- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Society
Peace Activist Janice Roberts Refuses to Rent Apartment to War Veteran Sgt. Joel Morgan
In Savin Hill, Massachusetts, Sgt. Joel Morgan has sued property owner Janice Roberts, who reportedly refused to rent an apartment to him because he is a national guardsman who has served in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
Roberts told Sgt. Morgan in an April 9 voicemail that renting to him would be a conflict, saying, “We are very adamant about our beliefs,” reports the Boston Herald.
“It just is not going to be comfortable for us without a doubt. It probably would be better for you to look for a place that is a little bit less politically active and controversial,” Roberts told Dgt. Morgan, according to his lawsuit.
Sgt. Morgan said: “For her to do that to me, it was like a spit in the face. For what we have gone through overseas, to come home to our country and have people ... discriminate against us. ... It made me extremely insecure about being a soldier.”
Morgan filed suit last week in Suffolk Superior Court, accusing Roberts of violating a state law that prohibits landlords from refusing to rent to veterans.
Robert's written response to the lawsuit claims that Sgt. Morgan never returned a completed rental application, which he admits after hearing her voicemail.
Roberts, who has belonged to a civil-rights group called Garden of Enlightenment since 2000, also said: “This bodes the question, ‘Why would someone like Joel Morgan, who apparently fought so valiently (sic) in wars in which he believed, want to even choose to subject himself to renting an apartment from people, like myself, who were so vigorously seeking an end to the Iraq War?’
“There was never any mention to Morgan that his being a veteran would impede his chances to rent from us. If anything, he was a victim of U.S. greed, and for that, I feel much empathy.”
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Was Vietnam forgotten so
Was Vietnam forgotten so soon? So basically she is choosing to spit on a veteran again. It is sad and scary that human memory is so short. Don't rent to Bush or politicians. To you anti war people remember people join the military for so many different reasons and not just to go shooting. Many have families and many don't agree with their engagement. I'm a veteran and I tell current veterans that I opposed the war and voted to bring them home. I thank them for their service and that I'm glad they returned safe. If its at a bar or restaurant I'll by them a beer.
"Sgt. Morgan said: “..... ...
"Sgt. Morgan said: “..... ... It made me extremely insecure about being a soldier.”"
I don't believe that for a minute. Sounds like a setup for mental anguish damages.
If she doesn't like the non
If she doesn't like the non discrimination restrictions placed on her BUSINESS (not the property) by the government, then she can CHOOSE not to rent the property. Her property rights are intact.
I'm inclined to disagree with
I'm inclined to disagree with her reasons for wishing to refuse his business, but I'm ambivalent about whether she should have the right to do so. Ideally we should all be allowed to do that with or without explaining ourselves, but that might have dire consequences if enacted consistently.
I do agree with her pacifist sentiments, but I think she's expressing them in an entirely useless way. Turning the veteran away isn't going to undo anything he did, or help anyone who might have suffered because of it. I don't think it's going to discourage other military personnel from following orders. And it's going to help conservatives find another reason to be mad at liberals.
Please read the
Please read the accommodations section of the 1964 civil rights act. When you open up your property for public use, the rules change. How do think ghettos get established? People in the "nice" neighborhoods won't rent or sell to people they don't "like."
actually, no she doesn't,
actually, no she doesn't, "She is got the right to choose whosoever she wants..." and she will stand corrected. She's alredy started backsliding on technicalities.... Not exactly standing up for her convictions... Just getting scared.... Weak... simply weak...
@Cityboy...you sure live up
@Cityboy...you sure live up to your name. I bet you have avoided serving our country like the plague. If anybody has been 'brainwashed', it's you. Drinking too much of that good ole liberal kool-aid, haven't you?
There's a reply button under
There's a reply button under each post, that way you can attach your response to the message you're attempting to rebut and it doesn't get lost in all the other messages.
No, I didn't "avoid serving our country like the plague". I was actually getting ready to sign up when an irresponsible driver ran me over and made me physically ineligible.
Pretty much everyone I've met who has been through basic training has pointed out to me that it is one very successful brainwashing exercise, so if that liberal kool-aid you're talking about is what's being dispensed by military veterans, then yes.
And you sure live up to your name as well. Did you have a point to make beyond name calling?
"Roberts, who has belonged to
"Roberts, who has belonged to a civil-rights group called Garden of Enlightenment since 2000, also said: “This bodes the question, ‘Why would someone like Joel Morgan, who apparently fought so valiently (sic) in wars in which he believed,......"
This woman is delusional.
As a vet, I can say, with absolute certainty, we rarely actually believe in the wars we are ordered to fight in. More often than not, we go where our orders send us, be it a relief mission, like the Berlin airlift or military action in Afghanistan, it is not about our personal belief, but our dedication to something greater than ourselves or our egos or our personal beliefs.
Ms Roberts, very clearly, does not understand that and would rather punish the soldier than the people that issued the orders that sent him off to war, our politicians.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
The problem is that soldiers
The problem is that soldiers choose to fight in the wars they are ordered to - by choosing to be active soldiers. Are you really going to pull the "just following orders" card?
If my country asked me to fight so that it could secure it's oil supply, although there are other alternatives, I would have refused.
Soldiers choose to serve
Soldiers choose to serve their Constitution and their country. They get no choice as to where their orders send them. Only an IDIOT would think otherwise.
We did not invade Iraq to secure our oil supply, since we export more oil than we import....always have. We invaded Iraq because the boy who would be king wanted to "finish" what his daddy started.
Unfortunately, it actually makes a certain amount of sense, simply because it was our very own CIA that helped place Saddam Hussein in power in the first place. The actual stated reasons were lies, but that IS NOT the responsibility of the soldiers who went there; it was the responsibility of the President, Congress and Joint Chiefs that initiated the orders to invade.
As long as those orders are lawful orders, a soldier is duty-bound and oathbound, to obey them. No soldier has an obligation to obey unlawful orders, which is what has put many an officer in deep shit for ordering attacks on civilians with no military target value.
It's in the UCMJ......a soldier would know that, so I can assume that you are either not/never have been a member of that elite fraternity that is the military, or you were a piss poor soldier.
The excuse of "just following orders" does not hold any sway in the actions of a soldier that follows orders that they know to be unlawful. It didn't wash for the NAZIS at Nuremberg, and it does not wash for American soldiers today.
Either way, consider yourself as educated.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
You misread my post. By
You misread my post. By choosing to be active soldiers they are supporting the war. We have no right to intrude. We are not the "world's police".
For the state to tell a
For the state to tell a private property owner what he/she can or can not do with their own property, flies in the face of a limited Constitutional government. Remember, before it became "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" it was "life, liberty, and property". We no longer own our property, we are merely tenants. Welcome to the new neofeudalism. We are all serfs now.
A person can do pretty much
A person can do pretty much whatever they'd like with their property. They just cannot state it or post it. You cannot have a sign that says "Irish need not apply". It's a bogus law because she could have said so many things.
How are you enjoying the
How are you enjoying the right to freedom of speech, religion and all of the other things that you have a right to in this "serfdom"?
The next time you leave the house, take a trip to the local VA and thank the veterans there for serving to protect those freedoms that you do enjoy and have the right to talk about (without facing prison for stating your opinion), because it is the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that have given some, or all, so that you could have those rights. Maybe you will remember that when you read this story again and see how much of a hypocrite this woman really is.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
If anything, our current
If anything, our current government is the biggest threat to our freedom. Did you forget that they just signed the NDAA? They can basically label any American citizen a terrorist, jail indefinitely without trial, or execute - is this the freedom you were fighting for?
Or how about the latest move to legalize Government propaganda use against it's own people? Yeah, that's the smell of freedom right there. A government trying to legalize lying to it's own people.
Bitch to your Congressmen
Bitch to your Congressmen about the NDAA and the party politicking that caused it to be the way that it is.
Congress (GOP run) wrote it up and approved it, as is, then refused to give the President line item veto powers. The President had a choice; either veto the entire bill, thus defunding the military completely, or sign the bill as the GOP-run CONGRESS wrote it.
"Or how about the latest move to legalize Government propaganda use against it's own people? Yeah, that's the smell of freedom right there. A government trying to legalize lying to it's own people."
Again, elect non-GOP/tea party politicians and you can do something about it. If you voted Republican, then you only have yourself to blame: If you didn't vote at all, then you also only have yourself to blame as well.
Personally, I would like to see a truth in advertising law that applies specifically to political ads and requires total and absolute truth. It would certainly eliminate the GOP propaganda machine and would render the Koch superPACs useless.
Instead of bitching about the problem, try working toward that goal.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
You missed the point
You missed the point entirely. I know exactly who is to blame. I vote, although when both major parties have sold out the American people it isn't easy.
You said they fought for our freedom. I meant our freedom is only an illusion. You seem to agree with me that the true fight now is here, with our government.
Right, and when was the last
Right, and when was the last war that threatened our freedom? Don't worry, I'll wait.
None since WWII, unless you
None since WWII, unless you count the Cold War (which did warm up a little from time to time - not that civilians know much about that) and the piss-poor war of defense against terrorism during the 70's and 80's, during which I served.
The point that I was making is that we are there, the shield and sword, to defend that idiot's right to own her own property and be a landlord, her right to have her opinion and voice it without facing jail (or worse) for doing so.
You didn't have to wait long for that little history lesson, did you?
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
"None since WWII..." Thank
"None since WWII..."
Thank you.
I didn't have to wait at all for a history lesson. But now do you understand that the last war that involved our freedom was almost 70 years ago. I respect you going through what you went through, I respect anyone who can endure that, I know it isn't easy. But you can't claim that people are out there defending our freedom when all they are doing are being pawns in the United States' attempt to police the world.
Remind me: do we take an oath
Remind me: do we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution or the UN? And does that mean all of it or only some parts we agree with? Article I Section 8 clearly puts the decision to make war in the hands of we the people through our elected representatives not the "king" chief executive. Sorry, I am not supportive of people who were duped into fighting Unconstitutional police actions fought under the auspices of the UN and NATO. They have my sympathy. When there are more suicides than KIAs something is definitely wrong. American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are there why? It is ludicrous to state it is to protect American freedoms. They should be protecting us against the USA PATRIOT Act, the NDAA, and myriad others. If you want to support the troops, you'd work to bring them home.
Here's your reminder; we take
Here's your reminder; we take an oath to defend the Constitution. here is the oath:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
As far as thetreasonous Patriot Act and the treasonous provisions of the NDAA, talk to the GOP run Congress on that one. It was a GOP President and a (at the time) GOP run Congress that instituted the Patriot act, along with a number of equally moronic conservative Democrats that instituted that bit of unconstitutional drivvel. With the NDAA, it was CONGRESS, because they want to sabotage the President, they would not allow line item veto powers, which would have eliminated any concern over the NDAA as the President would have vetoed that particularly disturbing provision.
But not to worry; putting the questionable provision in may end up backfiring on the treasonous GOP politicians that made sure that it was there.
As far as bringing the troops home, my brothers and sisters, I never wanted them to go off to 2 illegal wars in the first place: that was our previous president (the boy who would be king, Bush Jr.) who is facing criminal war crimes indictment (along with his buddy and VP) in most of the free world.
Besides, experience taught me that there are better ways to fight terrorism; it requires a surgeon's knife, not a sledgehammer.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Awhile ago I stumbled on an
Awhile ago I stumbled on an old NYTimes story printing elements of a Pentagon leaker they said may have been motivated by the way the GOP, in the months that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, had unilaterally decided they would find some new justification for maintaining the size of the military now that the old justification of nuclear anhilation at the hands of the Soviets was no longer feasible or sufficient to ensure continued funding at a level needed to preclude an draw-down in the military's size and the Pentagon's importance.
The task of finding that new role for Americas military machine fell to non other than Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney.
However the leak of that initial white-paper revealed plans that were so militaristic the GOP itself said they had shelved the paper for its martial tone. Thats when Scooter Libby and Gen, Colin Powell were tasked with rewriting it. Sources then sid that much of the old original paper had still made into the '91-92 "Defence Planning Guidence" the Pentagon sent out to key industry and defence chiefs so they can plan around this DPG as a basic plan for US military policy for years to come.
When Clinton was elected much of their plan to manitain the US as the sole superpower in the world came to an end. But that;s not wheere it stopped. As you know Wolf-boy, Libby, Cheney, Perlem, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Armitage etc simply moved their operation, adopted the name PNAC, called themselves a think-tank, and continued refining what was then caled the Wolfowitz Docrine into something they believed might be an easier sell over the next decade or so..."barring some catostrophic event like another Pearl Harbor" they believed would speed the publics acceptence up for their vision of a new "Pax Americana" and an "American Century".
Move ahead to Bush Jrs asking of PNAC's Dick Cheney who he'd choose to run as his Veep, his selection of himself, then the wholesale integration of PNAC into key positions in his new government, and the Wolfowitz Doctrine becoming the Bush Doctrine dediacted to fighting a never-ending war agsint threats that cannot be contained using the current military strategies that now suffice as an excuse to continue asking US taxpayers to keep paying for their dreams of empire under the guise of a WoT. And the public f'ing fell for it!! Despite a clear trail of words showing what and how they planned to maintain a military thats no longer needed so they can maibtain the sense they are relevant in a post-Cold War world.
Any thoughts??
I don't see how going to Iraq
I don't see how going to Iraq and Afghanistan and killing people, and quite possibly getting blown up in the process, has anything to do with our freedoms in the US. The only people who are in a position to take away our freedoms are the ones we elect to congress, and the ones who want to use the military against our own citizens.
Soldiers are brainwashed into thinking that they took the job to "defend freedom", when in reality most of them joined up for the sweet educational opportunities and benefits they'll have when they get out.
Despite the propaganda of military job training, becoming a military veteran does give you a 30% increased chance of being unemployed (despite USERRA), a threefold higher chance of suicide, and at least a twofold higher chance of ending up homeless - veterans make up 10% of the population and 16% of the homeless. (source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/01/report-finds-veterans-make-high-number-homeless/ )
Almost a third of our returning troops have some form of mental illness (source: http://articles.cnn.com/2007-03-13/us/stress.troops_1_substance-abuse-disorder-mental-health-anxiety-disorder?_s=PM:US ) - if you were renting out your property, does someone with a 31% chance of being mentally ill and has been trained to kill masses of people with ease sound like a good and safe decision to rent to?
"Soldiers are brainwashed
"Soldiers are brainwashed into thinking that they took the job to "defend freedom", when in reality most of them joined up for the sweet educational opportunities and benefits they'll have when they get out."
They're not brainwashed into anything. Saying that shows you have no idea what you are talking about. It takes a long time to brainwash someone. A lot of volunteers join up because there is no other choice in this economy, they're tired of waiting for work, or their family is going under. Others join for the sweet educational experience you mentioned, then bitch about having to fight, AFTER JOINING THE ARMY FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.
True enough. The economy
True enough. The economy wasn't so bad when I enlisted and the draft had been stopped by then. It wasn't for education or because there was no other choices. Hell, I was living in a college town so I could have stayed home and gone to college.
Instead, I chose to serve; something that these peaceniks are too selfish to understand.
It's easy to stand up for a cause when there is no risk to self, but as another person pointed out, the person who denied that soldier a home is showing what a "sunshine activist" she really is and how wrong she is to take her issues out on a soldier that wants nothing but a roof over his head after serving his country.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
This kind of person is a
This kind of person is a landlord? How does she justify being a capitalist parasite of the People?
I hope this man gets a few
I hope this man gets a few years of rent at this woman's expense.
So we can refuse to rent to
So we can refuse to rent to anyone who's political beliefs disagree with ours? Anyone who's moral beliefs are different? Wow! A lot of people will moving, and losing jobs. I hope her job is the first to go. What a despicable "person".
State law prohibits her from refusing to rent to a veteran. I hope she is punished to the full extent of the law. He has paid a heavy price for his freedom, 3 tours. Now it's time for this sorry excuse for a human being to pay hers.....and I hope it's as difficult as his was.
I hope you'll one day realize
I hope you'll one day realize that there is no freedom if a property owner can't rent to whomever they choose. If these were government apartments it would be different. Our freedom is heavily founded in our property rights. Self ownership and otherwise.
She has no more or no less
She has no more or no less property rights than any other landlord. Rufusing to rent to a black person, a gay person, a transgendered person would be illegal, but when it comes to a person with different political(if in fact true) beliefs it's okay? No. Either we all have the same rights or we have no rights. Our rights are not infinite, because others have rights too. If a veteran refused to rent to her because of her political beliefs, you don't think she would sue? You bet she would.
He wasn't trying to rent the spare bedroom in her house...she wasn't going to be living with him. She's a bigot, and not a very smart one.
You need to read the public
You need to read the public accommodations section of the 1964 civil rights act.
There are real estate laws
There are real estate laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, disability, and personal beliefs. These laws do NOT apply only to government properties. They were put in place to prevent things just like this. Had the home owner simply said that the property has been rented to someone else, she'd have been just fine. But to state (on a recorded voice mail, no less) that her reason for not renting to him is because he is in the military and has served overseas and it doesn't bode with her *personal* interests & beliefs, then she has indeed committed discrimination, and she broke the law.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke.
"...Roberts told Sgt. Morgan
"...Roberts told Sgt. Morgan in an April 9 voicemail that renting to him would be a conflict, saying, “We are very adamant about our beliefs,”..."
It is a business deal Ms. Roberts: nothing more. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement that you socialize.
Ms. Roberts, there is nothing wrong with standing by your principles. However, at least choose a stand worthy of the consequences. All you have done here is create animosity, and the expense of a legal defense which may fail due to the apparent exercise of discrimination.
I do admire your personal courage of actually telling Sgt. Morgan your actual feelings rather than lying to him.