gives me the right to completely ignore your very existence" bullshit
We're already in a world where the majority supports homosexuality -- at least in the US. As of January last year, Pew Research polling showed public support for gay marriage at ~70%. That's still unacceptably low, but in 2001 only 35% of the public supported gay marriage, so it's really been a rather remarkable shift in a relatively short period of time, and keeps getting better. There's still a long way to go, but we're on the right track.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Why would you want to live next to the KKK for example?
So are we going to spend 6 pages arguing the difference between the average gay and the kkk now?
That's not what's being said, what's being said is "I am instantly assuming that the neighbourhood is homophobic so it's better if the gays don't move there"
Which makes not one single bit of sense at all but whatever. :/
Huh don't think I've said that, no...
"for example" would be a good way to notice that. Simply assumed that whoever sells you the house could make your life a living hell just because of your sexual orientation, but ok
Dana's just upset because he has a lady's first name
I'm sorry I can't take your wad of cash ma'am or sir, it might have gay on it.
Funny how republicans are so fucking eager to shove unrestrained no rules fuck you got mine capitalism up your ass until their imaginary friend gets their feelings hurt.
Also, as a licensed Realtor, the notion of disclosing a prospective buyer's personal details to the seller is a gigantic ethical "no no" in general, and disclosing their race or sexuality as if it were in any way whatsoever relevant to their financial ability to purchase the home is outright illegal under Federal Fair Housing laws and most state licensing laws. The only thing the seller needs to know about the buyers is whether or not they're ready, willing, and able to purchase.
this makes it ok to not sell to republicans with this line of thinking
Why did my head just drop into my keyboard?
Oh wait, cause this is probably the dumbest way to view this...
I mean, isn't that one of the problems realtors are indirectly solving? You're mandated to be ethical go-betweens for homeowners and buyers, and that means being a procedural trap that prevents a prejudiced seller from refusing to sell to e.g. a person of colour or demanding a much higher market rate based on the colour of their skin. You're essentially the seller's representative to buyers but you're required to obey laws enforcing ethical and fair conduct in the marketplace.
"No Homes for Homos" is going to resonate with very much the wrong people.
...
"for example"
Pretty much, yeah. In an average transaction, the seller won't ever actually meet or speak with the buyer directly. Stripping out emotion from the deal and handling everything through intermediaries not only helps prevent prejudicial treatment of any buyers or sellers, but ultimately helps everybody get a better deal even when prejudice isn't likely to have been a factor either way.
It's kind of a different issue when you're renting from a landlord though, which I doubt this guy minds landlords evicting or denying gay people.
just the other week me and the gay clansmen donned our rainbow colored robes and lynched a couple of straight republican dudes. Then we started a giant orgy while burning a gigantic picture of cher.
Christ I'd expect people here to know what a sarcastic comment would look like without needing the sarcasm mark by now
Does this mean it's okay for us to collectively refuse to sell him a home too?
I know people who are Literally Like This, especially now that Trump's elected and bringing out pure scum from the woodwork.
You need to make it clear it's sarcasm when it can easily be mistaken for a serious comment. Which in the current climate is completely possible since white nationalists are crawling out of the woodwork thanks to our worthless president.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/220332/52f7d085-8702-42e3-a31e-f2926a110fb1/image.png
This is literally across the street from the Westboro Baptist Church
This is FP. Not the outside world of crazed up people who think Trump is a godsend.
We all share the same ideals, safe for very few people.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
