For those that aren't familiar, Dome Village is a homeless facility in downtown LA run by Ted Hayes. A leading homeless activist, Hayes is an unusual character, in that by appearance he is a Black Rastafarian but by philosophy he is a conservative that votes Republican.
As such, Hayes' landlord recently 'evicted' Hayes and his facility by raising the rent on the property to go from $2500 a month to $18,330 per month. According to Hayes, the reason in the rate bump was because the landlord learned that Hayes was a Republican.
Here is a link to dome village. It's actually a great concept and Haye's is definetly an original thinker. The site has a link for donations if your interested. I'm going to check him out further and maybe send him some money. I like the idea he had with these structures and his organization seems effective.
The landlord can raise his rent or boot him off the ground anytime he feels like it. It's his property and if he has a better use for it, it's his right to do with the property as he see's fit. Haye's understood that according to the article.
Sounds like a couple of egos came into play. The landlord sounds like a typical liberal bigot but he is under no obligation to provide his ground to a charity. If he didn't want the bad press he should have kept his reasoning to himself but arrogance got the better of him.
I do not agree that the situation is the same at all, but I also don't think Maher should have been fired. I would have (wrongly) assumed that ABC hired him to be controversial, and he is entitled to his opinion. Seems to me the reason he was fired was because his employer didn't think he was worth the trouble, literally and figuratively.
I read that Maher thread you linked - I saw (if I recall correctly) two posters defending Maher's firing. I saw a bunch more saying he was misquoted. I didn't really see any discussion on whether it was legal or just (two different questions) to fire Maher - in fact, I saw more discussion of misattribution of Nitsche. Maybe the whole thread didn't link?
At any rate, what I didn't see from the article this thread was about was whether the homeless shelter had a lease. I would guess not, or he could sue for damages under the lease. Libertarian freedom of contract theory holds anyone should be able to choose to contract, or not to contract, with anyone else for any reason at all, or no reason at all. Anti-discrimination laws of various flavors impede that idea.
I guess that's the key to this whole thing: Do you think someone should have rights beyond contractual rights based on some certain category into which said person falls (either political beliefs, as in this case or Maher's, or any other category, from fat at one end of how serious people tend to view things to race at the other end)?
Essentially, do you have some right to not be discriminated against in private contracts, a right that trumps a person's freedom to contract as he wishes? The current law of the land holds you do if the reason is race -- and in some jurisdictions sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age and fatness are included.
Or if you want to take the conversation in another direction, the point of the article was that black Republicans face discrimination. Assuming, arguendo, that it's true, does that bother anyone?
I've actually been to this place. It's in the middle of this Blade Runneresque abandoned downtown neighborhood. My girlfriend and I were driving back from Vegas and saw this...thing...from of the highway and stopped.
There are about 20 or so of these small geodesic domes. Each one is divided into two tiny apartments, basically a room and a bathroom. Everyone there was obviously extraordinarily poor, but clean and (importantly) sober. No alcohol or drugs, or coming back to the place fucked up. It seemed like a great experiment in housing, and despite being obviously out-of-place tourists, we were treated nicely and there was no sense of danger, as there is not three blocks away on LA's notorious Skid Row. (Yes: it's actually called Skid Row, and police only go there in packs.)
The thing that strikes me as truly wrong can only be appreciated if you've seen this place: it is--literally--the only thing around. Besides Dome Village, it's just empty warehouses and buildings infested by squatters.
Not a broad brush. There were some who made statements as if Bill being fired was no big deal. I would expect they would feel the same about this. There is no way I would have closed down a homeless shelter because of someone's political beliefs. That would make as much sense as me choosing not to work on a patient for the same reasons.
What I do find ridiculous is that the action of one misguided person is being used to represent and entire political perspective...especially when it was seen on this board that many conservatives don't really contest action against others for political beliefs if that person is a liberal (as was seen in that Bill Mahar thread).
Nope - and no one is arguing that the landlord couldn't do what he did, even Hayes doesn't argue that.
The issue is the tragedy of a Democrat - who probably preaches tolerance as the highest virtue at all of Barbara Streisand's cocktail parties - has now shut down a tremendous service to the homeless in urban LA, all because of his intolerance for another political point of view.
He can do whatever he wants as owner of the property - no doubt a more profitable opportunity existed with the land. But putting profits over people ain't exactly the party line for the Democrats, is it?
Who said it is being used to represent an entire political perspective?
And as for Maher's firing - go read up on the history of it. It is not the fantasy you want it to be. And further, Maher wasn't fired because he was a liberal - Maher was a liberal when he started the show and was throughout its run. It was no secret - it was part of the format of the show. If the network had a beef with his politics, why give him a show in the first place? No, Maher was fired for something he did and the subsequent economics surrounding his show - some political (sponsors pulling money reacting to his comments, etc.) and some not (network wanted a big name talk show host in his slot).
Hey, genius, when did I ever say the guy represented all Democrats? As a Democrat, one certainly does presuppose certain attitudes about the landlord, but where did I ever say this is how all Democrats would act?
I have Democratic friends who are outraged by the conduct and have said the landlord is an idiot and they are ashamed his name is attached to their party - the point is that this type of a behavior from a Democrat, who by virtue of his political affiliation is surely an advocate of 'tolerance' and 'diversity', is particularly hypocritical and disappointing when so much good was being done by Mr. Hayes.
The time it takes for someone to make a point and for you to construct a ridiculous strawman could be clocked with an eggtimer.
How is it a stupid argument? Why is the landlord's political affiliation even a factor in THIS discussion? He was booted out by a jackass. He more than likely simply used that one speech as an excuse and probably held a grudge for quite a while.
If anything, the only point in posting this should have been to highlight what this man has accomplished in the community, not to point out who was a democrat and how they didn't act like one. It is you who presented this wrong and it makes no sense to act as if that isn't why you posted it.
The landlord's political affiliation highlights a problem, and is interesting. What if he had been kicked out because he was black? Would it have worthy of discussion that the landlord was a racist pig?
Further - the landlord's political affiliation is an issue because Hayes discussed it in his editorial and, egad, I brought it up in this thread. How about that?
You bring up Maher's firing for comparison. Maher's firing because of his political affiliation - or the argument over it - lasted several pages, and I don't remember you ever whining about only wanting to talk about how great a show Politically Incorrect was and Maher's contributions to humor, but how Maher's politics or the network's politics shouldn't be part of the discussion, which is exactly what you are advocating now with regards to Hayes.
Can you reconcile this? Political affilition in one is good, political affiliation is bad in another. Swing and a miss.
Why Hayes lost his Village is important - and it would be if he lost it because of his race or his politics.
The point of the post is the tragedy of having to shut down Dome Village because of intolerance coming from a man who likely professes a great deal of appreciation of tolerance. Were it a case of a Republican ousting Hayes solely because he was a Democrat, it would still be interesting and I bet there would be a thread on it.
And the fact that the man was a Democrat is an interesting piece of discussion, the same as if he did it for racist reasons - if you don't think so, don't respond.
I absolutely posted it with an intent to bring the landlord's politics into the discussion, and have never suggested otherwise. What I have not done - as you said above - is attribute the landlord's actions to a political party or movement as a whole.
If there was one overarching theme to this post, it was that this was an issue that both liberals and conservatives could agree on - that the landlord was wrong in raising the rent for strictly political reasons. Sadly, you'd rather reflexively disagree with me - even after you have stopped making sense - than see the point.
I was just told in this forum that I see racism everywhere. Therefore, perhaps you see political biases everywhere. In reality, I see this as a strike against that community if he was really doing as much good as is implied. I would never support any type of bias like this.
There is nothing wrong with bringing it up. I would like to know more about the man now than his political affiliation. It truly means nothing to me that he claims he is a republican. If the right person runs next time, I might vote republican as well. I personally think it is a little dumb for people to claim entire parties as if they agree with the entire party's issues.
Was this a negative for that community? Yes, it was. Did it seem as if you brought this forward to point out how democrats aren't acting compassionate? Yes, it did. I would rather read an actual news article than the link you posted. That entire page was all about how democrats weren't acting like democrats...yet you want to act as if you didn't share that sentiment?