Veteran Claims Anti-War Landlord Discriminated Against Him In Refusing Him An Apartment

A 29-year-old Massachusetts veteran who served multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan says it’s that very service that kept him from renting an apartment. He’s now suing the landlord, claiming she discriminated against him because of his military experience when she turned him down.

WBZ News in Boston cites voicemails the reporter listened to, in which the landlord tells the man why he wouldn’t be a good fit for the two-bedroom apartment.

“Because of what you told me about the Iraq war… we are very adamant about our beliefs… it’s just not comfortable for us… and I’m sure now that you know this, it would not be comfortable for you,” [the landlord] said in a voicemail to [the veteran].

“I would suggest you do the right thing and look for a place less politically active or controversial.”

“I’ve been deployed so many times, I really haven’t had much of a home,” the man, a divorced father, said. He’s training to be a Boston firefighter and needed a place to live in town.

He says all he wanted to do was give her a check, and rent an apartment, but now he’s shocked and confused.

“It really freaked me out that ‘Is this what I’m going to be facing? Should I not let people know that I’m a combat vet?’” He has since found another apartment to rent.

As WBZ notes, military service members and veterans are part of a protected class in Massachusetts and as such, cannot be discriminated against.

Anti-War Activist Refuses To Rent Apartment To Iraq-Afghanistan Vet [WBZ News Boston]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. crazymikie says:

    I’m so sorry for this guy. I hope the landlord loses everything in court. This is absolutely disgusting.

    • CommonSense(ಠ_ಠ) says:

      Not disgusting.
      The military is all voluntary and this person was not fighting/killing to protect America.
      He was invading other countries and killing people as he was ordered to do for BS military compaigns.

      I agree that the landlord can screen renters based on their occupation or past occupations.
      The landlord has every right to screen based on that. Occupation is not a protected class.

      When we are in a real war to protect US soil, Im sure this landlord would have no problem renting to someone protecting America.

      • Zowzers says:

        Wow, just wow.

        The fact that our military is voluntary should foster more reverence for those that choose to serve.

        also, the landlord in this case is in violation of Massachusetts law; veterans are a protected class.

        • thedarkerside.to says:

          I don’t quite get that logic. Why should they be more referred because they chose to join the military?

          I could sort of get it if the country would be under attack and people would join to defend the nation, but even with all the war operations going on there is still a huge chunk of people who joined the military who will never see the front line.

          Yeah, I admit, I perceive the military as a necessary evil and to glorify it is a big problem in my opinion. Why? Because it removes the ability to actually question the Military as the organization.

          Having said that. There are heroic individuals, but to declare an entire job description “Heroes” only serves those who want to exploit the soldiers for their own gain.

      • TuxthePenguin says:

        But veteran status is. And I thought the whole screed was “we support the troops, but not the war!”

        Guess that changed… I know many people who absolutely hated the reasons we went into Iraq, but since they had made a promise to follow orders, they went and fought anyway.

        • TheMansfieldMauler says:

          we support the troops, but not the war!

          ….right – except that they supported the war when public opinion was high and it was time to vote for appropriations, and they never have done anything that shows support of the troops (photo ops at bases are not “support”, they are political hackery).

      • madmallard says:

        wow, not sure if troll…

        even if we just take your screed at face value, why descriminate against the guy following orders? What does harassing him about a place to live do about the people giving those “BS” orders?

        Absolutely nothing. He’s just an easy target from the cheap seats you’re sitting in.

        • 12345678nine says:

          Harrassing him? They gave an honest reason as to why they didn’t want him there. It is a choice to join the military. If it weren’t I would think differently on this. I don’t support people that join this war to do things that I believe are immoral. I don’t care if you are just following orders, following orders doing bad things is still bad. CHOOSING a profession that for years has commited immoral acts is not the type of person I would want to rent to either.

          • SBR249 says:

            Too bad it’s not your choice whether or not you want to rent to the person because he’s a veteran. If being a military veteran is a protected class, then you are not legally not to denial his application based on that. Don’t like it? Don’t be a landlord.

            • Anachronism says:

              THIS. THIS. THIS.

              If you don’t feel you want to obey laws against housing discrimination, don’t rent. If you don’t believe those laws are fair (and I wasn’t sure military members needed this type of protection, but reading the dumbass comments in this thread solidly convinced me), DON’T BE A LANDLORD, or hold off on being a landlord until you can convince the approrpriate governing body to change the law.

              I’m a landlord, at least I own a house that a property management company leases for me. One of the first things the property managers told me is that they do not allow owners any say in review tenant applications, as a defense against getting sued over housing discrimination. If they owner is not involved in the process, and the property manager gets sued, they can show their process for reviewing applications in a non-discriminatory manner.

              If the owner is involved, then the property managers can be on the hook for whatever racist/sexist/epithets against a protected class that the owner has been documented to have uttered in the past about the same class that they rejected from leasing their property.

          • Kuri says:

            Actually, no, far as I read up there, it was the landlord and her alone, much like the politicians who sent him out, I doubt she asked any other tenant for their opinion.

          • madmallard says:

            again, more asinine remarks from the cheap seats.

            first of all; being honest about your feelings doesn’t innoculate you from being a harasser of someone else. And it is harassment because this landlord gave a reason that was completely superfluous to anything to do with letting him property.

            second of all, the entire rest of your raving post assumes a false premise that this guy did something wrong as a soldier. Well, the article didn’t mention anything he’s done as a soldier other than where he’s been, now did it? But you dont stop there, because the only way your remark can continue is if ALL military has done is bad and immoral things. Another false premise from the peanut gallery.

            Lastly, if we follow what poses as your line of reasoning, then it would be perfectly okay to be a landlord and deny OBGYN doctor and nurses that provide abortion services any kind of access to housing too, just because the landlord is a staunch anti-abortionist. After all, they CHOOSE their profession that in his eyes commits immoral acts, right? Still think this position can hold intellectual weight?

      • pgr says:

        Right on!

        I’m sick and tired of hearing about so called “American Heroes” who’s biggest claim to fame is they couldn’t find a job because they were to dumb or had no education, or are actually naive enough to think they are really protecting their country by invading a sovereign foreign country that some right-wing conservative group says is a threat to “Our way of life”.

        If you are/were dumb enough to voluntarily join the military I wouldn’t want to be around you either!

        • MutantMonkey says:

          I never met anyone as hateful as you while I was in the military, though I did meet quite a few who sounded a lot more reasonable and intelligent.

        • Zowzers says:

          Is it lonely up on that pedestal of yours?

          Pigeonholing a large and diverse group of people rarely make for good arguments.

        • madmallard says:

          you have problems on a larger scale than the scope of this website if what you tell yourself is that the only people in the military is because they were too dumb to chose any other occupation.

        • bastion72 says:

          As a 19 year veteran of the military, go fuck yourself. Disenvowel me if you want mods, I won’t sit idly by and listen to this scumbag disrespect military members that volunteer to spend weeks or months away from their family to help other people/make the world safe. I’d like to see you bad mouth a military member to their face. Sit behind your keyboard and talk shit, scumbag.

          • MsEllenT says:

            Yeah, the US has made Afghanistan the safest place on the planet! See the tourists line up around the block! You’ve done SO much good work there. USA! USA! USA!

            • RevancheRM says:

              Wasn’t it you that sent the military there. You vote(don’t vote) for the politicians who then act in what they deem necessary to get your vote.

              Whether by your action or inaction, you’re ultimately responsible for the turnout in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the individual soldier.

        • jack11058 says:

          “Right on!

          I’m sick and tired of hearing about so called [gays/asians/scientologists] who’s biggest claim to fame is they couldn’t [be straight/drive well/not joing a cult] because they were (oops, ironic!) dumb or had no education, or are actually naive enough to think they are really [born that way/great at math/descended from aliens].

          If you are/were dumb enough to [love madonna/have demanding parents/cleanse your n-grams] I wouldn’t want to be around you either.”

          See what I did there? Yeah, I’m constantly amazed by the intolerance spouted by those who consistently rail against intolerance. I joined the military in 2000 because I love my country and wanted to spend some of my life in service to it. I’d like to think I’m not an idiot.

          While I absolutely revile your point of view, as a soldier, I would have given my life for you to have the right to spout such ingorant invective.

          Reply

      • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

        You’re an asshat. You sign up for the military as a volunteer, yes. You don’t get to decide where you fight. Once you’re in, you’re owned by the military. He did an honorable thing by signing up to defend our country.

        That said, I hate the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as much as the next person, but both you and the landlord should be ashamed of your attitude of someone willing to do things you probably only see in your nightmares.

        And if you’d read the whole article, military service *is* a protected class.

        • CommonSense(ಠ_ಠ) says:

          If you volunteered in the military after WWII you were not fighting to protect America.
          You were volunteering to fight and kill people in foreign wars that had no bearing on the safety of the USA.

          • Talmonis says:

            By your logic, America should have been completely defenseless and without a standing force in the days after the largest war in history. You sir, are not making sense.

          • Kuri says:

            You need to change your username, as you clearly lack what it is.

          • HogwartsProfessor says:

            Maybe, but if a war suddenly erupted here, you bet the military would be called in. So there is a tacit acceptance that the military DOES exist to protect the country.

            Many cops don’t ever use their weapons their entire career, but they’re still required to have them and stay certified anyway. Just in case.

          • madmallard says:

            Haiti and Tohoku Japan are calling, they have a ‘clue’ that you apparently misplaced.

          • Round-Eye 外人はコンスマリッストが好きです。 says:

            You are so completely lacking in any intelligence, I can’t begin to comprehend how you can even use the internet.

            When you volunteer for military service, you are putting yourself at the whim of the leadership of the country, to fight in whatever war the LEADERSHIP (let me say that again LEADERSHIP, you fucking asshat) wants to fight. Sometimes the war is on American soil, sometimes it’s not.

            Again. Please leave.

            • Costner says:

              Not saying I agree with CommonSense (at all), but this silly notion you continue to use is comical. You don’t agree with someone, so you feel they should leave? Really??

              Put your big boy pants on and do your best to debate him… or don’t. However asking to telling someone to go away probably isn’t the most effective tactic you might use.

        • Baphomet73 says:

          “You sign up for the military as a volunteer, yes. You don’t get to decide where you fight.”

          You contradict yourself here. To avoid fighting, the simple answer is to avoid signing up to begin with. Joining the military in the U.S. is optional.

          CommonSense’s point still stands.

          • sp4rxx says:

            Um …. there is no draft so YES he DID volunteer to defend his country and fight on behalf of those of us who can’t or won’t…

            So no that point does not contradict and no the point does not stand

        • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

          No one is fighting to protect our country/freedom right now. The last war we fought to actually protect ourselves and our freedom was WWII. The rest has just been meddling in other people’s business to protect American interests in one way or another. And, this war has been going on for a while. It shouldn’t be any surprise to anyone who willingly signs up that they have a chance of going. Since we have been at war in one way or another for 209 of the 235 years we have been a country, it’s basically common sense that if you sign up for the US military that you will be fighting someone somewhere for something. And, since men still run there world and the US, the wars will not be stopping any time soon. So, yes, in a sense, they can control their fate by not signing up.

          With that said, I have no disrespect for veterans and do think they should be protected b/c of people out there who have a weird hatred for vets. These are people who would be fighting for our freedom if our freedom does actually become in jeopardy at some point in time and I feel they deserve some special respect. The landlord who did this was in the wrong.

          • Hibyeman says:

            i agree for the vietnam war but not for the first gulf war or iraq or afgnastan does 9/11 ring any bells we were under attack we now that the afganastan and iraq armys are well enough we are leaving them alone and how would you like it if gas was ten bucks a gallon i bet you it would be if not for the first gulf war vietnam was half to stop communists spread half to prove we were not scared to get dirty

      • who? says:

        Regardless of your beliefs, which you’re entitled to, I suppose, being a military veteran is a legally protected class in Mass. The guy’s going to win.

      • Kuri says:

        So this man should just be left homeless because of the prejudices of the owner of the place in which he wants to live?

        I guess you’d say the same about my father despite that he’s been out of the service for two and a half decades.

        • imasqre says:

          That was the only apartment available to rent in Boston?! Wow!
          And yes, we would say the exact same thing about your father, brother, mother or sister. Veterans and their families have the worst elitist attitudes I have ever experienced.

          • Zowzers says:

            Irrelevant, See Massachusetts state law regarding protected classes.

            this land lord appears to have chosen not to rent to this person on the basis that he is a veteran, this violating state law.

            • imasqre says:

              The state law is ridiculous.
              That is my point.

              • semidazed says:

                The state law dictates that a veteran cannot be discriminated against based on his former profession. There’s no preferential treatment in being permitted to use the same water fountains, schools, and transit as anyone else. When a person opens their private property for rent, they are required to follow the laws that will prevent them from discriminating based on race, country of origin, etc. That is not preferential treatment. That is equal treatment.

                In this case, the law clearly is not ridiculous because this man was denied housing from this woman based on his military service. If you’ve read any of the vitriol pouring forth from all sides in the comment threads, then I hope you’ll agree that with professions considered to be as vital and controversial as military service- there should be some level of protection for people returning from duty.

                Hopefully the courts will get it sorted out but I think he’s glad now that he isn’t living on her property.

                • imasqre says:

                  This law IS ridiculous.

                  If she doesn’t want a certain individual on her property, that’s her choice. Period.

                  So if I had a property and didn’t want Section 8 living in it, or a young person who has the tendency to come home late and blast his/her tv, or a tenant with a pet lol.. that’s ok then?

                  D*mn, I need a lawyer bc I can totally sue a former possible landlord just bc I was young (with the potential for being loud apparently). He discriminated against me bc of my age.. should I sue?

                  • semidazed says:

                    That stopped being her choice when she opened her home to renters and therefore agreed to follow the laws that said she couldn’t deny housing based on having served in the military. If you want to make the choice argument, religion is a choice, too, and she can’t discriminate based on that either.

                    If she doesn’t like it, she shouldn’t have chosen to her home. That was her choice.

                    • imasqre says:

                      It must be hard to be in such financial hardships, or a business, where you have to rent your home/property to complete strangers.
                      Especially when an arbitrary agency can tell you who and who not to rent to.

                      Her only mistake was being honest. Shame on her. She should have just said there was another renter who put the bid in sooner. Then idiots on a website wouldn’t be freaking out about it lol.

                    • semidazed says:

                      Yes, the financial hardships you endure when you own an apartment building.

                    • semidazed says:

                      Sorry, nothing said that she owned the building. My point, however, is that nothing in the article says anything about her being impoverished on in dire financial straits. And even if she were, being in dire financial need does not mean she is permitted to break the law.

                    • imasqre says:

                      It doesn’t matter. She can do what she wants with her private property, even if she were a billionaire.

                      And she didn’t break the law.. she stated her stance and said that the guy should reconsider.

                      This is so ridiculous. No one cares about the details.

                      My stance: Veterans should not get special treatment. “Blacks”, Asian, Puritanical Whites… no one should get special treatment.. including veterans.
                      Aw, sorry, does that make your a*s hurt?

                    • runswithscissors says:

                      “Blacks”, Asian,…”

                      O_o

                      (backs away)

                    • semidazed says:

                      You’ve got to admit, she never claimed she wasn’t racist.

                    • imasqre says:

                      You’re right, I never claimed I wasn’t racist.

                      Too bad you (and your scissor buddy lol) have below average reading comprehension to know what I was actually writing about.

                      Yay America.

                    • semidazed says:

                      Shoot, I didn’t think that one got through. Sorry about that- it was petty. I’m back down at the beginning of the thread.

                    • semidazed says:

                      You caught that, too, eh?

                    • imasqre says:

                      Why are you backing away? You keep mentioning race.. but I can’t?

                    • semidazed says:

                      Her only mistake was breaking the law and then admitting to it on tape.

                  • semidazed says:

                    Section 8 is subsidized by the government, who will dictate what the rent will be and what the tenet will pay to what the government will pay. You have every right to not opt-in to Section 8.

                    As to age-ism, age generally isn’t considered a protected status so I suppose it will depend on your state.

                  • runswithscissors says:

                    “If she doesn’t want a certain individual on her property, that’s her choice. Period.”

                    I’ve disproven the universality of this statement (with the example that she cannot refuse to rent to a certain race because they are that race). Please stop using it, it is factually inaccurate.

                    • imasqre says:

                      YOU have disproven it.. therefore IT IS FACT!!

                    • semidazed says:

                      The fact is, the state of Mass. decided that soldiers can be easy targets for discrimination and passed a law to protect them should they encounter it.

                      If the landlady wanted to be able to discriminate, she should have lobbied or formed a committee dedicated to changing the laws. She could have started petitions, she could have written to her local politicians, she could have consulted a lawyer. She chose not to do any of that.

                      In addition, she chose to make a rather stupid decision to flat-out tell a potential tenet that his former profession, which was a status that is state-protected against housing discrimination, was the reason she wouldn’t rent to him.

                    • runswithscissors says:

                      So, you’re not even going to try to discuss this rationally then?

                      OK, well take care, have a good day/evening.

                    • imasqre says:

                      Goodnight!! :D

                  • Coleoptera Girl says:

                    She shouldn’t be renting (running a business) if she wants to pick and choose who is on her property when protected classes are involved. A restaurant cannot turn away a patron just because he is a war vet therefore she should not be allowed to either. If the law is found to be unnecessary or excessive, it will be overturned. For the time being, it must be followed or challenged in court.

              • erich5248 says:

                You may not agree with the law. Not all laws are right.
                However, breaking the law is wrong… and that is never right.

            • erich5248 says:

              You may not agree with the law. Not all laws are right.
              However, breaking the law is wrong… and that is never right.

          • runswithscissors says:

            I remember being 14 and thinking I knew everything too…

            • imasqre says:

              Me too.

              And then I grew up and saw the world around me.

              • runswithscissors says:

                Ah. I assumed you were only 14 or so as you seem to have fallen into the old mistake of blaming the individual soldiers for the mistakes of the political leadership. Most of us learned about the errors of that mindset when we saw how mistaken folks were after the Vietnam War, when returning soldiers were spit on and screamed at and hounded for what the political leaders had done.
                The fact that you never learned this stuff indicated you were only 14 or so. But I jumped to that conclusion. Perhaps you are an adult who simply never finished high school. Or did finish it but didn’t absorb things like “learning from mistakes in history”.

                See, you can disagree with a war, and blame those who decided to wage it, without taking it out on the individual soldiers. It’s an important distinction.

                • imasqre says:

                  You insulting my intelligence is not only juvenile, it is pointless and rude.

                  There was never a draft. These people chose their path. I don’t think that my taxes should be taken to pay for their college, retirement or anything. And special treatment “just bc of a title” is ridiculous.

                  Spare me your insults and make a real point. Otherwise you are just another fool on a soapbox who says nothing of value.

                  • runswithscissors says:

                    OK, let’s start from a set of questions:

                    1) Do you blame individual soldiers for the choices made by their superiors. i.e., do you hold an Iraq War veteran responsible for the Iraq War?

                    2) Do you see the difference between *active benefits* (i.e. being given money for college, etc) vs *the absence of discrimination* (i.e. being refused normal human social benefits like renting, holding jobs, etc)?

                    – To elaborate: Out of a group of 100 people, let’s say 1 is a veteran and 99 are not.
                    — Active benefits would mean giving the veteran money for college while not giving the others the same money. The veteran gets a benefit not given to the general public.
                    — Discrimination would be if this landlady was happy to rent to the other 99 people, but would not rent to the veteran because he was a veteran. He is denied something he would otherwise get just by being like everyone else.

                    If you answer #1 and #2, we can move on from there.

                    • imasqre says:

                      “Set of questions”?! Are you insane lol? I didn’t even read most of that.

                      Veterans should not have special rights. That is my opinion. Period.
                      And I am so damn tired of people who hold them up as though they are better than the rest of us, or deserve more. Bc it’s not true, by any means. Who are the people that pay for their salaries and retirement and college? The citizens of this country. And I’m tired that the fact that simply enlisting makes them special.

                      You must be a veteran or active military bc otherwise I do not understand your stance. Bc every other citizen gets put aside for children who decided their path to be war.

                    • runswithscissors says:

                      So, you’re not going to engage in discussion then?

                      OK, fair enough. That’s your choice, for everyone else to see here.

                      But no, I’m no a veteran. I’m not related to any veterans that I know of. I have no connection to the military whatsoever. I’m not even American. It may surprise you to hear that I opposed the Iraq war (#2).

                      I also hold mixed views on active benefits to veterans, but I do not believe people should discriminate against veterans in negative ways. The distinction between the two rests in the post above you have derisively refused to even read. Nor do I believe individual soldiers are responsible for the justness or lack thereof of a given war, that rests on the leaders who made the decisions.

                      Life is complicated. Generalizations like “SOLDIERS BAD” harm society.

                    • imasqre says:

                      I *am* engaging in a conversation. It seems you are only focused on your agenda and cannot open your mind to anything else.

                      A person should not have to rent their home/property to anyone that they do not want to be there. It seems a legitimate thought, and you can argue and insult all you want.. but I believe she is valid.

                    • runswithscissors says:

                      “A person should not have to rent their home/property to anyone that they do not want to be there.”

                      Including black people?

                      Because if not, then no not “anyone that they do not want to be there”.

                    • imasqre says:

                      You’re still on “black people”?

                      Pay attention to the subject at hand. You bore me now.

                    • runswithscissors says:

                      You keep refusing to answer the question of whether you think landlords should be able to refuse to rent to someone because of their race…

                    • imasqre says:

                      You keep refusing to realize that this is not a race issue.
                      But keep grasping.. it’s fun!

                    • Hibyeman says:

                      wow op has not learned your the type of fucker who thinks they need to insult vets because they go fight wars for there country most vets ask for nothing more then to not be discriminated for serving there country well i guess thats what you get from a dumb douche that is imasqre

      • sp4rxx says:

        ….it’s good to preach that, but you wouldn’t be saying that if it were you.

      • HogwartsProfessor says:

        Apparently, in MA, being military or a veteran IS a protected class.

      • Kestris says:

        Well then. I know who I won’t ever be renting anything from. Nor hopefully ever live next door to.

      • smo0 says:

        Remember, asshole, if people didn’t volunteer – we’d have another fucking draft, then where would you be? /pushes him the hell off the soapbox.

      • runswithscissors says:

        I see. Do you spit on veterans and call them baby-killers too?

      • Round-Eye 外人はコンスマリッストが好きです。 says:

        I’m sorry that your high school government/civics class failed you so severely. You have absolutely zero understanding of how the United States government works, how it relates to military operations, and how that affects military service members.

        Also, you’re a fucking idiot. Please leave.

      • DirtyTB says:

        Wrong, he doesn’t get the opportunity to choose which battles he fights. He is a soldier and thus protected by Equal Housing Opportunity.

      • MsEllenT says:

        I never thought I’d say this … but CommonSense is making sense. I wholeheartedly agree. You signed up for the gig; don’t expect any special favours.

    • MissingNumber says:

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • imasqre says:

      The landlord has every right to not rent her private property to anyone she doesn’t want living there.

      This suit is absolutely ridiculous and I am so sick and tired of veterans thinking that they have the right to get anything they want bc they chose to volunteer. Utterly ridiculous.

      • nickmoss says:

        You are entirely wrong. A protected class, which veterans are under state law, a landlord may not refuse to rent to the gentleman. It is exactly the same, under the law, as refusing to rent to someone based on race, ethnic origin, etc.

        Once you become a landlord, inn-keeper, restaurateur, etc., you give up some rights on how to choose your customers.

      • Zowzers says:

        Massachusetts state law classifies veterans as a protected class, therefore a landlord can not refuse to rent to a person specifically because they are a veteran. Which appears to be the case in this example.

      • runswithscissors says:

        So if she didn’t want black people, that’s cool in your books?

        This isn’t a veteran asking for something special, it’s someone wanting to not be actively discriminated AGAINST. He just doesn’t want to be punished for having served. You call that special treatment?

        • imasqre says:

          Yes. I do call that special treatment.

          Regardless of “the books”, if a person does not want them in/on their private property, that is their choice.

          The fact that veterans are even listed as a “protected class” is ridiculous. No one forced them to serve. If I had known the benefits, I would have enlisted. Free eduction, protected rights, retirement guaranteed. Give me a break.

          • WalterSinister2 says:

            You forgot the “benefit” of “potentially getting your ass shot off”.

            • imasqre says:

              Right……..
              And if I had volunteered to have my “ass potentially shot off”, that was my decision. Get it?

              • runswithscissors says:

                You are confusing several topics in one. Let’s stick to two of the topics you raise:

                Your first point is that as a landlord, she should have the right to refuse to rent to anyone for any reason.

                - Well no, this doesn’t work. She can’t refuse to rent to black people just because they are black. So therefore there are limitations, placed by society, on her rights to discriminate.

                So given that her rights to discriminate DO have limitations, we then move to debating what those limitations are.

                You say veterans should be fair game for discrimination against, but I’m not clear on your reasons why you believe individual soldiers deserve to be punished for having been soldiers.

                Please elaborate.

                • imasqre says:

                  We are not speaking about black people. We are speaking about a veteran.

                  I do not think soldiers should be punished, please read what I write before you respond. I just don’t think that a person who volunteered for the job they chose deserves any special treatment. That’s all.

                  This is the same situation as a store saying they “have the right to refuse service to anyone”. It is a private residence. She can do whatever she wants regardless if you or I do not approve.

                  • runswithscissors says:

                    I know we aren’t talking about black people, but that example disproves your rule / universal statement that “she can do whatever she wants” about renting.

                    She cannot do whatever she wants (in terms of discrimination) because she cannot discriminate against black people.

                    Therefore your statement loses it’s universality. And thus logically we have to move on to the next step of the discussion, which is “when can she discriminate and when can she not”.

                    You stated a universality (“she can rent or not rent to whoever she wants”) and I stated a situation that disproves it (“she cannot refuse to rent to a race based on them being that race”).

                    This is how a debate works. You make a claim/statement and if I offer an example that disproves it, you must relinquish the claim.

                    The claim in this case is that she can discriminate however she choses. I proved she cannot.

                    Thus we must move on to discussing when and how she can and cannot discriminate.

                    • imasqre says:

                      Your entire response made me laugh lol. Brilliant!

                      “This is how a debate works. You make a claim/statement and if I offer an example that disproves it, you must relinquish the claim.”

                      I will not “relinquish my claim” lol. Bc I have a valid point that you cannot seem to remove from racial discrimination. That is your one and only parallel to this situation and it does not fit.

                      Thus, please stick to the topic at hand or stop wasting my time.

                    • runswithscissors says:

                      Let’s simplify:

                      Say I made a claim that “all insects can fly – bees are insects and fly”.

                      And you point out that many termite species cannot fly, therefore my statement was not universally factual and therefore not, per se, true.

                      I can’t refute you by saying “we’re talking about bees, not termites!”.

                      If I make a statement of universality, and you show a valid example of the statement not being always true, you have proven my statement is not valid (in the sense of being universally true).

                      Your statement is “If she doesn’t want a certain individual on her property, that’s her choice. Period.”

                      I have provided an example of when that is clearly not true (racial discrimination).

                      Therefore your statement must be amended to “If she doesn’t want a certain individual on her property, that’s her choice, provided she doesn’t break discrimination laws” in order to remain true.

                      You see?

                    • imasqre says:

                      You see (that I don’t care about what you have to say bc you are an insulting self-righteous boy)?

                    • runswithscissors says:

                      Uhhhh… what? I’m not insulting. And who said I’m a boy?

                      Anyhoo, I’ve done all I can here.

                    • frodolives35 says:

                      Because I said so that’s why. Forget the facts I not Friday I’m Joe Gannon or Col Potter dammit.lol /s

                    • Kisses4Katie says:

                      Dun worry scissors, it made beyond perfect sense to those of us with a brain.

                    • imasqre says:

                      Or people who are close-minded fools who cannot fathom a different stance. Thanks for the reality-check!

                    • imasqre says:

                      You called me a 14-yr old bc I said my opinion. I think “boy” is the appropriate word.

                      Good night now. :)

          • reknight says:

            “Yes. I do call that special treatment.”

            No one should be discriminated against for any reason. That is basic human decency, not special treatment. Why is this so hard for people to understand this.

            “Regardless of “the books”, if a person does not want them in/on their private property, that is their choice.”

            No, they’re choice is to not rent they property, once they offer it for rent, it isn’t private any longer and include some basic rules… we call those laws, you may be familiar with them.

            “The fact that veterans are even listed as a “protected class” is ridiculous.”

            The idea that a “protected class” is NEEDED is what is ridiculous… but your clearly an example of why they are still needed. Most people don’t need this to be explained to them… but for the people like you we have to have laws, so there isn’t any confusion.

            “No one forced them to serve.”
            And no one forced you to be ignorant of reality, but here we are.

            “If I had known the benefits, I would have enlisted.”
            HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
            No… you wouldn’t have and you didn’t, so why don’t to shut your lying pie hole you sad sack.

            “Free eduction” – Nope. Not free. Veterans pay into the G.I. Bill from they’re paycheck, which isn’t even going to the other sacrifices, but any way you look at it, they put into the system more then they typically get out of it.

            “protected rights” – Yeah… I mean thay stand the wall to proctect everyone else’s right, why should they expect to be treated that same… “imasqre” your an f-n d-bag.

            “retirement guaranteed” – Yet again showing your ignorance, no one in the military is “guaranteed” ANYTHING, including a job, as a lot of our service men and women are starting to find out right now as we draw down. If anything they have it a little worse then most of the general public since if they don’t make 20 years, they have NO retirement for they’re time. There was an article not long ago about they 100 or so Air Force Majors with between 12-16 years that are being separated from the Air Force and don’t have any retirement to show for it. Best they can do is get a government job to roll they’re years of service over.

            But you keep repeating your elitist bull sh-t “imasqre”.

          • iesika says:

            Discrimination is special treatment.

            If the woman had refused to rent to him because he was a financial risk, or even because she thought he was obnoxious, that would be okay. She is recorded saying that he is unwelcome specifically because of his past military service. That is special treatment due to his past military service.

            • imasqre says:

              What if he was obnoxious about his military past? Like a lot of people on this thread seem to be.
              Then can she deny him with a clear conscience?

      • jenniferrose76 says:

        Hey, here’s an idea-if you plan to become a landlord, maybe you should read up on the laws regarding being a landlord. She doesn’t get a different set of rules and laws because of her beliefs-if she was at all smart, she would have learned her rights, and tenant rights before VOLUNTARILY becoming a landlord. No one forced her to rent out her property, and thus be subject to landlord/tenant laws. Your whole argument is completely idiotic, and would be laughable if it wasn’t so repulsive.

        • imasqre says:

          I have to say the same thing about your comment/argument: completely idiotic.
          But thanks for trying! :)

          • JJFIII says:

            Except you are 100% wrong on the LAW. You can say you think the law is wrong, you can not believe it, but it is in fact the LAW.
            I personally believe that IF you CHOOSE to run a business, you should not be allowed to discriminate excppt on their ability to pay or if they pose a danger to you, You apparently believe that because you own property you can discriminate for whatever reason you want. We saw how wel that worked out int he south when blacks could not eat at certain restaurants.Or where women could not rent apartments because they were single parents. You probably believe a private employer can fire somebody for being a Jew or Muslim as well. Afterall it is a private business.
            You of course would be morally and legally wrong, but keep believing whatever you want. You probably think Ron Paul will win in November too. I am guessing your intellectual development ended at about 10th grade. That is when most people realize Ayn Rand was a douche bag.

            • imasqre says:

              *THE LAW is stupid.

              First off, no, I don’t believe in any of those points you wrote. After the contracts are through and all that, you cannot remove a person. But if for whatever reason, they don’t want to hire a single parent, or rent to a college kid they can do that. Her mistake was being honest. She should have lied.

              • erich5248 says:

                Yes, her mistake was being honest. Honest that she was breaking the law. If you want to break the law, then fine… just don’t leave voicemails as proof… don’t give a reason, period.

                The landlord in the article told the veteran to look for a place less politically active or controversial. Was she expecting him to have drill training and combat maneuvers in his living room? Tea parties? An Occupy Boston event? No. She just didn’t like his previous occupation.

                A good friend of mine in college was denied renting an apartment because of his political party, and I disagree that this is utterly ridiculous. I find this kind of behavior and discrimination repugnant. Please explain to me how any thoughts on gov’t spending would affect a tenant’s ability to pay or maintain the property properly. Now, how about being a veteran?

                Where does it stop? At what point would you draw the line?

            • imasqre says:

              PS: Why with the insults? Is that how you try to make all your points?

      • semidazed says:

        Decided to come down here (was getting a little cramped up there!) In your response to me, you said:

        “She can do what she wants with her private property, even if she were a billionaire. And she didn’t break the law.. she stated her stance and said that the guy should reconsider…

        My stance: Veterans should not get special treatment. “Blacks”, Asian, Puritanical Whites… no one should get special treatment.. including veterans.
        Aw, sorry, does that make your a*s hurt?”

        My ass is quite fine, thanks for your heartfelt concern. I am unsure why you chose to put “Blacks” in quotation marks but I’m beyond certain you’ve more than adequate reasons- surely you’re quoting some aforementioned comment and not attempting to be ironic or something.

        My point, which you seem to be missing is that she doesn’t have to rent this apartment at all. She lives elsewhere. She could have sold the place. She could have limited any interaction with a tenet to a mailed check once monthly and a phone call in case something broke. She chose to become a landlord. When she made that choice, she agreed to follow the state and federal housing laws, which state explicitly that she cannot discriminate based on race, religion, or (in Mass.) military status. You say that she didn’t break the law. I think she did. The courts will decide who is in the wrong.

        You keep saying that she shouldn’t have to rent to anyone she dislikes, but when you say that you’re justifying not renting to people based on race, religion, etc., even if that isn’t a consequence you agree with. In fact, you seem to be adamantly against even discussing that. But what if this were a Muslim woman refusing to rent to a Christian? Religion is a protected status. Religion, like volunteering for military service, is a choice- faith is a result of choice, should someone be permitted to fire me because of my choice?

        What if this woman didn’t want to rent to a police officer? Or a social worker? Or a retired judge? If she can discriminate against whoever she wants, then where do you think it stops? Can she refuse to rent to white people? Legal immigrants? Carpenters?

        These laws are in place to provide a clear demarcation of what we, as a society, deem to be acceptable behavior. As a society, we have decided that, no, you are not permitted to discriminate based on sex. No, you are not permitted to discriminate based on religion. And no, you are not (in Mass.) permitted to discriminate against veterans based on their enlistment. If you don’t like that, form a lobby group and change the laws. Write your congressman. Start a petition.

        It seems, as well, that you do not differentiate between “discrimination” and “favoritism.” I’ll just ask you to look that up in a dictionary. Try wikipedia if you need expansion.

        • imasqre says:

          SO LONG I didn’t even attempt to read.

          You can say “black” but I can’t. Ok, cool. Now I understand the rules lol.

          Veterans should not get special rights. That is my opinion. Please continue your bs.

          PS: So Orthodox Jewish people have a legal right to rent their homes/property to Muslims? I would LOVE to be a fly on that wall while you argue that to either side LOL.

          • semidazed says:

            Using quotation marks to quote someone is… well, generally what quotation marks are for. And if you aren’t even going to bother reading my opinion, then which of us is the narrow-minded person refusing to see the others’ point of view?

            • imasqre says:

              Excellent point. I’m just tired of reading the same thing over and over and over again in a super long-winded response.
              I heard your point. And I do not agree. You can keep saying it over again, but I won’t change my opinion. Or I should say that you have written nothing for me to question my opinion.

              But at least it seems you understand what quotation marks mean now. Which is why I used them. :) But I must be racist, right?

              • semidazed says:

                I understood quotation marks to begin with, which was what made your usage so peculiar enough to note. I am still unsure exactly why you chose to use them to single out one race in a list of races but it’s hardly a point worth arguing.

                I agree that we aren’t going to agree but I already did, and will again, apologize for the insult. I’m adult enough to know that slinging around petty insults doesn’t vouch for my argument Just because you said something I perceive to be racist does not make you a racist and just because we don’t agree doesn’t make anyone stupid.

                In any case, I’ve written out my point. I regret you decided it wasn’t worth reading but I do understand. I hope you have a nice evening.

                • imasqre says:

                  Um…..bc I was quoting from a previous comment from another user. You even guessed that, did you forget?

                  And I read your point and I do not agree. Repeating the same numerous times wasn’t going to change my mind.

          • iesika says:

            I’ll give you the bullet point version, since you’re so lazy.

            - This happened in Massachusetts
            - Housing discrimination based on military status is illegal in Massachusetts
            - Therefore, this woman broke the law

            • imasqre says:

              I’ll give you the bullet point version on the conversation that we are having since you are so lazy to comprehend:

              - This happened in Massachusetts based on a housing discrimination law on military status is illegal in Massachusetts
              - Therefore, this woman broke the law

              *- The point of the convo is that the law is assinine and owners should have the right to rent to anyone they feel comfortable with.

              Read threads before you reply. Or are you too lazy for that?

        • iesika says:

          You can’t hear me, but I’m clapping. That was lovely.

      • JJFIII says:

        Really? They all choose to volunteer? I will let my dad know that when they forced him to go to VietNam he “volunteered”. I guess since he went as required by law, he should be allowed to be discriminated against because of that choice to follow the LAW. You are ignorant.

      • newfenoix says:

        No, it’s people like you that really piss me off. I am a veteran and you can stick you stinking opinion up you ass.

      • Jer in Denver says:

        And many veterans gave up time, family, happiness, blood, sweat, tears, limb, and even life so you can be the self-entitled douche you want to be. :)

        • imasqre says:

          JerinDenver: And they did the same so you can be an insulting pr*ck with no real point to express other than hate. Good for them, and you.

          JJFII: I don’t think this 29-yr old was in Vietnam. And I am writing of post-draft America, I thought that was obvious.

          Newfenoix: You write like you are a veteran. Thanks again, but I don’t think you deserve special treatment. Sorry. And if you don’t like, or can’t respect, the citizens that you served for, why did you do it?

      • Mandark says:

        And she has every right not to rent to you because you are black (or white, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Gay)

        I think not.

        • spamtasticus says:

          I think yes. Those are illegal. Her reasons are not. That is a massive distinction, specially when talking about LAWsuits.

          • iesika says:

            Discrimination based on military status is illegal in many states, including the one in which this occurred.

      • Mandark says:

        And she has every right not to rent to you because you are black (or white, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Gay)

        I think not.

      • Hibyeman says:

        “Because of what you told me about the Iraq war… we are very adamant about our beliefs… it’s just not comfortable for us… and I’m sure now that you know this, it would not be comfortable for you,” [the landlord] said in a voicemail to [the veteran].

        “I would suggest you do the right thing and look for a place less politically active or controversial.”
        ” look i am not supporting this cause he is a vet but he was discriminated against and also you fucker many vets give up and gave up time, family, happiness, blood, sweat, tears, limb, and even life, for people there country but i guess the thousands injured and kill in iraq and afgan mean nothing to you go jump of a cliff imasqre

        • imasqre says:

          Why are you calling me a f*cker and telling me to jump off a cliff bc I have an opinion? Is that supposed to convince me that you are right? Is that how you try to influence people to your point of view? By insults? Nice.

          Veterans chose their path. Do people really think they are the only ones with drawbacks to their career choice? Everyone forgets they chose that path.

  2. Blueskylaw says:

    Did anyone read this as a Massachusetts WARLORD
    refused to rent a veteran an apartment?

  3. AllanG54 says:

    Next up, Democrats will be suing Republicans or the other way around for not renting to them. And since when is political ideology deserving of a discrimination case. It’s true she’s denying him an apartment but I doubt the underlying cause is him being a veteran. Sounds more like she’s a died in the wool pacifist and he’s not.

    • Browncoat says:

      The problem isn’t that he is a conservative, it’s that he served in the Military.

      • MaryK says:

        The problem is veterans are a protected group – as much as disabled people, people of a different race etc are.

      • Southern says:

        Keywords = “protected class” (at least in Mass.. maybe in others?)

        Due to that, it’s no different than not renting to someone because they’re white, black, gay, male, female, etc… at least not openly ADMITTING to it in a voicemail.

        I’m sure he won’t have any problems getting legal representation.

    • Stickdude says:

      Translation: “It’s not discrimination because I agree with what she did”

    • Jane_Gage says:

      I may not like what you have to say, but I’ll die for your right to say it. Unless I can make money off it by hiring some bottom feeder to sue you into oblivion.

      • Stickdude says:

        What part of “SHE BROKE THE LAW” do you not understand?

        Even if you agree with her actions, and you obviously do, it doesn’t change the fact that she broke the law.

        If it helps, just pretend that he was a gay person denied an apartment because of his sexual orientation – then maybe you’ll see why the landlord’s actions were wrong. Maybe.

        • bsh0544 says:

          Except he’s not gay (I assume) and he wasn’t denied based on sexuality. We can pretend he was a moose and was denied the apartment because she only rents to reptiles, but that doesn’t really reflect what happened either.

          • What’s your problem, Kazanski? says:

            You’re a moron. The point is that veteran status IS a protected class in MA. No matter if he was a gay, Asian, republican, he’s a military veteran and that’s the only point that matters in his lawsuit.

            Note: I have nothing against gay, Asian, republicans. Or reptiles.

        • Jane_Gage says:

          I’ll eat at the Chick-fil-A, which horrifies people, but I’d never give 800+ to someone who found me to be some degenerate in order to live in their home or their rental unit. I don’t even think it should be legislated (yes, I know this issue deals with the LAW). It’s not like it’s 1802 and black and gay people can only live in shantytown. Vets, women, and blacks all have people, both of their own respective groups and those who are sympathetic, who own perfectly decent housing in good areas for rental purposes.

    • Here to ruin your groove says:

      Just because political idiocy was brought up: You got it all wrong. Conservatives love making a profit off of Liberals. How in the world would it make sense NOT to make a profit off someone you see as your “enemy?”

      And this landlord is a scumbag and deserves everything she is going to get from this.

    • nbs2 says:

      In DC, that can happen. Here is the list of protected classes, in DC for housing purposes:

      Race
      Color
      Sex (Gender or sexual harassment)
      National Origin
      Religion
      Age
      Marital Status
      Personal Appearance
      Sexual Orientation
      Gender Identity or Expression
      Familial Status
      Family Responsibilities
      Matriculation
      Political Affiliation
      Disability
      Source of Income
      Place of Residence or Business
      Victim of an Intra-Family Offense (Domestic violence)

      Obviously, MA is not DC, but I did want to point out that political affiliation is a protected class in some jurisdictions

      • maxamus2 says:

        But they weren’t refusing him, they were letting him know that others there, including themselves, had very strong opinions on the matter and he may not feel comfortable there.

        • Kuri says:

          Actually, it looks like the landlady was giving her opinion and hers along, I doubt she asked anyone else and was merely speaking for them.

    • tsumeone says:

      I wonder if there is any more to this story.

  4. Stickdude says:

    She actually left that in a voicemail?

    Hope she’s got the checkbook ready…

    • AcctbyDay says:

      I’m not sure what the law says, but for god’s sakes how stupid can you be? Jail time might be in order, or should be.

      • Stickdude says:

        Yeah, but if we were to start jailing every stupid person in this country….

        I would hope that, in addition to the lawsuit, local veteran groups picket loudly outside the apartment offices on a regular basis.

        And maybe we can send her to sensitivity training while we’re at it. :)

      • dolemite says:

        Yeah…no. Prison is for murderers and rapists. Not for pot smokers, email spammers or dumb landlords. The sooner we get that into our head and change our ways in this country, the better.

    • crispyduck13 says:

      Seriously, what a dumbass.

    • Jane_Gage says:

      What if they said they were Amish and being in the military clashed with their values? O noez, dueling protected classes!

      • sirwired says:

        If the landlord was Amish, and opposed to all war, the answer from the law would be “tough shit.” You want to be a landlord (or seller of homes, for that matter), you follow the rules. Which in this case mean no discrimination against veterans. Likewise a veteran could not refuse to rent to a war-protesting hippie.

        Now, an Amish person could certainly refuse to admit a veteran as a member of their church. But the renting out of a publicly-offered apartment is not a religious activity, and therefore you cannot use your religious beliefs as a shield when violating the law.

      • Velkyr says:

        Amish have protection from drafts based on religious beliefs (Not just Amish but the vast majority, if not all, of those under the anabaptist faith(Oh, and don’t call anabaptists anabaptists… some people get offended by it)). That doesn’t allow them to discriminate against others.

        Also, they most likely would not own an apartment, as Amish/Amish-Mennonite’s are typically a farm-based ethno-religious people. Ownership of apartments where they get an income from tenants is not something they would do. If they “rented” a spare room etc of their house, the payment would most likely be in fair labour, and include meals and other services as well.

  5. Browncoat says:

    Sad.

  6. winstonthorne says:

    This is abhorrent. When I took HR courses in college, I was confused to see veterans listed as a protected class; I didn’t realize that there were scum floating around who are so despicable, disloyal, and entitled as to discriminate against people who have risked their lives and endured tremendous personal trials for our collective safety and well-being. This landlord proves that I was naive. Lesson learned.

    We should count this as treason, and bring back the traditional penalty for same.

    • Moniker Preferred says:

      If you’re looking to jail people for treason, there are a few names right at the top that we should start with. Rumsfeld, and especially Cheney, for instance.

      • lvdave says:

        Don’t forget Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi.. They’re as guity of treason as GWB et al are…

    • catskyfire says:

      The treatment of soldiers post Vietnam, or black soldiers in the south post WWI, never really goes away.

      But treason, and worthy of death?

      • winstonthorne says:

        Fair point. I lost it, and obviously death isn’t on the table, but there needs to be a stiff penalty. Maybe we can go Hammurabi on her; some quick ideas:

        - Force her to sell the building and donate the proceeds to a veterans’ charity
        - Sentence her to a large number of community service hours at a VA hospital
        - Deport her and revoke her citizenship (she clearly doesn’t think much of this country anyway)
        - Drop her in a remote village in Iraq with $100 in cash. If she makes it back, she can stay, but I bet she’d have a new appreciation for our soldiers.

        Other suggestions?

        • Stickdude says:

          Draft her into service. :)

        • psm321 says:

          waitwaitwait so because someone doesn’t like the idea of a standing army and its abuses, they don’t care about the country and are not worthy of citizenship? i’m surprised people like you didn’t try to have the founding fathers deported, those traitors!

    • Southern says:

      Don’t ever read an article relating to the military on the HuffingtonPost then. It might be enough to give you a heart attack.

    • Coffee says:

      Wow…that’s a little over the top. Look, I know that people in the military do a dangerous job, but in exchange, they are revered by our society and given a litany of benefits that other citizens don’t receive. My brother-in-law, who is in the army, will be able to retire when he’s 37 years old, then begin a second career and simultaneously collect his pension. He will be picked ahead of me if we both apply for federal jobs because of his “bonus service points”…he doesn’t get traffic tickets. He uses his military status when he’s dealing with customer service reps because he knows it will get results faster. Et cetera.

      In the meantime, loggers, who have about the same mortality rate as troops in Afghanistan – and fishermen – who actually have a higher mortality rate per 100,000 then deployed troops do – receive less compensation and don’t receive any of the recognition.

      Personally, I’m not pro or anti-soldier, but I think the way we canonize them is, in many ways, just as silly as the way some attack them.

      • rmorin says:

        There is a grave difference between the professions you speak about and those in the military. Without military there is no life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Not even just for this country, but as America is the so called “world police” (whether you like this or not, it’s true we have stabilizing effect on international relations) but for other countries as well. The military is far more important to ensuring the basic tenets of our constitution then any job you mention.

        Get rid of every commercial logger tomorrow and we still can have life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. Get rid of every commercial fisherman and we still have life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. Get rid of our military and I don’t really know what we would have left.

        • Coffee says:

          I understand your rationalization, but I just don’t know if I can agree with it. Without teachers, our children would not have an education and our country wouldn’t be able to compete in the golbal economy. Without farmers, we would not be able to eat. Without factory workers, we would not have cars to drive to our jobs. Without loggers, we would not have wood to build shelter. Without judges, we would have no one to interpret the laws and reign in the executive branch.

          I’m really not trying to marginalize the contribution that soldiers make in protecting the U.S. from perceived threats (although I will allow that there has not been a substantive military threat to the U.S. in decades), only to point out that people like winstonthorne, who seem to think it’s heretical to even think of not placing service men and women on a pedestal, represent one end of an ideological spectrum that stifles any healthy discussion about the issue.

          • rmorin says:

            Being a teacher and judge are very admirable professions because of positive effect they have on our society. You are correct, without them we’d be screwed.

            However for the other mentions; if there were no commercial loggers we would all still have houses. They would just be made of other materials, or individuals would procure the materials they need for a house themselves. The same with farmers, we’d have to live on subsistence agriculture but we’d provide our own food. In both these instance, life is definitely not easy and we would not live with the luxuries we have now, however we still have the protections of the constitution and can still feel safe on a global scale.

            I think where the difference between teacher and solider maybe deviates then becomes the inherent risk in each; they both make tremendous positive differences for our society but the physical risks of being in the military are way greater then being a teacher. I am not advocating some sainthood for every soldier, but I do think their positive contributions towards society, coupled with the physical risk justifies them to have a certain degree of reverence in our society.

            • Coffee says:

              A certain degree of reverence, certainly, but as you can see in this thread, if you say something negative about someone in military service, it’s reasonable to expect that you will get shouted down very quickly. Many of us have it grilled into us growing up that soldiers are beyond reproach – monolithic heroes, the shoulders upon which our nation stands. To question that makes you – as you can see written below – downright treasonous in some people’s eyes.

              *shrug*

              I just think that kind of reverence precludes meaningful dialogue.

              • rmorin says:

                I agree that to suggest treason is bizarre, I guess what I was speaking towards is your statement of I’m not pro or anti-soldier which while I understand, is maybe not the best way of stating your opinion.

                After all, using the example we have been discussing, would you not say you are “pro-teacher”?

                • Coffee says:

                  I can see how you would infer that by my comment. If I spent more time writing and thinking about it, I would say that I respect what people in the military do for this country, and I admire them for placing their lives in danger to do so. Like others, I frequently disagree with the situations in which they find themselves – for example, I was against invading Iraq a second time – but that doesn’t mean that my disapproval transfers to them as individuals.

                  All that said, I will not unilaterally say that all soldiers need to be honored and respected – they’re like anyone else. There are good people. Bad people. Honorable people. Sketchy people. They represent all demographics, and while I will thank them for their service, I will not let that single attribute prevent me from judging them as individuals if I think their behavior warrants it.

                  Similarly, I will not accuse them of joining the army because they want to be killers, nor will I disparage their service, because I don’t think that’s fair to them.

                  That’s what I mean by “I’m not pro or anti-”.

                  • rmorin says:

                    Oh I agree. One honorable thing does not make someone invulnerable to judgement. Heck look at all the teachers in the news having sex with their students. It does not mean that I do not support teachers as a group, but certainly not those ones.

      • smo0 says:

        maybe… but I agree – the penalty of treason should be brought back.

        Bernie Madoff counts as a traitor, he should have been shot.

    • daemonaquila says:

      Oh, please. They haven’t done SQUAT for our safety and freedom. They’ve been used, abused, and misused in a slew of useless wars that have benefited certain political factions and the military industrial complex. I’m utterly sick of people praising troops for protecting us – it’s a bald-faced lie.

      However, these people should not be discriminated against. They took a dirty job that only got dirtier with time, and they have taken a beating year in and year out both in the field and once they got home and tried to collect on what the government promised. Blaming the troops for our government’s imperialistic tendencies is ridiculous. We need to take good care of our vets.

  7. Jane_Gage says:

    She just said he may not be comfortable. My landlords tell people who rent their house they’ve been in a domestic partnership for ten years, so “comfort” issues aren’t a problem.

    • Stickdude says:

      No, the article says she refused to rent the apartment to him.

    • huey9k says:

      No, Jane, in fact, she said “you would not be comfortable”

      Aside from my views that veterans deserve breaks across the board, this woman’s actions are blatantly illegal. Massachusetts LAW prohibits discrimination against veterans. He has a recorded voicemail of her denying him based on his service and her political beliefs? I say take that cow for everything she’s worth.

  8. RandomHookup says:

    There are actually times where it is legal to discriminate in renting housing in Massachusetts. The law allows landlords who live in their homes to discriminate if they are only renting one other unit. You can’t advertise that you are discriminating, but you can do it (at least last I heard).

  9. Quirk Sugarplum says:

    Back in the day, we just spit on returning soldiers and buried the hatchet. Simpler times.

    • StarKillerX says:

      Oh you didn’t get the memo, many groups are now trying to marginalize the anti-soldier activities of anti-war protesters and thus claim they either never happened or were exceedingly rare.

      • Talmonis says:

        They were scum then, and they’re scum now. Anybody who uses the term “babykiller” to describe a fellow American (unless said person LITERALLY killed babies) deserves a nice kick in the pants.

    • Coffee says:

      Back in my day, soldiers were sufficiently shameful of all the terrible things they’d done or not done to never include their military status on a rental application. It makes me sad to know that we’ve moved on from those halcyon times when we were all ashamed of everything and an occupation listed as “Nothing that really deserves mentioning” was sufficient to net one a sweet tenement.

    • runswithscissors says:

      There’s a bunch of nouveau “spit on em and scream baby killer” types up there in the first thread on this story.

  10. dush says:

    I’d like to know what she was implying by saying it would not be comfortable for him to live there. Was she threatening to make his life miserable just because he is a vet?

    • Jane_Gage says:

      Probably just that they have anti-war protests and are vocal about their beliefs, just like some people may be uncomfortable in a 420 friendly household or a tranny orgy household.

      • Kuri says:

        I didn’t see anything about her actually asking anyone else. It sounds like she was using her own personal opinions.

  11. Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

    You’d think the landlord would be smart enough to not leave that voicemail.

    Just say something like “We recieved many quality applicants to our apartment and we decided to go with someone else. Good luck in your search and we’ll keep your application on file in-case something else turns up”.

    • rmorin says:

      That is a very good point. If she had done your suggestion none of this would have happened. She as a landlord has to be (or really should be) smart enough to know that she can’t discriminate in this way. By leaving the voicemail there is a certain degree of vindictiveness on her part.

      • Peri Duncan says:

        This. She couldnt let it go at “We have a better applicant” or whatever. She is trying to hurt him/lay a guilt trip on him/degrade him. I don’t think she was too stupid to know the law; she just thought HE was too stupid, as a soldier, to know it or do anything about it, or couldn’t control her holler-than-thou arrogance.

    • joescratch says:

      That’s funny, Nigerian Prince. Now I’m thinking of all the scenarios in which that sentence can be used, modified to suit.

  12. TehLaser says:

    So, what, Massachusetts has decided that the third amendment doesn’t apply to them, and they can darn well quarter federal troops in landlords’ houses without their consent if they like?

    • wade says:

      Fail troll is fail.

      0/10

      • ColoradoShark says:

        Not a complete failure. I’d give him a point for knowing the third amendment. Then I’d take two away because it is completely irrelevant in this case.

        • dpeters11 says:

          It is a fairly obscure amdendment, so there is that. But agreed, it doesn’t apply here.

    • Free Legal Advice! says:

      Bonus points for referencing the actual Constitution, as opposed to the one most citizens believe that we have (i.e. one that was made up).

    • Doubting thomas says:

      reading comprehension fail. The difference between quartering troops, and renting to a vet is night and day.

      • TehLaser says:

        What exactly is the distinction?

        You might argue that a veteran isn’t a “troop” under the meaning of the amendment, but even retired members of the armed forces receive compensation from the government, and merely specifying “veteran” does not preclude ongoing service. Perhaps he is still in the reserves, the article doesn’t make this clear.

  13. guspaz says:

    Being anti-Iraq-war is completely different from being anti-soldier… One is generally acceptable (particularly if you’re not American), the other isn’t.

    As a Canadian, I think the Iraq war was a terrible idea, but in no way do I want to disrespect the effort and sacrifice of those who served in that war. You can be opposed to the reasons for a war while still supporting the troops who are stuck in it.

    • j2.718ff says:

      Exactly! As an American, I most definitely don’t support the war, but I have nothing but respect for the soldiers.

    • Back to waiting, but I did get a cute dragon ear cuff says:

      I have wanted for years to get a bumper sticker that says:

      I support our troops.
      I don’t support the mission they were given.

      • Coffee says:

        My mother put a ribbon on her car that said “Support Our Troops. Bring Them Home.” on her car. It got keyed shortly thereafter, which is pretty disgusting if you think about the message.

        • HogwartsProfessor says:

          Really disgusting that some potato-brained idiot would key a car because they disagree with a sticker. That’s the dumbest thing ever. I hope that person dies instantly because we don’t need anyone like that walking around reproducing. Idiocracy, you know.

          • Coffee says:

            Yes, yes…you’re just being pragmatic with an eye toward future generations. I support your assertion.

    • kella says:

      “stuck in it”, how about if the soldier volunteered after the war started simply for the purpose of killing ‘ragheads’? We don’t really know what this soldier said, but he did voluntarily choose a profession of killing people. It’s clear something he said made the landlord uncomfortable, if he used a derogatory term for Iraqis or Muslims at any point I would have told him to leave straight off. We’re seeing one side of the story, and we don’t know which party was the one that crossed the line.

      That being said, most of those who join the army are basically kids when they do. If he’s polite and can pay the rent then you should rent to him, regardless of his past.

      • LawyerontheDL says:

        My husband is a soldier and he certainly did not sign up for a “profession of killing people.” While it may be shocking to an ignoramous such as yourself, he signed up because he believes it is an honor to serve and protect his country.

      • LawyerontheDL says:

        My husband is a soldier, and he did not sign up for a “profession of killing people.” While it may be difficult for an ignoramous such as yourself to comprehend, he believes it is an honor to serve and protect his country. Yes, that includes jackasses such as yourself.

        • NeverLetMeDown says:

          “My husband is a soldier, and he did not sign up for a “profession of killing people.””

          Our military is designed to do two things: kill people and break things. That’s as it should be.

          “he believes it is an honor to serve and protect his country.” By being willing to kill people the leaders of his country believe should be killed.

          Not to say there’s anything wrong with joining the military, quite the contrary, countries need people willing to kill people on the country’s behalf, but let’s not pretend that signing up for the military is explicitly saying “I’m willing to kill people on my country’s behalf.”

          • Jer in Denver says:

            Funny. Army Corps of Engineers only exists to kill people and break stuff?

            Hey, I’m as anti-war as any liberal out there, but even I can see that the military does far more than ‘kill people and break stuff’.

            So, can we stop with the overbroad generalizations? Thank you.

            • RandomHookup says:

              The CoE exists so we can build stuff to allow us to go kill people and break other stuff.

    • Talmonis says:

      Exactly. War is terrible, and we went to war for a slew of contrived and false reasons. Treating soliders like it was their fault is low.

  14. StatusfriedCrustomer says:

    What an awful story. I’m happy that he found another apartment and I hope it goes well for him.

  15. ARP says:

    This one must have the Tea Party in a conundrum It’s her private property so she should be able to do what she wants, but military= good.

  16. Back to waiting, but I did get a cute dragon ear cuff says:

    Landlord is one step away from a Darwin Award.

    Who, in this day, age and political climate, gives ANY reason for any action that could be even remotely considered discriminatory, even for unprotected classes? I am NOT defending what she did in any way, shape or form.

    AFAIK, no law requires a reason given to someone for not renting to them. The less said the better in ANY instance of denying someone something.

    • Here to ruin your groove says:

      All she had to do was Google “legal reasons to deny a rental applicant,” and find one that fits (if they actually ask why they were turned down). It’s amazing anyone is dumb enough to leave themselves open for a lawsuit like this nowadays. Can’t wait to hear how this one ends

  17. EllenRose says:

    I’ve gotten the odd bit of discrimination myself. And if those particular people don’t want my money, to hell with them – I’ll go give my money to somebody else. Their presence would make me as uncomfortable as mine makes them.

  18. kathygnome says:

    Well discriminating in housing is wrong and should not be allowed regardless of whether the renter is a veteran, gay, black, an atheist, or any other class. Renting should be based on your ability to be a good tenant and pay the rent.

    Thankfully in Massachusetts we are very liberal and have laws banning discrimination of this sort.

    • TehLaser says:

      Regardless of your opinion of what ought to be allowed, the bill of rights explicitly guarantees housing owners the right to discriminate against members of the armed forces. In fact, that is the whole of what the third amendment does.

      It is unconstitutional in the United States to force landlords to quarter troops except in time of war as prescribed by congress.

      • Actionable Mango says:

        That may be your own interpretation, but I’m pretty sure most courts would find that refusing normal rental service in separate quarters is very different than being forced to quarter troops in your own home at your own expense, which is what the British did.

      • jenniferrose76 says:

        Yes-you should definitely twist the meaning of that edict to fit this article. That will make you look reasonable and possibly brilliant. /s

  19. coffeeplease says:

    “Because of what you told me about the Iraq war… we are very adamant about our beliefs… it’s just not comfortable for us… and I’m sure now that you know this, it would not be comfortable for you,”

    If this woman turned him down because he’s simply a veteran she deserves to lose a whopping civil case.

    However, based on the quote it sounds more to me like she turned him down quite simply for his beliefs regarding the Iraq War and God knows exactly how that conversation went. If he spoke to her about how proud he was of killing 30 or 40 people then yes, I agree with her and I might have a problem letting someone like that reside in the same building as I do. If he said, I saw a lot of things I wish I hadn’t and war is no way to run the world I would imagine she would have had no problem letting him move in. You can be a pacifist and still be part of the military although it’s distasteful.

    Based solely on the quote with no additional information it sound more like she turned him down for his beliefs regarding the Iraq war rather than him simply being a veteran.

    • Doubting thomas says:

      That would fit a nice little anti-military worldview very well. However if he is like most soldiers his response was more likely that he was proud of having served his country and that he felt he did his duty.

      • Bladerunner says:

        Seems like coffee was just tryign to parse the quote. While I think most likely she was discriminating based on his vet status (and is therefore a douchnozzle), the quote given is not quite explicit enough to be sure of that. He might have said “I was a vet…killed all sorts of towelheads. So glad we went over there, they needed a good stomping before they got uppity”. In that case, she might have said the same thing, but her reason would not be his vet status, but his awful opinions.

        Like I said, less likely but not implausible.

        • SBR249 says:

          Agreed, it really comes down to what the veteran actually said. If the veteran expressed an opinion regarding the war itself and the landlord felt that his political beliefs do not mesh with the community, then it may be OK. But if the veteran said that he served in the military and was proud of his service in the Iraq War, or even something factual like he had to kill insurgents as part of his service, then it may not be kosher because the she is basing her decision not on political beliefs but on statements the vet made regarding his veteran status. But then again IANAL.

          • coffeeplease says:

            More info here:

            http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/05/12053336-veteran-alleges-discrimination-sues-anti-war-landlord?lite

            “He then received voice messages from Roberts stating her discomfort about having him as a tenant. In the first voicemail, Roberts allegedly said that Morgan’s service posed a “conflict of interest.” She also cited concerns about a remark Morgan made regarding noisy neighbors, whom he described as black.
            Morgan left a message with Roberts trying to clarify his remarks, emphasizing that “he did not mean that he had disliked his neighbors because they were black,” according to the complaint.”

            Sounds like there’s a little more going on here than just his side of the story.

      • coffeeplease says:

        Personally I’m not anti-military – I’m anti-war. However I would never cast judgment on a veteran doing his duty but I certainly would cast judgment on one proud of killing his fellow man or making racist remarks regarding the Iraqi citizens. The enemy is the enemy but those who relish the bloodshed or dehumanize an entire ethnicity.

        It’s a fine line for sure but her quote doesn’t really seem to be as veteran specific as it was “Because of what you told me about the Iraq war.” He obviously said something about his service in Iraq that made her uncomfortable with him as a tenant.

      • coffeeplease says:

        Personally I’m not anti-military – I’m anti-war. However I would never cast judgment on a veteran doing his duty but I certainly would cast judgment on one proud of killing his fellow man or making racist remarks regarding the Iraqi citizens. The enemy is the enemy but those who relish the bloodshed or dehumanize an entire ethnicity are an entirely different breed.

        It’s a fine line for sure but her quote doesn’t really seem to be as veteran specific as it was “Because of what you told me about the Iraq war.” He obviously said something about his service in Iraq that made her uncomfortable with him as a tenant.

    • FashionablyDoomed says:

      I agree with you wholeheartedly. I want to hear her side of the story. I worked with a guy in the military who had such anger/racism issues, that I damn well guarantee I wouldn’t rent to him. It’s bad enough I had to work with him.

  20. Storie says:

    Don’t worry. The one thing about Boston being a benevolent dictatorship under a PR-sensitive czar is that embarrassing the city is taken very seriously. She’ll get dragged into housing court, and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that all her properties will get very thorough code inspections tomorrow morning.

  21. gafpromise says:

    Does anyone else find the wording of “less politically active” a little strange? Find a less politically active place to live? What, does the apartment participate in rallies or lobbying?

  22. blinky says:

    “I’ve been killing people for a living for many deployments; it’s been my life occupation until now. Perhaps I’ve been breaking down doors of civilian houses, or guiding bombs into compounds where I’ve never been. I have a significant chance of suffering from PTSD. What’s to be uncomfortable about?”

  23. Cerne says:

    I think this lady is pure hateful scum. But true property rights should include the ability to deny service to anyone for any reason. Let idiots like this woman discriminate to their black little heart’s content and let the rest of us protest and boycott her out of business.

    • RandomHookup says:

      That’s a little harsh… and I’m a veteran. She doesn’t sound that hateful, just that she’s come up against an issue that she can’t agree with.

  24. Velvet Jones says:

    I generally don’t have a problem with discriminating based on occupation, as I would not rent to any employee of the DHS, TSA, or local police department. But veterans are specifically a protected class, and to actually state that you are discriminating against someone because of that, on a voice mail of all places, is beyond bone headed. Hope they enjoy the pending lawsuits and enormous fines.

  25. DragonThermo says:

    These hate-mongering Leftist MSNBC-watching goons need to be sued into the stone age and then mercilessly shamed and ridiculed.

    I thought we learned that spitting on war vets was the wrong way to behave toward those defending our freedoms? Just as the KKK is still kept alive by white trash scumbags, the same thing is happening with the anti-American Leftists.

    • Baphomet73 says:

      What, exactly, was this veteran doing in Iraq and Afghanistan to defend our freedoms?

      Ignorant comments like yours only cloud the issue.

      • Kuri says:

        Ok then, what about his following orders and doing his job warrants how she treated him.

    • Kuri says:

      Ok, what this landlady said was wrong, but, what you said is pretty much the same as what she said.

      • Coffee says:

        Well-said, and this kind of frothing anger makes it impossible to even discuss the issue.

  26. DanKelley98 says:

    Landlord is a dick. A dick woman.

  27. rstark says:

    oh wah; look back at how we as a country treated Vietnam vets. You’re not a unique being mr Veteran

  28. Mrs. w/1 child says:

    Was this the only apartment for rent in Boston? *sigh* I know many disagree with me but you should be able to refuse to rent your private property as part of a private business arrangement to anyone for any reason. This man is likely a very desirable prospective tenant for the majority of landlords, just not this one.

    We citizens have to demand that the government not just stop but reverse the many superfluous laws that unconstitutionally limit your right to freedom of association.

    • Coffee says:

      I don’t agree with a lot of what you say, and I don’t really agree with you here, but at least your ideologically consistent. I can appreciate that.

  29. kataisa says:

    How progressive and tolerant of those blue state bostonians

  30. ElleAnn says:

    Housing discrimination sucks! I had a landlord refuse to rent to me in a military town because I was a civilian and was unmarried. Nevermind that I had excellent credit and a good job (on the military base). Finally found somewhere to rent and I did small home improvement projects throughout that house and left it in better condition than I when I moved in. Should have sued the jerks who wouldn’t rent to me.

  31. Talmonis says:

    Oh look, the reason I foolishly joined the Republican party in my youth.
    Hating on returning soldiers makes you a fucking slimeball. They are (overwhelmingly) working class men and women who want to serve their country. People don’t join the military to go to war. Here’s a hint, if you want to keep even a modicum of autonomy from other worlds powers, you have to have a standing army/navy/airforce.
    When leaders (the people responsible for the atrocities) send our young men and women to die in some godforsaken sand hole, THEY are the one you should speak out against. But then, it’s not such an easy target as someone who’s just been through hell eh? Gotta get in that “holier than thou” bullshit right? Jane Fonda worshipping scum.

    Here’s a tip for all of you political absolutists out there: You can be a left winger and support the military servicemen (and women), while still protesting war itself. It doesn’t make you a warmonger, it makes you a reasonable human being.

  32. nearly_blind says:

    In the relevant MA state law there’s an exception from many of the MA anti-discrimination law requirements (except race) for owner-occupied duplexes, including protection of Veterans. The source article fails to mention whether the unit is exempt or not (it seems like the landlord lives there but there’s no mention of the number of units in the building). I would hope that a lawyer who took his case wouldn’t be stupid enough to not verify whether the law applies or not; on the other hand I have confidence that the WBZ reporter had any sense to actually check the law before presenting the story.

    One thing to point out that most people don’t understand, is that its legal to discriminate against people for any reason except those reasons specifically barred by state or federal law. In MA they happed to happen to include veteran status (other states do not). Although discrimination is despicable, states continue to add more protected classes/factors to these laws. Eventually everyone will fall into a protected class and therefore can sue, whether there’s real cause or not, when they fail to get an apartment, loan, or a job.

  33. Atherton says:

    Would she rent to me? I’m a veteran of the Cola Wars and multiple Format Wars. And yes, I took sides.

    Betamax will rise again!

  34. SilverBlade2k says:

    She better prepare to hand over to apartment complex to him, as that is probably the value she would end up owning him in the end…

  35. Libertas says:

    But did he raze villages in the fashion reminiscent of Jin-jis con?

  36. semidazed says:

    Decided to come down here (was getting a little cramped up there!) In your response to me, you said:

    “She can do what she wants with her private property, even if she were a billionaire. And she didn’t break the law.. she stated her stance and said that the guy should reconsider…

    My stance: Veterans should not get special treatment. “Blacks”, Asian, Puritanical Whites… no one should get special treatment.. including veterans.
    Aw, sorry, does that make your a*s hurt?”

    My ass is quite fine, thanks for your heartfelt concern. I am unsure why you chose to put “Blacks” in quotation marks but I’m beyond certain you’ve more than adequate reasons- surely you’re quoting some aforementioned comment and not attempting to be ironic or something.

    My point, which you seem to be missing is that she doesn’t have to rent this apartment at all. She lives elsewhere. She could have sold the place. She could have limited any interaction with a tenet to a mailed check once monthly and a phone call in case something broke. She chose to become a landlord. When she made that choice, she agreed to follow the state and federal housing laws, which state explicitly that she cannot discriminate based on race, religion, or (in Mass.) military status. You say that she didn’t break the law. I think she did. The courts will decide who is in the wrong.

    You keep saying that she shouldn’t have to rent to anyone she dislikes, but when you say that you’re justifying not renting to people based on race, religion, etc., even if that isn’t a consequence you agree with. In fact, you seem to be adamantly against even discussing that. But what if this were a Muslim woman refusing to rent to a Christian? Religion is a protected status. Religion, like volunteering for military service, is a choice- faith is a result of choice, should someone be permitted to fire me because of my choice?

    What if this woman didn’t want to rent to a police officer? Or a social worker? Or a retired judge? If she can discriminate against whoever she wants, then where do you think it stops? Can she refuse to rent to white people? Legal immigrants? Carpenters?

    These laws are in place to provide a clear demarcation of what we, as a society, deem to be acceptable behavior. As a society, we have decided that, no, you are not permitted to discriminate based on sex. No, you are not permitted to discriminate based on religion. And no, you are not (in Mass.) permitted to discriminate against veterans based on their enlistment. If you don’t like that, form a lobby group and change the laws. Write your congressman. Start a petition.

    It seems, as well, that you do not differentiate between “discrimination” and “favoritism.” I’ll just ask you to look that up in a dictionary. Try wikipedia if you need expansion.

  37. Jayus says:

    Definitely late in putting my thoughts in, and my apologies for repeating anything anyone has said. I don’t think whether or not soldiers “deserve” special treatment is the issue here. It seems like certain classes become protected from discrimination simply because they are, as a class, often discriminated against. Laws protecting particular races, religions, ethnicities, and so on are not there because anyone deserves special treatment, it’s because certain groups need help when people (like this landlord) would rather deny them certain services.

  38. uniqueme says:

    According to other sources (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/foreign-policy/war-terror/peace-activist-janice-roberts-refuses-rent-apartment-war#) he never officially submitted an application, which might make his lawsuit harder to win.

    Not excusing her behavior at all. Is suggesting that he might be uncomfortable renting from someone who doesn’t support what he stands for the same thing as discriminating against him? A more finer point than outright discrimination. In a better world I would have hoped the landlord’s opposition to the war didn’t translate into taking it out on the returning soldiers.

  39. TuxMan says:

    Murder is murder. He admits to killing for money on foreign soil. He is a liability. He should spend his blood money and buy a home.

  40. TuxMan says:

    Murder is murder. He admits to killing for money on foreign soil. He is a liability. He should spend his blood money and buy a home.

  41. voogru says:

    Would you really want to rent there? Imagine if she kept all of this covert and instead made his life horrible.

    This is a far more honorable thing to do.

  42. AustinTXProgrammer says:

    I knew a landlord (lawyer too) that turned down our friends to live in the house we were moving out of because they had too many kids. 4 kids, 3 bedroom house. Seems like 2 kids per bedroom is reasonable and it would be discrimination.

    I said something to the landlord along the lines of why would you be so open with a reason when there had to be other ways of turning them down that wouldn’t be a legal minefield and she insisted they had the right to pick their tenants for that reason.

    No one ever intended to litigate, but what are the boundaries here?

    • RandomHookup says:

      Probably not applicable in this case, but some states have limitations on the number of people who can occupy a residence (usually based on square footage).

  43. RandomHookup says:

    If what I heard on the local Boston NPR station is true, Mass. is one of only a couple of states that protects veterans status from housing discrimination. Those of you getting really angry about the landlord’s actions might want to direct that energy to your own state housing laws.

  44. framitz says:

    Sue his ungrateful, greedy ass off. Please.