Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

COEUR D'ALENE -- In an odd twist of events, the Aryan Nations claims its being discriminated against as their public pronouncement of wanting to move the group from Athol, Idaho to John Day, Oregon has been met with an overwhelmingly negative response.

So many people in fact turned out to a public meeting to protest the Aryan Nations looking into buying land in the John Day area that hundreds of people had to be turned away.

Paul Mullet, the 36-year-old self-proclaimed leader of the Aryan Nations, says his group has gotten angry e-mails, phone calls and negative publicity from a planned moved to eastern Oregon and he says he doesn't understand why.

http://www.kxly.com/news/22688613/detail.html

It's perfectly legal for private land owners to discriminate against people based on political affiliation/beliefs. So the Aryan Nation has no legal argument here if no one wants to sell them land simply because of the group's political beliefs.

RobsPics wrote:It's perfectly legal for private land owners to discriminate against people based on political affiliation/beliefs. So the Aryan Nation has no legal argument here if no one wants to sell them land simply because of the group's political beliefs.

Awesome. I'm gonna buy up a town and not let any democrats OR republicans in.

RobsPics wrote:
It's perfectly legal for private land owners to discriminate against people based on political affiliation/beliefs. So the Aryan Nation has no legal argument here if no one wants to sell them land simply because of the group's political beliefs.

Is that true? I've always wondered how much freedome private people have in such matters. My mother-in-law was working on renting out a house belonging to her mother and was close to signing the lease to one guy when she realized he and his girlfriend were both going to move in. She told them no and ended up renting to place out to someone else.

Always been curious if that was strictly legal.

RobsPics wrote:

Paul Mullet, the 36-year-old self-proclaimed leader of the Aryan Nations, says his group has gotten angry e-mails, phone calls and negative publicity from a planned moved to eastern Oregon and he says he doesn't understand why.

http://www.kxly.com/news/22688613/detail.html

What a great name for the leader of the Aryan Nation.

JMU DJ wrote:

RobsPics wrote:
http://www.kxly.com/news/22688613/detail.html

What a great name for the leader of the Aryan Nation.

Or a tea party.

So...if he was the leader of the Black Panthers how long would it take for this to be all over the news, and how long owuld it take for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to be claiming racism?

RobsPics wrote:

COEUR D'ALENE -- In an odd twist of events, the Aryan Nations claims its being discriminated against as their public pronouncement of wanting to move the group from Athol, Idaho to John Day, Oregon has been met with an overwhelmingly negative response.

So many people in fact turned out to a public meeting to protest the Aryan Nations looking into buying land in the John Day area that hundreds of people had to be turned away.

Paul Mullet, the 36-year-old self-proclaimed leader of the Aryan Nations, says his group has gotten angry e-mails, phone calls and negative publicity from a planned moved to eastern Oregon and he says he doesn't understand why.

http://www.kxly.com/news/22688613/detail.html

It's perfectly legal for private land owners to discriminate against people based on political affiliation/beliefs. So the Aryan Nation has no legal argument here if no one wants to sell them land simply because of the group's political beliefs.

You think your take on it would hold up if it was a black group trying to buy in? Somehow, I think they have a bit of a point here. Either we don't discriminate against anyone in these matters or we do but picking and choosing who we decide to discriminate agains is the highest form of discrimination.

What if this were a gay group trying to buy in and they were met with this kind of opposition? I think the owners of the land should be able to have the rights you referenced and sell to whomever they want to but it seems we are applying different rules here.

[youtube][/youtube]

Wedgebuster wrote:[youtube][/youtube]

One of my favorite episodes ever. Cartman's waterpark.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

RobsPics wrote:
http://www.kxly.com/news/22688613/detail.html

It's perfectly legal for private land owners to discriminate against people based on political affiliation/beliefs. So the Aryan Nation has no legal argument here if no one wants to sell them land simply because of the group's political beliefs.

You think your take on it would hold up if it was a black group trying to buy in? Somehow, I think they have a bit of a point here. Either we don't discriminate against anyone in these matters or we do but picking and choosing who we decide to discriminate agains is the highest form of discrimination.

What if this were a gay group trying to buy in and they were met with this kind of opposition? I think the owners of the land should be able to have the rights you referenced and sell to whomever they want to but it seems we are applying different rules here.

You don't have much of a choice about being black or gay. You can however chose whether or not to be a member of a terrorist organization like the Aryan Nations.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:[youtube][/youtube]

One of my favorite episodes ever. Cartman's waterpark.

We tested the pH. It was almost all p, no H.

mebison wrote:

RobsPics wrote:
It's perfectly legal for private land owners to discriminate against people based on political affiliation/beliefs. So the Aryan Nation has no legal argument here if no one wants to sell them land simply because of the group's political beliefs.

Is that true? I've always wondered how much freedome private people have in such matters. My mother-in-law was working on renting out a house belonging to her mother and was close to signing the lease to one guy when she realized he and his girlfriend were both going to move in. She told them no and ended up renting to place out to someone else.

Always been curious if that was strictly legal.

Discrimination, per se, is not illegal.

In regards to housing, discrimination is only illegal if it is based upon RACE, RELIGION, SEX, and other certain criteria as listed here:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/index.cfm

So yes it is illegal to discriminate simply based on a person's RACE, be it BLACKS or WHITES or any other race.

But it is not illegal to discriminate against WHITE Supremacists, or Black Supremacists, or any other racial supremacy group.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

RobsPics wrote:
http://www.kxly.com/news/22688613/detail.html

It's perfectly legal for private land owners to discriminate against people based on political affiliation/beliefs. So the Aryan Nation has no legal argument here if no one wants to sell them land simply because of the group's political beliefs.

You think your take on it would hold up if it was a black group trying to buy in? Somehow, I think they have a bit of a point here. Either we don't discriminate against anyone in these matters or we do but picking and choosing who we decide to discriminate agains is the highest form of discrimination.

What if this were a gay group trying to buy in and they were met with this kind of opposition? I think the owners of the land should be able to have the rights you referenced and sell to whomever they want to but it seems we are applying different rules here.

Like I said before, according to the Federal Fair Housing act, it is illegal to discriminate against people simply because of race.

But nowhere in that act does it say it is illegal to discriminate against people simply based on that person's political affiliation/beliefs.

So if the landowner refused to sell to MULLET simply because he is white, that is plainly illegal.

But if the landowner refused to sell to MULLET simply because he is part of the Aryan Nation, then that is perfectly legal. I would hold the same if a land owner refused to sell to a person simply because that person was a liberal democrat, neo-nazi, republican, or tea bagger, etc.

I wonder if people could legally refuse to sell/rent/whatever strictly on the basis of eye color or hair color.

JayJ79 wrote:I wonder if people could legally refuse to sell/rent/whatever strictly on the basis of eye color or hair color.

Here is your answer-

To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

All other forms of discrimination are not unlawful.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/title8.php

What kind of IDIOT would announce they were moving and WHERE they planned to move? Why not just go quitely buy up some big compound somewhere and be done with it? Making a public pronouncement PRIOR to actually having secured something just further shows their ignorance.

I hope they find something, to get the fuck out of Idaho. They have ruined the reputation of one of the prettiest parts of the country. Maybe Iceland will take them.

Wedgebuster wrote:

JayJ79 wrote:I wonder if people could legally refuse to sell/rent/whatever strictly on the basis of eye color or hair color.

Here is your answer-

To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

All other forms of discrimination are not unlawful.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/title8.php

Guess it depends on what the "color" clause covers. If it is just skin color, or if it also includes the color of one's eyes, hair, underwear, etc.

JayJ79 wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
Here is your answer-

To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

All other forms of discrimination are not unlawful.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/title8.php

Guess it depends on what the "color" clause covers. If it is just skin color, or if it also includes the color of one's eyes, hair, underwear, etc.

eyes, hair, underwear?

I doubt if the color clause includes underwear.

BlueHen86 wrote:eyes, hair, underwear?

I doubt if the color clause includes underwear.

phew! I was worried that I might be facing a lawsuit over not renting to someone because of their blue thong.

AZGrizFan wrote:What kind of IDIOT would announce they were moving and WHERE they planned to move? Why not just go quitely buy up some big compound somewhere and be done with it? Making a public pronouncement PRIOR to actually having secured something just further shows their ignorance.

I hope they find something, to get the fuck out of Idaho. They have ruined the reputation of one of the prettiest parts of the country. Maybe Iceland will take them.

It is most likely not ignorance but a thought out plan to motivate hatred and gel those on the fringe into believing they are persecuted. They have to understand the hatred out there towards their group so they make a gesture like this and get some publicity while never really planning to do it anyway.

JayJ79 wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:eyes, hair, underwear?

I doubt if the color clause includes underwear.

phew! I was worried that I might be facing a lawsuit over not renting to someone because of their blue thong.

I'm all for the blue thongers. They make the world a better place. Don't get me started on the granny panties though.

kalm wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: You think your take on it would hold up if it was a black group trying to buy in? Somehow, I think they have a bit of a point here. Either we don't discriminate against anyone in these matters or we do but picking and choosing who we decide to discriminate agains is the highest form of discrimination.

What if this were a gay group trying to buy in and they were met with this kind of opposition? I think the owners of the land should be able to have the rights you referenced and sell to whomever they want to but it seems we are applying different rules here.

You don't have much of a choice about being black or gay. You can however chose whether or not to be a member of a terrorist organization like the Aryan Nations.

They are not a terrorist organization.........bigot.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

kalm wrote:
You don't have much of a choice about being black or gay. You can however chose whether or not to be a member of a terrorist organization like the Aryan Nations.

They are not a terrorist organization.........bigot.

I'll bet they actually do wonderful things in the community.

houndawg wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

They are not a terrorist organization.........bigot.

I'll bet they actually do wonderful things in the community.

I think they donate to clean up highways.

grizzaholic wrote:

houndawg wrote:

I'll bet they actually do wonderful things in the community.

I think they donate to clean up highways.

They're just misunderstood.