Friday, June 26, 2015
Guess What Else The Scotus Approved No One's Talking About?
In another 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today on Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project that you can be held liable for housing discrimination whether or not you or anyone in your organization actually intended to discriminate.
Mere thought crimes - or as Justice Kennedy put it, “unconscious prejudice” or “stereotyping” are enough to get you sued in hiring, renting property or numerous other activities if your decision can be found to have 'disparate impact' on the favored protected groups.
This decision was deliberately left quite broad, and it's a wet dream for race pimps or 'community organizers,' not to mention predatory lawyers and the Obama Justice Department.
This nonsense has long been a part of employment law, especially in fascist progressive states like California. Asking someone about their criminal record, work history or credit can be seen as 'discriminatory' in the once Golden State, even if this might have a direct bearing on their suitability for a prospective position. Even references are a thing of the past as most employers will only confirm the person once worked there and will not disclose anything else, even if they were discharged for cause.
This is one reason many employers no longer hire employees per se, but independent contractors as needed.
Now this nonsense is going to be extended to the renting of property, extending credit and even local decisions on where to build housing. It can also be used to force property owners to rent to Section 8 tenants whether they want to or not. And again, things like credit, prior rental history or a prior criminal record don't matter provided the prospective tenant is part of one of those 'protected groups.' Somebody who's a registered sex offender wants to rent in your building, even though you have families with young children living there? Provided this person belongs to certain groups, you can be sued for your decision to rent to them or not for any reason based on 'disparate impact.'
In the actual case the SCOTUS ruled on, there's another wonderfully Kafka-esque twist. It involves a decision by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs on the location of low-income housing, and as the dissenting opinion points out, no matter where they decide to locate it, they can be sued on the grounds of 'disparate impact' by one group or another.
This also plays in nicely with the new Obama diktat on forced neighborhood diversity.
And you thought we lived in a free country?