Retirement communities...next SSM legal dispute

[jayem]

ST. LOUIS • A St. Louis County senior community has denied housing to a married lesbian couple who have been together for nearly four decades because of the couple’s sexual orientation, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court.

Mary Walsh, 72, and Bev Nance, 68, both of Shrewsbury, say the Friendship Village senior living community, which has locations in Sunset Hills and Chesterfield, denied occupancy to them to live at the Sunset Hills community in 2016 because their relationship violated its cohabitation policy that defines marriage as “the union of one man and one woman, as marriage is understood in the Bible,” according to the lawsuit...

The couple paid a $2,000 deposit and knew they were rejected 2 years ago. I wonder why they're just filing suit now. According to the retirement center's website, it follows Biblical values, but is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or operated by any particular church.

It'll be interesting to see where this goes. The suit was filed in federal court. Sexual orientation is not currently a protected class under federal housing law. Neither is marital status. So if the court applies a strict reading of the law, their case will be dismissed. But sex is a protected class. If they can convince the court that they're being rejected purely because of sex, then they could prevail.

Even if they lose the case, they should definitely get their deposit back. With interest.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_0233aeb6-3585-511e-a198-74d7c4c05b36.html

 

[LoAmmi]

ST. LOUIS • A St. Louis County senior community has denied housing to a married lesbian couple who have been together for nearly four decades because of the couple’s sexual orientation, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court.

Mary Walsh, 72, and Bev Nance, 68, both of Shrewsbury, say the Friendship Village senior living community, which has locations in Sunset Hills and Chesterfield, denied occupancy to them to live at the Sunset Hills community in 2016 because their relationship violated its cohabitation policy that defines marriage as “the union of one man and one woman, as marriage is understood in the Bible,” according to the lawsuit...

The couple paid a $2,000 deposit and knew they were rejected 2 years ago. I wonder why they're just filing suit now. According to the retirement center's website, it follows Biblical values, but is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or operated by any particular church.

It'll be interesting to see where this goes. The suit was filed in federal court. Sexual orientation is not currently a protected class under federal housing law. Neither is marital status. So if the court applies a strict reading of the law, their case will be dismissed. But sex is a protected class. If they can convince the court that they're being rejected purely because of sex, then they could prevail.

Even if they lose the case, they should definitely get their deposit back. With interest.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_0233aeb6-3585-511e-a198-74d7c4c05b36.html

They may have been trying to resolve it some other way without filing a lawsuit leading to it taking so long to file. Had a friend who filed a lawsuit against a company a year and a half after the event because they kept stringing him along while he was trying to resolve it without lawyers.

 

[dqhall]

ST. LOUIS • A St. Louis County senior community has denied housing to a married lesbian couple who have been together for nearly four decades because of the couple’s sexual orientation, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court.

Mary Walsh, 72, and Bev Nance, 68, both of Shrewsbury, say the Friendship Village senior living community, which has locations in Sunset Hills and Chesterfield, denied occupancy to them to live at the Sunset Hills community in 2016 because their relationship violated its cohabitation policy that defines marriage as “the union of one man and one woman, as marriage is understood in the Bible,” according to the lawsuit...

The couple paid a $2,000 deposit and knew they were rejected 2 years ago. I wonder why they're just filing suit now. According to the retirement center's website, it follows Biblical values, but is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or operated by any particular church.

It'll be interesting to see where this goes. The suit was filed in federal court. Sexual orientation is not currently a protected class under federal housing law. Neither is marital status. So if the court applies a strict reading of the law, their case will be dismissed. But sex is a protected class. If they can convince the court that they're being rejected purely because of sex, then they could prevail.

Even if they lose the case, they should definitely get their deposit back. With interest.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_0233aeb6-3585-511e-a198-74d7c4c05b36.html

Over half the states do not protect same-sex couples from housing discrimination. Twenty-two states protect same-sex couples from housing discrimination. Not all landlords or property management companies would discriminate anyway. Bakeries and restaurants seldom discriminated.

I have a community phone directory. Most of us own our own homes, a few rent. I looked through it. Most units are occupied by married couples. Some are occupied by single, divorced or widowed people. Some are occupied by unmarried hetero couples. Some units are occupied by two women. I met two women housemates as they helped organize a community supper once a month in one of the community centers. They are retirement aged Catholics. I would not accuse or judge them. Perhaps some poor widows had to share homes.

Some college age people lived in same sex dorm rooms. That is not homosexuality.

 

[Episaw]

ST. LOUIS • A St. Louis County senior community has denied housing to a married lesbian couple who have been together for nearly four decades because of the couple’s sexual orientation, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court.

Mary Walsh, 72, and Bev Nance, 68, both of Shrewsbury, say the Friendship Village senior living community, which has locations in Sunset Hills and Chesterfield, denied occupancy to them to live at the Sunset Hills community in 2016 because their relationship violated its cohabitation policy that defines marriage as “the union of one man and one woman, as marriage is understood in the Bible,” according to the lawsuit...

The couple paid a $2,000 deposit and knew they were rejected 2 years ago. I wonder why they're just filing suit now. According to the retirement center's website, it follows Biblical values, but is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or operated by any particular church.

It'll be interesting to see where this goes. The suit was filed in federal court. Sexual orientation is not currently a protected class under federal housing law. Neither is marital status. So if the court applies a strict reading of the law, their case will be dismissed. But sex is a protected class. If they can convince the court that they're being rejected purely because of sex, then they could prevail.

Even if they lose the case, they should definitely get their deposit back. With interest.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_0233aeb6-3585-511e-a198-74d7c4c05b36.html

And what's the betting that they chose that particular one because they knew they would be refused.

 

[super animator]

And what's the betting that they chose that particular one because they knew they would be refused.

You need evidence for that claim.

 

[Phil 1:21]

And what's the betting that they chose that particular one because they knew they would be refused.

I'd say better than average.

 

[cow451]

That’s why we have courts. This one has SCOTUS written all over it.

 

[Belk]

And what's the betting that they chose that particular one because they knew they would be refused.

Ah yes, that well known Christian virtue of slander.

 

[Albion]

I have a community phone directory. Most of us own our own homes, a few rent. I looked through it. Most units are occupied by married couples. Some are occupied by single, divorced or widowed people. Some are occupied by unmarried hetero couples. Some units are occupied by two women. I met two women housemates as they helped organize a community supper once a month in one of the community centers. They are retirement aged Catholics. I would not accuse or judge them. Perhaps some poor widows had to share homes.

Some college age people lived in same sex dorm rooms. That is not homosexuality.

All that is possible in general terms. It is most likely that there was no doubt about the status of these two individuals at the time they paid the deposit, however.

 

[jayem]

And what's the betting that they chose that particular one because they knew they would be refused.

According to the article, the couple chose that facility because of their particular needs. Not to provoke a court challenge:

"Walsh and Nance considered other housing but said Friendship Village was the only place in the St. Louis area “that can provide increased levels of care without an increased monthly cost to residents.”

The women are also contending that they were told by a representative that there would be no problem with them living at one of their facilities:

Walsh said she’d raised the question of whether there would be a problem with two married women having a unit at another community that the pair toured. “And the guy looked at me like I had three heads and said, ‘No, we don’t have any problem at all.’ He looked at me so strangely I never asked the question again,” she said. “I thought, ‘Well, this has all been resolved with the Marriage Act, isn’t this great.’ So when we visited Friendship Village on several occasions, I never asked the question.”

 

[Albion]

According to the article, the couple chose that facility because of their particular needs. Not to provoke a court challenge

When have ANY of these cases involved plaintiffs who asserted that they chose the business in question in order to test the willingness of the owners to serve them??

 

[Hank77]

You need evidence for that claim.

I think that is complaint may prove that they didn't pick this facility with any premeditated devious motives or plan.

http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Friendship-Village-complaint-with-exhibits.pdf

 

[Hank77]

When have ANY of these cases involved plaintiffs who asserted that they chose the business in question in order to test the willingness of the owners to serve them??

I don't think someone would work with a facility for over six months and then put their private home up for sale in order to come up with $12,000 additional person fee if they didn't think they had been accepted as a renters, when the company had said they would work them.
http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Friendship-Village-complaint-with-exhibits.pdf

 

[Albion]

Interesting...but not related to my post which, however, you quoted for some reason.

 

[Belk]

When have ANY of these cases involved plaintiffs who asserted that they chose the business in question in order to test the willingness of the owners to serve them??

Never. Yet for some reason people are so certain this is the case. So, what evidence do you have in any of these cases they were targeted?

 

[Albion]

Never. Yet for some reason people are so certain this is the case.

The "Never" answered the question adequately.

 

[Belk]

The "Never" answered the question adequately.

So how about answering my follow up question? Since no one has stated they targeted specific buisnesses what evidence exists to show this is their true aim?

 

[Hank77]

According to the article, the couple chose that facility because of their particular needs. Not to provoke a court challenge:

When have ANY of these cases involved plaintiffs who asserted that they chose the business in question in order to test the willingness of the owners to serve them??

I don't think someone would work with a facility for over six months and then put their private home up for sale in order to come up with $12,000 additional person fee if they didn't think they had been accepted as a renters, when the company had said they would work them.
http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Friendship-Village-complaint-with-exhibits.pdf

Interesting...but not related to my post which, however, you quoted for some reason.

Please explain the post that I responded to and misunderstood. Thanks.

 

[bcbsr]

ST. LOUIS • A St. Louis County senior community has denied housing to a married lesbian couple who have been together for nearly four decades because of the couple’s sexual orientation, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court.

Mary Walsh, 72, and Bev Nance, 68, both of Shrewsbury, say the Friendship Village senior living community, which has locations in Sunset Hills and Chesterfield, denied occupancy to them to live at the Sunset Hills community in 2016 because their relationship violated its cohabitation policy that defines marriage as “the union of one man and one woman, as marriage is understood in the Bible,” according to the lawsuit...

The couple paid a $2,000 deposit and knew they were rejected 2 years ago. I wonder why they're just filing suit now. According to the retirement center's website, it follows Biblical values, but is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or operated by any particular church.

It'll be interesting to see where this goes. The suit was filed in federal court. Sexual orientation is not currently a protected class under federal housing law. Neither is marital status. So if the court applies a strict reading of the law, their case will be dismissed. But sex is a protected class. If they can convince the court that they're being rejected purely because of sex, then they could prevail.

Even if they lose the case, they should definitely get their deposit back. With interest.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_0233aeb6-3585-511e-a198-74d7c4c05b36.html

It's kind of the same issue of a younger couple trying to get to live in a "senior" community and then complaining of age discrimination for not being allowed to. Fact is these communities do have certain rights to restrict those who are to live there.

 

[jayem]

It's kind of the same issue of a younger couple trying to get to live in a "senior" community and then complaining of age discrimination for not being allowed to. Fact is these communities do have certain rights to restrict those who are to live there.

Maybe, but discriminating on the basis of gender violates federal housing law. That's what the suit is claiming.