|
| Thread: Told to remove American FLAG!!! |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
posted October 15, 2009 07:59 PM |
|
|
|
Ridiculous! People who get offended by something that is not directed at them have problems themselves and it's not up to everyone else to change their behavior because some people have personal problems.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 15, 2009 08:04 PM |
|
|
Elodin may be partially right --
-- at least as to his most recent post -- depending on where the dispute arises.
Here's an ordinance in British Columbia which apparently includes common areas in its definition of "quiet enjoyment:"
Quote:
A tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment including, but not limited to, rights to ... reasonable privacy, freedom from unreasonable disturbance, exclusive possession of the rental unit subject only to the landlord's right to enter the rental unit ... (and) use of common areas for reasonable and lawful purposes, free from significant interference.
(Emphasis added.)
Here's a more complete version with some analysis:
https://www.rto.gov.bc.ca/documents/GL06.pdf
Perhaps an argument could be made that the landlord's actions constitute "persecution or intimidation" (see the above article), at least in British Columbia.
On the other hand, see this short treatise on the subject from the TenantNet website:
Quote:
The covenant of quiet enjoyment means different things in different places, at different times, and in different settings. What's worse, every court speaks as if everyone knows, or should know, which of these meanings is supposed to apply to the case at bar, a practice which makes for great difficulty in trying to write a clear, "user friendly" guide to the subject. What is more, application of the covenant depends on time and place -- time, because the coverage of the covenant is expanding with the modernization of real property law; and place, because some jurisdictions are still years and even decades behind this trend.
Nothing can illustrate this point better than a comparison of two rulings from 1995, when Ohio and New Hampshire looked at the same problem and came to very different conclusions. The Ohio court wrote:
...Moreover, under the law, 'a covenant of quiet enjoyment is [only] an assurance against a defective title * * *. It goes to possession.' [citations omitted] Thus, there is no breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment unless there be actual constructive eviction of the lessee. [citations omitted]. [/url]
* * *
Here's the full article:
http://tenant.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6986&sid=8113456fd4ebef5d77502dc1465984c5
Still, all this being said, I would say that at best it's a toss-up who would win. I think this one might land on the luck of the draw on which judge you got stuck with.
EDIT: As to not allowing a television, that is not a fair analogy to my point, since that clearly intrudes on the right to quiet enjoyment as it is inside the rental unit, not in the common area. As to prohibition against certain kinds of clothing while apssing through the common area, that case would be much more winnable since this would clearly be unreasonable interference with human essentials (clothing). Flags are not "essential," and they further are intended to relay particular symbolic significance, so the case would be harder to make that there is such an unreasonable interefence.
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted October 15, 2009 08:25 PM |
|
|
I hate to risk sound TheDeathy but here's a try to look at things from another angle. A little chain of logical conclusions:
In view of recent events many people in US don't like <insert any country unpopular in US, e.g. Iran or Korea>. ->
-> The landlord doesn't want to drive people away from his property by being associated with that country or having tenants that are associated with it.
-> He bans the public usage of said country's flag.
-> Laws of equality also force him to ban any kind of flag.
-> Flying a US flag is banned in this condo.
Now I wonder where each one of you will find the fallacy in this reasoning.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 15, 2009 08:30 PM |
|
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 12:02 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 00:10, 16 Oct 2009.
|
Quote:
Flags are not "essential," and they further are intended to relay particular symbolic significance, so the case would be harder to make that there is such an unreasonable interefence.
So can a landlord in the middle of a lease term decide that tatoos are not allowed and all tenents must get their tatoos removed or have them completely covered in common areas? Tatoos "make a statment." Tatoos are not essential and can be removed.
Oh, no woman is required to wear a dress. A dress is not an essential item either. There are other types of clothing the woman could wear, so the dress is not an essential option.
Or maybe the manager belongs to a religion that forbids women to wear pants and he declares that from now on no woman will be allowed to wear pants in the common areas. Pants are not essential clothing either, there are other clothing types.
Can a landlord decide that only blue cars are allowed in the parking lot, after the lease is already signed? No color of car is essential.
Quote:
Now I wonder where each one of you will find the fallacy in this reasoning.
The fallacy is first of all if anyone finds the US flag to be offensive he should not be living in the US. Furthur, If I don't believe a woman should wear pants it is not my right to impose on everyone that no woman can wear pants in the parking lot.
What if a landlord finds speaking in Mexican offensive. Can he in the middle of the lease declare that Mexican will not be spoken in the common areas?
Can he decide that no one can carry a Bible. Can he decide that everyone must carry a Bible. Can he decide noone can wear a burka because someone might find it offensive? Can he decide all women must wear a head covering because a Muslim resident might find it offensive if they don't?
Can he say no one can wear the color "red" because some gang might find that offensive. Can he decide everyone must wear the color red?
Can he say no gay couple can hold hands or kiss in the common areas because someone might find it offensive? Ect, ect.
____________
Revelation
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 12:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So can a landlord in the middle of a lease term decide that tatoos are not allowed and all tenents must get their tatoos removed or have them completely covered in common areas? Tatoos "make a statment." Tatoos are not essential and can be removed.
Oh, no woman is required to wear a dress. A dress is not an essential item either. There are other types of clothing the woman could wear, so the dress is not an essential option.
Or maybe the manager belongs to a religion that forbids women to wear pants and he declares that from now on no woman will be allowed to wear pants in the common areas. Pants are not essential clothing either, there are other clothing types.
Can a landlord decide that only blue cars are allowed in the parking lot, after the lease is already signed? No color of car is essential.
What's your beef with the lease signup? What if it says in the lease that "it is subject to modification without prior notice"?
This doesn't change the fact that you, obviously, don't like this -- which, ironically, is what "private property" Republicans and conservatives want to encourage.
Quote:
The fallacy is first of all if anyone finds the US flag to be offensive he should not be living in the US.
I thought it was supposed to be a free country.
Or is it only when you agree with it?
Quote:
Furthur, If I don't believe a woman should wear pants it is not my right to impose on everyone that no woman can wear pants in the parking lot.
What if you own the parking lot?
At least you're better than the government, right?
Quote:
Can he decide that no one can carry a Bible. Can he decide that everyone must carry a Bible. Can he decide noone can wear a burka because someone might find it offensive? Can he decide all women must wear a head covering because a Muslim resident might find it offensive if they don't?
Certainly you have no problems whatsoever if it is mentioned in the lease, right? Somehow I think you do.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 01:15 AM |
|
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 04:47 AM |
|
|
Note to PM: I haven't read your subsequent posts yet, but....
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it is illegal. He could only insert a new clause when the lease is up for renewal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually from a purely legal standpoint, it is not illegal, just really outrageous to a lot of folks.
Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. However, an abridgement of free speech is only a violation of the constitution if the entity interfering with free speech is a governmental entity. When dealing with privately owned land, the issue becomes contractual and the owner has the right to set the rules in the absence of specifically articulated topics itemized in the rental contract. The tenants can either follow the rules or move out. So unless the contract originally said something to the effect of "Tenant shall have the right to fly the flag when on the premises," which is highly unlikely, then the tenants are SOL.
Are you sure? So by your argument the tenant can't drive an Oldsmobile onto the parking lot? I couldn't easily find a picture of the car itself, but do you remember this emblem on some of the Oldsmobiles?
You mentioned a freedom of speech issue, but it could be argued that it's no more than an asthetic issue. Most likely the contract specifically DOES allow the tenant to drive a motorcyle or car onto the property. Or at least implies it with the assignment of a parking spot. The article says the guy flies a flag from the back of his motorcyle. If we make the assumption that it's not one those huge things that could be considered a nuisance simply due to it's size, is flying the flag substantially different than a car with a flag painted on it, or a car with the factory emblem such as the Olds?
|
|
pei
Famous Hero
Fresh Air.
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 04:52 AM |
|
|
|
Let people have the flag they want. That is what most people would say. I say the world would be a better place if there was only one flag.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 06:59 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 07:02, 16 Oct 2009.
|
Quote:
This doesn't change the fact that you, obviously, don't like this -- which, ironically, is what "private property" Republicans and conservatives want to encourage.
Yes, I don't like some moron trying to impede the right of people to live their lives in peace when they are hurting no once.
I already said when you rent an apartment you are renting the apartment, access to the apartment and other common areas and a parking space.
Conservatives are opposed to interfering unnecessarily in other's lives. You are thinking of the Demoncrats who think that every aspect of a person't life should be dictated.
Quote:
I thought it was supposed to be a free country.
Or is it only when you agree with it?
Yes, it is a free country and a person has a right to fly a flag or not fly a flag. If a person hates the American flag they have no business in the nation. The flag stands for freedom and the sacrifice our brave men and women have made to keep America free.
A person who does not value freedom and the sacrifice others have made to keep the US free should get the **** out of the country and go somewhere where they will be happy.
The policy of not allowing an American flag to be flown in America is irrational, stupid, moronic, unpatriotic, communistic and just plain loony.
Quote:
What if you own the parking lot?
At least you're better than the government, right?
But what if I lease you an apartment and parking spot and then say, oh, the contract doesn't say you can't wear pants in the parking lot, but you can't. In my parking lot men have to wear a dress. So you will wear a dress in my parking lot.
Quote:
Certainly you have no problems whatsoever if it is mentioned in the lease, right? Somehow I think you do
Yes, I do have a problem with it and actually most of that would be illegal. Under Equal Housing Opportunity an apartment complex can't refuse to rent to a person because of their religion so the complex could not refuse to allow a woman to wear a burka for instance or to carry a Bible. Equal Housing Opportunity also means a gay person can't be refused housing so they could not stop gays from holding hands or kissing in the parking lot. If a tenant wants to wear a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim symbol the landlord can do nothing about it.
I believe in freedom, otherwise I would be a demoncrat instead of a conservative.
The exception would be if the apartment complex is a religious commune rather than being open to rental by the general public. Then symbols of different religions could be prohibited.
Quote:
Republicans don't really care about private property.
Sure they do. Oh, I'm an independant conservative.
Demoncrats don't really believe in private property these days they should change their name to the American Democrat Socialist Party.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 07:10 AM |
|
|
Wow. Hmm. So..anything not essential a landlord can get rid of or change, except in the 'quiet enjoyment area' (ie the living space of a tenant)? So clothing is essential, but there are many types of clothing so the type is not essential. So a landlord could decree that women have to wear see through fishnet and nothing else in common areas?  . Yeah, I bet that would go over well.
It should be simple. If it is on your person or your personal property that is not part of the building (except the 'quiet enjoyment area' which should be immune anyhow) they should have zero say. They may own the parking lot, but you car is not the parking lot. You are not painting the parking lot with graffitti, you are putting something on YOUR vehicle. You should also be able to wear pins, hats, or anything else with the flag if you want.
However, just because somebody does not like the flag does not mean they should leave the country. It is their right not to like the flag, or anything else. However, they should not have the right to make others remove the flags either.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 08:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sure they do.
Then explain the ruling I linked to - both wings of the court agreed against property rights.
Quote:
Oh, I'm an independant conservative.
And yet I hardly ever see you criticising the Republicans. Come on, let's hear it. Where do you disagree with them?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 16, 2009 03:08 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 15:10, 16 Oct 2009.
|
Couple of Points:
1st, What the hell are you people doing reading an Oregon newspaper (o_O)  
2nd, I have learned that the people of Oregon are largely influenced by two major cities which override the votes and thoughts of the rest of the state by overwhelming majorities: Portland & Salem (and no binabik don't even think about saying eugene)
3rd, I don't think a lot of people understand the way people think out here. Our most popular bumper sticker reads "Keep Portland Weird".
4th, this is a state in which no wars were ever fought here and I believe the people of Oregon had a huge debate on whether to join the U.S. or the U.K. The people here are largely enamored and revere two historic figures known as Louis & Clark
I don't think the people of Oregon have ever truly felt like they are true-blooded americans. Oh and it might interest you all to know a few other facts about my city Portland. We have the least amount of churches and religious people per capita of the whole country, euthanasia is legal, and we barely have any black people at all, and we have the highest teen homeless population per capita in the world.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 03:17 PM |
|
|
1. Okay. Stupid rule.
2. Okay you cant have your flag. SO? Who cares about some flag? -.-
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 04:36 PM |
|
|
This is a very interesting and lively debate. Elodin raised several situations that in my estimation would be gray-area cases. Once again, Landlords are afforded extremely wide latitude in their control of common areas whether or not particular issues are covered in the lease. My guess is the tenants would probably prevail in some of the cases (like in requiring men to wear dresses and women to wear pants, for instance,) but the landlord might prevail in others (like the wearing of tattoos for instance). As they say, "hard cases make bad law." The fact is, there's just practically no case law on any of these peculiar kinds of situations because nobody takes them far enough to actually go to court. But as the one treatise I cited above says, there's a huge amount of inconsistency in the way quiet enjoyment has been applied by the courts.
Elodin, let me give you an example of why the tenant might lose the tattoos case. Biker clubs often use tattoos to show their colors. If you have rival biker gangs occupying the same apartment house and the tattoos are causing enough tension to cause fights and disrupt the joint, then a landlord might be able to convince a judge that he or she was within rights to ban the displaying of all tattoos for the sake of the quiet enjoyment of all tenants notwithstanding the silence in the lease on the issue. The landlord decides that banning of just biker tattoos would be unfair, and so puts a blanket ban on all tattoos. I can imagine some judges going for that, and some others not going for it.
On the other hand, I am having a hard time coming up with a rationale for making folks cross-dress being essential to the quiet enjoyment of other tenants. I'm not saying there is or is not an argument to be made, just that I'm having a spot of trouble thinking up what that rationale might be.
Several of you are mixing in arguments based on the notion that the lease already had restrictions. That a distinct situation and I don't think that's as relevant because in the original flag scenario we can safely assume the lease was silent as to the flying of flags in the first place. The fact is, a landlord can put damn well what ever he or she wants in a lease. Folks are entering into a contract -- an agreement to abide by the terms of the lease -- when they sign it. One they sign it they are bound by its terms. They can always choose not to live there. Even if the lease says "only Finnish Muslim cross-dressing bikers with flag tattoos are permitted to live here" then the tenants agree to abide. If the lease says "only English-speaking, bible-carrying folks -- no bikers, no tattoos, no cross-dressers," then the tenants agree to abide.
Make sense?
It will be very interesting to see what happens if this flag case actually makes it to court, although I seriously doubt it will. My guess is that the landlord in this case is getting so much heat she's just going to back down and lift the restriction.
Binabik -- I'm sort-of saying that stuff. You should read my clarifying posts as you suggested you might need to do. I think the answers to most of your questions are in there.
Elodin -- you raised the issue about gay rights and equal housing. I will address that issue separately later because there are actually laws that expressly address the issue. This is not the case with the other examples you have raised. Once the legislature has spoken directly to a specific issue, then that's the law and the situation becomes a lot more clear-cut.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 05:01 PM |
|
|
Okay, here's how it works.
Here's how it works.
Scenario 1:
TENANT: Your honor, my landlord has just told me I can't show my tattoo in the common areas of the building. I contest that this is going to make it nearly impossible for me to keep living there because my tattoo covers my face and I really have no way of hiding it.
JUDGE: (To Landlord) What does the lease say?
LANDLORD: Your Honor, the lease is silent on the issue of tattoos.
JUDGE: Then why are you trying to make this man hide his tattoos?
LANDLORD: Your Honor, I didn't anticipate gang wars in the parking lot every night when these folks get home at the same time as some members of a rival biker gang also get home. Its causing a major disturbance and disrupting the whole building. Other tenants are getting woken up by the noise and violence and are starting to complain that their rights to quiet enjoyment are being violated... etc. etc.
(Who wins?)
Scenario 2
TENANT: Your Honor, my landlord is trying to make me hide my tattoo when I am in the common areas of the building. I contest that this is going to make it nearly impossible for me to keep living there because my tattoo covers my face and I really have no way of hiding it.
JUDGE: What does the lease say?
LANDLORD: Your Honor, the lease specifically says that there are no tattoos allowed to be shown in common areas of the building.
JUDGE: (To Tenant) Is this your signature on the lease?
TENANT: Shazam. It sure is my signature Your Honor.
JUDGE: Did you read that part right there that says tenants are not allowed to display tattoos in the common areas of the building?
TENANT:, Oh, well, I'm not sure...
JUDGE: See there, right above your signature, where it says you agree to comply with the terms of the lease?
TENANT: Yes Your Honor I see where it says that.
JUDGE: Then you should have read the terms before you agreed to them, shouldn't you have?
TENANT: Yes Your Honor I see where I probably should have done that.
(Who wins?)
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 05:07 PM |
|
|
I can not speak about the legality's in regards to this subject as it seems anymore every law or constitution has a loop hole.
I can say that is really disturbing to me that
this takes place anywhere, not just here.
To those that live in other countries, communist countries
to be more specific, it is understandable why they think
this is no big deal.
I think it is just one more step into us all wearing
matching plastic jogging wear and all having blue eyes
and blonde hair.
I mean sure, you are renting but who thinks they are going
to be told to take a symbol of their country down, something that
is suppose to be honored and at one point meant something
to so many people.
Everything is so watered down in the school systems
and dumbed down with regard to being patriotic that this
generation, I feel, does not understand what others
went through to get the freedoms they have.
This to me is a slippery slope to say the least.
@Consis- I am from Seattle remember and I have family that live
in Portland so I read several papers. It is evident by the fact that you live there Oregon is defenently weird. 
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 05:09 PM |
|
|
Nice post PM, and very true...
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 05:12 PM |
|
|
Hi VF -- was wondering when you were going to come back and visit your thread.
I know there is a very emotional aspect to this situation that my posts don't really address. But if it makes you feel any better, I am having trouble imagining the landlord in the Oregon flag situation making an argument in front of the judge that would be very persuasive, unless they really are having gang fights in the parking lot over flags. Somehow I kind-of doubt that's the case.
I think this gal just didn't think through what she was doing very carefully, but I'm sure she's thinking through it pretty thoroughly now.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 16, 2009 05:13 PM |
|
|
@Elodin: you're overlooking the fact that the landlord OWNS the thing, and if the contract says "subject to modification without notice" (which I have no idea), then all your arguments are null.
You see the government as an evil entity that should not control people's lives, but don't you see, this leads to PEOPLE trying to control other people's lives -- if they OWN the PRIVATE (aka non-public, non-government-controlled) area?
Yes, people who own apartments can be anti-american, anti-freedoms and anti-whatever-you-believe-in too, not just the government. Wake up, and it's their right to put their own rules into their property.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
