See, if a baker refuses to bake a cake or a florist refuses to do flowers for a gay wedding because of their deeply held beliefs, well, they must be fined by the State and have their businesses and lives ruined. But, when a liberal does something similar…
Sacramento Home For Sale But Not To Trump Supporters
A Sacramento area home is up for sale, but it comes with a catch.
The homeowner has a political preference in mind for the next owner of her house, which has been in her family for decades.
“She entertained people from all walks of life,†said the homeowner who asked we not use her name for fear of retaliation.
“I told her [the realtor] that I didn’t want her to sell it to a Trump supporter,†said the woman.
She wants a sale contingent upon how someone votes, but is that legal?
Attorney Allen Sawyer doesn’t believe so.
“That’s an unlawful contractual term that infringes the freedom of association and First Amendment rights,†said Sawyer.
It’s certainly against California law. Will the State fine her? Most likely, the answer is no. However, what Sawyer is saying seems almost opposite and wrong. She is free to associate with whomever she wants, and the 1st applies to government, not deciding whom she wants to sell the home to. She should have the freedom to make that choice. As should bakers, florists, and so forth.
But, here’s the rub: it has been deemed illegal to not sell a home based on color, creed, beliefs, religion, and so forth. This came about via covenants in which homeowners promised to not sell their homes to Blacks. Is this any different? It is discrimination. The Fair Housing Act doesn’t apply to political affiliation, but court rulings and other laws do apply. If she was wise, she would have kept her mouth shut, and done it on the sly. But, nowadays, it seems everyone wants their Social Media moment.
Regardless, Lefties, you can’t have it both ways. Either all bake the cake or not. Choose.
I remember the restrictive covenant on my mother’s house, bought in 1967; it stated that it could not be sold to a Negro. Those covenants remain on many properties, due to the expense and time required to purge them, but the covenants are not legally enforceable.
Of course, the seller, who is so bold that she “asked we not use her name for fear of retaliation,” is not trying to write that into a restrictive covenant, but is simply making it an instruction to her real estate agent. If a potential buyer volunteers the information, it might not be a problem, but if the agent asks the question, he might be risking his license.
If a potential buyer puts in an offer on the house, the agent is obligated to report that offer to the seller, who must then accept, reject or counter. What if the buyer has not disclosed the information; will the seller then instruct her agent to inquire?
There are, of course, many households in which the husband vote one way, and the wife the other.
As a matter of law, I believe this is true. As a matter of what goes in California, on the other hand…
(Disclaimer: I grew up in Sacramento.)