Democrat: the party of tolerance and inclusion? Think again.
Charlottesville is well known as a Democrat machine town. You don’t spit into the wind and don’t mess around with central party Democrats—that is if you want to do business here.
But, “Republicans need not apply” is a phrase that now goes beyond Charlottesville City Hall and its related dependencies.
A recent “housing” post on Charlottesville Craigslist takes political prejudice to a previously unseen level in both candor and audacity, as a group of nascent neo-Marxists seeking like-minded roomies pre-qualified potential co-tenants as follows:
Hi!
My roommate and I are looking for 2 housemates to share a house in Fry Springs (JPA). Available August 9.
We are looking for someone who shares our values:
*Respectful
*Artistic
*Not all weirded out by vegetarianism.
*Positive
*Voted for Obama
*nonjudgmental. unless you didn’t vote for Obama.
In spite of Craigslist’s ultra-conspicuous housing non-discrimination admonitions, this “non-judgmental(!)” group felt safe in blatantly contradistinguishing any potential roommate who did not vote for Barack Obama. Of course, the Piedmont Housing Alliance, Legal Aid Justice Center, United States Department of Justice and other so-called “fair housing” advocacy organizations will not pursue this potential violation because it does not involve discrimination toward a sympathetic group.
But just imagine if the ad read: “Apartment for rent, Obama-voting Democrats not welcome.” The long arm of the law and the heavy hand of public outrage would certainly have befallen the hapless conservative poster.
Political bigotry reigns supreme in the tolerance capital of the American South. And in Charlottesville, as on Animal Farm, all people may be equal, but some (i.e. Democrats) are more equal than others.
Read the actual ad:
Of course, the Piedmont Housing Alliance, Legal Aid Justice Center, United States Department of Justice and other so-called “fair housing” advocacy organizations will not pursue this potential violation
What is it a violation of legally? Federal rules prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disabilities. These “nascent neo-Marxists” aren’t building apartments and then refusing to rent to anyone in that category, or to Republicans. They’re just renting a house themselves and looking for house mates they think they’ll have a lot in common with. We can wag our fingers and say they ought to be more open-minded and tolerant themselves, but doesn’t pretty much everyone, in their situation, do what they’re doing instead?
This commentary by the “Schilling Show” exhibts a cause looking for an issue. Do we suddenly argue against the individual right of free association? Strikes me as the kind of hypocrisy that Rob loves to bellow about on his show… when the show is on the other foot, that is.
As Ken points out, these are renters looking for roommates. Someone feeling slighted? Look for an ad requesting Neanderthals. You’ll be quite happy.
C’mon, Rob, think things through before you makes charges. It’s illegal to discriminate against certain categories of people because those categories have often been discriminated against by the larger society as a whole, thus doing those people harm. Conservatives, on the other hand, have never had trouble renting because they’re conservatives. No one turned away from renting that apartment because of political views will have trouble finding another place because of their views.
If housing discrimination on the basis of politics did become widespread, only then would be reason to decry it and to legislate against it, for everyone’s sake. As is, proac is correct and it’s a freedom of association issue. And do you really think no conservatives seeing an Obama sticker on a potential roommates car would turn them away? If you were renting a room and had two equally acceptable applicants and the only real difference you saw was that one guy shared your views and the other didn’t, would you really not rent to the guy you agreed with (unless you just wanted to convert the other guy)? What would be so wrong about that?
Your outrage here illustrates what’s so immature about so much political complaint on the Right as well as the Left, the whole “they’re all so mean, underhanded, dishonest, etc.” rap. People are just people on both sides of the aisle. The Left at its worst acts no worse than the Right at theirs.
Ken, you are woefully ignorant if you don’t know that Republicans/Conservatives are routinely discriminated against in Charlottesville—in housing, in employment, in business opportunities, in dealing with City Hall. It is a longstanding “tradition” for which I have first-hand testimony.
Regarding Proac’s puerile observation, no, it’s not a “freedom of association” issue because people legally are forbidden from “associating” only with Christians (among many other classes) if that is what they desire.
I believe that people in America should be free to associate, but they’re not. That is the result of liberal-instituted “fairness” policies that only serve to protect liberal-favored “protected” classes while others are marginalized (as you have done above to Conservatives.)
I’m not calling for legal action against these “open minded” government-worshipers; I’m calling them out for what they are: hypocrites.
I’m not interested in marginalizing anyone, Rob, and I agree that liberal fairness policies aren’t always fair. Ross Douthat gave a great example a couple of weeks ago.
But you didn’t answer my question about who you’d rent to if you had to choose between a liberal and a conservative. There is no law against choosing not to live with, or award a job to, people whose politics you find offensive. Tolerance doesn’t mandate hanging out with people you have deep disagreements with.
No doubt a lot of Charlottesville liberals give conservatives a hard time. But your side subscribes to the principle of equality too, and conservatives in power do the same to liberals. The fault lies not in liberals and liberal principles, but in human beings.
HAHAH! Rob this is great.
You know, the ad could be reworded as follows, and it would be a lot more honest:
“Hi!
My roommate and I are looking for 2 housemates to share a house in Fry Springs (JPA). Available August 9.
We are looking for a fellow lockstepper incapable of, indeed, resentful over independent thought and judgment, who shares what we call “values”:
*Respectfulness (except for anyone whose thinking in any way deviates from Dear Leader’s)
*Artistic (meaning we create propaganda art that qualifies for NEA grants to advance Dear Leader’s agenda)
*Not all weirded out by vegetarianism (but if you bring a single animal-based product into the house, we reserve the right to scream, “FASCIST!!!” at you)
*Positive (which we liken to Marx’s statement, “Peace is the absence of resistance to socialism”)
*Voted for Obama (The mere fact that we even admit to this, at this late date, should cause you to seek housing elsewhere)
*nonjudgmental. unless you didn’t vote for Obama. (and if you dare to point out our dripping hypocrisy, you get an eviction notice)
Keep up the great work, Rob (that’s me, not the ad, which would have no tolerance for your divergent viewpoint).
Yes, well, of course. I’ll switch to standard Schilling Show mode. How’s banality?
It is, indeed, a freedom of association issue. There are practical limitations to how discrimination is applied. I am fairly certain that “folks who did not vote for Obama” is not a protected class, any more than folks who did. Moreover, this is an ad for roommates, not letting an apartment.
Why not put it to the test, oh wise one? Place an ad. Watch the world yawn.