If Americans though it was horrific that your business and life could be destroyed for not baking a cake or not printing a tee-shirt that one found offensive was bad, they really need to see where this sort of thing is going and what the Obama Regime is doing.
Forget cakes and tee-shirts for queers. The Obama Regime is demanding that landlords rent the apartment to criminals if those criminals are non-White, especially Black.
Across the United States, African Americans and Hispanics are arrested, convicted and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population. Consequently, criminal records-based barriers to housing are likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority home seekers. While having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act, criminal history-based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if, without justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of one race or national origin over another (i.e., discriminatory effects liability).
A housing provider violates the Fair Housing Act when the provider’s policy or practice has an unjustified discriminatory effect, even when the provider had no intent to discriminate. Under this standard, a facially – neutral policy or practice that has a discriminatory effect violates the Act if it is not supported by a legally sufficient justification. Thus, where a policy or practice that restricts access to housing on the basis of criminal history has a disparate impact on individuals of a particular race, national origin, or other protected class, such policy or practice is unlawful under the Fair Housing Act if it is not necessary to serve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the housing provider, or if such interest could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.
And of course, if the non-White criminal files a discrimination complaint, the landlord or “property provider” is the one who must shoulder the burden and expense of proving that they had a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest in not renting property the non-White criminal, that such interest was neither hypothetical nor speculative, that not renting the property to the non-White criminal in question would achieve that interest, and that not renting the property to the non-White criminal was the only way to achieve that interest.
Yes, in this case as it is in every single case involving “disparate impact,” “discriminatory effect,” and “protected classes” there is a presumption of guilt upon the presumably White defendant – guilty until proven innocent. This is because the accused, if White, is considered guilty not due to his or her actions and motives but because the complainant is non-White and the effect upon the complainant is negative.
To further degrade any hope for true, unbiased justice in these matters, consider the qualifications needed for the landlord’s interests – substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and neither hypothetical nor speculative. All of these are completely and utterly subjective. These are metrics decided upon solely so that the government is the final arbiter of what any case’s results will be.
Cracka, you will rent the apartment to that Black or Hispanic thug or you will be destroyed.