It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Letting landlords post adverts which excluded Jews, Muslims and the disabled’

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Facebook allowed landlords to post adverts for vacant properties and ensure that the ads wouldn’t be seen by groups such as Jews, Muslims and the disabled.


metro.co.uk...



Oh well,, after all, we are all same sh1t. . Well, Except the terrorist and racists. They are belong together.
edit on 22-11-2017 by Pandaram because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pandaram
Facebook allowed landlords to post adverts for vacant properties and ensure that the ads wouldn’t be seen by groups such as Jews, Muslims and the disabled.


metro.co.uk...



Oh well,, after all, we are all same sh1t. . Well, Except the terrorist and racists. They are belong together.


Meh. The issue is not Facebook, come on, the issue is the landlord in question.

Also, I assume the advertiser would weed out jewish/muslim/disabled applicants anyway, so all Facebook facilitated here is time-waste prevention.

So basically, get off of Facebook's back. (and jump onto the landlord's)



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I don't know, Landlords shouldn't be doing it, but Facebook shouldn't also be providing them tools to make it easier.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Pandaram

This is called segregation.

ETA: A little different than the days of "white" and "colored" signs on drinking fountains, but legally sanctioned segregation, none the less.


edit on 22-11-2017 by intrptr because: ETA:



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Pandaram

Can't do that here in the states. If you qualify...cant be denied based on discrimination.

Oh, it happens sure.. But can't be advertised as such.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Pandaram

There's a difference in discriminating against potential buyers versus target-focusing your advertising.

I agree that it's pretty sh**ty to be able to exclude certain races and whatnot, but at the end of the day, if someone put up flyers at, say, remote-control car races (mostly white people, at least when I used to race them with my dad in the '90s) versus, say, an African-American cultural heritage meeting, would we be concerned over the same issue?

I used to work at a marketing firm for 3.5 years, and I know full well that, while the advertisements themselves must comply with certain non-discriminatory standards, the where and how you advertise is completely up to you...and our firm dealt mostly with community banks, whose advertising standards are even more strict than most industries.

So, as long as the ads aren't discriminatory in nature, I don't think that the targeted advertising is necessarily illegal. But then again, I don't know how the realty laws apply to that. I know that they can't discriminate on who they sell to, but advertising targets might not be so regulated.

But like DupontDeux notes, the medium of advertising (Facebook) isn't necessarily the problem as much as the person doing the advertising.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
The landlord OWNS the building so shouldnt he/she be able to do whatever he/she wants?

Or is this hard for you to understand?



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Pandaram

Whilst i myself would not have a problem renting to anyone decent and competent,no matter what ethnicity or religion,i cannot speak for others.I have to say though,if in this situation whites were the ones being excluded,i am sure your position would be:" Well the building belong to the landlords,they can choose whom they want for tenants" And if you yourself did not defend those bigoted landlords,there are plenty here on the left who Would have done so.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




ETA: A little different than the days of "white" and "colored" signs on drinking fountains, but legally sanctioned segregation, none the less.
When I was younger and moving about and renting , a lot of landlords didn't want girls or women . They told me that it was just asking for trouble and they were much dirtier then men .



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

depends on the type of landlord situation if your renting them an unit that they solely will occupy its illegal as hell,now if you do it like i do where on the top floor and rent out rooms you are suprisingly able to descriminate against pretty much anything and any one as you share the house and i think it stemms from a supreme court ruling from the 1970s where women could advertise for female only tenants. basiclly if you co habitate with your tennants you can discrimiante to your hearts content ( i dont but i could in theory)
www.academia.edu...

In its 2012 opinion in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v.Roommate.com , LLC , 1 the Ninth Circuit held that neither the federal FairHousing Act (FHA) 2 nor California’s equivalent (Fair Employment andHousing Act, or FEHA) 3 applies to “shared living situations” because of a conflict with the constitutional right to free association. The case turnedon the court’s reading of the statute and its adherence to the principle of avoiding constitutional conflict in statutory interpretation. The ruling ab-solved Roommate.com, LLC (an Internet roommate-matching service),as well as anyone offering shared housing, from liability under thesestatutes.
so its why you will see female tennant only posts for shared housing where as if you tried to do that for an independent dwelling you would run a fowl of various laws ,i cant find the link but i think it stems from a 1970s ruling where no one wanted an unwed female being forced to live with a male she did not know (think 3s company status) also from above link is what the ruling hinged upon

The home is the center of our private lives. Roommates note our comings and goings, observe whom we bring back at night, hear what songs we sing in the shower, see us in various stages of undress and learn intimate details most of us prefer to keep private…. [two paragraphs omitted] “Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 562 (2003).



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
If the apartment you are renting is an attic apartment accessible only by a steep narrow staircase that is more a stepladder than a staircase, then does it make any sense to invite disabled people to view and visit?

I've seen apartment blocks in England that didn't even have a handrail for the staircase to the first floor. Another place had external balcony walls that were only three foot high.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join