Retirement communities...next SSM legal dispute

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,153
1,654
Passing Through
✟458,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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
Wow, seriously? Speaking logically, how would the senior living community even know about their relationship? They could be two sisters, for all anyone else would know. If the two women knew this was not a place in which their relationship would be celebrated in advance, why even submit an application to this place? It doesn't seem like somewhere they would choose to be.

But of course, the time is ripe to jump on that bandwagon, and there might be some money at the end, so...out come the lawyers and the lobby.
 
Upvote 0

Mayzoo

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,180
1,569
✟205,338.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Wow, seriously? Speaking logically, how would the senior living community even know about their relationship? They could be two sisters, for all anyone else would know. If the two women knew this was not a place in which their relationship would be celebrated in advance, why even submit an application to this place? It doesn't seem like somewhere they would choose to be.

But of course, the time is ripe to jump on that bandwagon, and there might be some money at the end, so...out come the lawyers and the lobby.

Yeah, sadly the retirement home will likely get hundreds of thousands in donations, and a free legal team. Discrimination is becoming a very profitable violation of law. People will not stop doing it until it is no longer profitable.

Masterpiece Bakery...500K and counting since they are still soliciting donations long after the fines were paid (less than a third of what they collected) and the case is over. But hey, why not just take free money after violating the law if people are silly enough to keep sending it to them? It would only be the Christian thing to do is to pay the fine (if this could even be justified), then stop collecting and return the rest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,153
1,654
Passing Through
✟458,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's amazing how that works out...

The same folks that suggest that same sex couples "take their discrimination like an adult and just go somewhere else" are often the same ones that cried when a coffee cup generically celebrated all winter holidays instead of showing preference to their preferred holiday. (IE: "it's a war on Christmas because the cup said happy holidays!!!!")

Basically, some folks don't deal too well with the loss of preferential treatment, and attempt to portray those who stand up against them as "trouble makers" or "agitators".
All of that is false liberal rhetoric.

No one really cared about the Starbucks cup. A mention of a detrimental change in Starbucks policy of creating a cool new Christmas mug each year is not "crying". It was mentioned in a few articles and opinion pieces. That's it. And people went on with their lives. Many liked the Christmas scenes on the cups every year. Plain red was not a good seller and Starbucks reversed it. You can get a plain red mug anywhere, anytime. You completely missed the point on this and it isn't applicable anyway.

This has zero to do with preferential treatment and everything to do with the meaning of marriage. Jesus defined marriage as when a man leaves his mother and father, clings unto his wife, and the two become one flesh. Biblically-adherent Christians are not permitted to redefine it to appease the culture.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,153
1,654
Passing Through
✟458,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, sadly the retirement home will likely get hundreds of thousands in donations, and a free legal team. Discrimination is becoming a very profitable violation of law. People will not stop doing it until it is no longer profitable.

Masterpiece Bakery...500K and counting since they are still soliciting donations long after the fines were paid (less than a third of what they collected) and the case is over. But hey, why not just take free money after violating the law if people are silly enough to keep sending it to them? It would only be the Christian thing to do is to pay the fine (if this could even be justified), then stop collecting and return the rest.
Completely nonresponsive to what I actually said.

How did the nursing home even know about these two old ladies and the nature of their relationship in the first place in order to decline their application?
 
Upvote 0

Mayzoo

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,180
1,569
✟205,338.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Completely nonresponsive to what I actually said.

How did the nursing home even know about these two old ladies and the nature of their relationship in the first place in order to decline their application?

You stated: "But of course, the time is ripe to jump on that bandwagon, and there might be some money at the end, so...out come the lawyers and the lobby."

My post was directed at your comment.

BTW, After months of talking and visits, then the home requested and received the deposit. THEN someone decided it was appropriate to ask the relationship of the women. Reading the article in the OP might help you to understand what happened.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mayzoo

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,180
1,569
✟205,338.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
All of that is false liberal rhetoric.

No one really cared about the Starbucks cup. A mention of a detrimental change in Starbucks policy of creating a cool new Christmas mug each year is not "crying". It was mentioned in a few articles and opinion pieces. That's it. And people went on with their lives. Many liked the Christmas scenes on the cups every year. Plain red was not a good seller and Starbucks reversed it. You can get a plain red mug anywhere, anytime. You completely missed the point on this and it isn't applicable anyway.

This has zero to do with preferential treatment and everything to do with the meaning of marriage. Jesus defined marriage as when a man leaves his mother and father, clings unto his wife, and the two become one flesh. Biblically-adherent Christians are not permitted to redefine it to appease the culture.

The retirement home is not affiliated with any religion, let alone is the home "a biblically-adherent Christian."

No one asked anyone who works at the retirement to enter into a SS marriage--at least that is not mentioned in the article anyway. The two mentioned women were already married to each other, so that would be an issue of bigamy and thus illegal anyway.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,679
18,559
Orlando, Florida
✟1,262,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
This has zero to do with preferential treatment and everything to do with the meaning of marriage. Jesus defined marriage as when a man leaves his mother and father, clings unto his wife, and the two become one flesh. Biblically-adherent Christians are not permitted to redefine it to appease the culture.

That doesn't give people the right to discriminate against other people who don't agree with your religions notions of what marriage is.

If someone is OK with discriminating against two old women in the twilight of their lives who merely want to enjoy what time on earth they have left together, I have to wonder where the Christian love is in all this. Because I'm honestly not seeing it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,273
6,964
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟374,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Wow, seriously? Speaking logically, how would the senior living community even know about their relationship? They could be two sisters, for all anyone else would know. If the two women knew this was not a place in which their relationship would be celebrated in advance, why even submit an application to this place? It doesn't seem like somewhere they would choose to be.

But of course, the time is ripe to jump on that bandwagon, and there might be some money at the end, so...out come the lawyers and the lobby.

If you read the article, it stated that the women chose this facility because it could provide a higher level of assistance without higher cost. (Which implies at least one of them has medical issues.) The article also says the couple informed a representative about their relationship. And they were initially told it was no problem. So they paid the deposit and assumed everything was a go. They wanted to be honest and up-front regarding their marriage. So they're contending not only were they victims of unlawful discrimination, but they were misled. And now it's in the hands of the federal courts.

It takes an extraordinarily jaundiced attitude to think that 2 elderly women, possibly having medical problems and seeking a retirement home capable of accommodating them within their budget, actually have an ulterior motive to harass such a facility with litigation. If that's not paranoia, then what is?
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,404
15,493
✟1,110,051.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,679
18,559
Orlando, Florida
✟1,262,323.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
I can't even believe a nursing home or retirement home would have policies against cohabitation. Cohabitation is common among elderly people due to finances. It is beyond reprehensible to deny somebody services because of personal moral judgments about their lifestyle that hurts no one.

Two people living together in old age? It's none of anybody else's business.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Episaw

Always learning
Nov 12, 2010
2,547
603
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟38,829.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Gosh! I am so shocked you will not post information supporting your assertions. I in no way was expecting you to come up with some feeble excuse to avoid having to support your claims.
Ho Hum.
 
Upvote 0

Episaw

Always learning
Nov 12, 2010
2,547
603
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟38,829.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
If the plaintiffs in this care are lying, it will come out in court. Since you imply that you know their motivation, and have a computer database to suppprt your opinion, maybe you should offer your services as a consultant for the defense. They may need all the help they can get. As other posts (#s 34 and 35) stated, the courts have accepted the argument that housing discrimination against same-sex couples is in fact, illegal sex discrimination. Perhaps your expertise can prevent this. Assuming that what you claim to be factual data is anything more than your obvious personal bias and preconceived notions.
Sanctimonious twaddle.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Episaw

Always learning
Nov 12, 2010
2,547
603
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟38,829.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
By agitator you mean "person who finds it important to staunchly push for equal rights for the fellow people in the same classification"?

The idea of equality under the law (and in society) means that one shouldn't have to worry about shopping around to find a place that treats them like a human being. That courtesy should just be assumed (if, that is, we wish to live in a civilized society)

Judging by all the cases I have on file on my computer, homosexuals agitators do not understand what treating someone like a human being is. If you don't agree with them you are trash in their eyes.

I will give you one pertinent example. A friend of mine wrote a book about homosexuality with over 700 footnotes. At the launch of it which was in a church and by invitation only, the homosexual rent-a-mob turned up blowing whistles, banging drums and shouting out obscenities.

I am not clear how that is treating the people at the book launch like human beings.
 
Upvote 0

Episaw

Always learning
Nov 12, 2010
2,547
603
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟38,829.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Actually, we can't say this "This isn't a condo, or a townhouse, or something of that nature." In fact, Sunset Hills is not a "common building." Instead, if you had checked, "Situated atop a hill on 52 scenic acres and bluffs, choose from spacious private residences including villas and apartment homes." The article doesn't clarify what type of unit this couple was seeking but it might have been one of the villas.

As you point out, various retirement centers can be quite different -- and in this case they apparently did a great deal of research, including spending a fair amount of time on the property and having conversations with staff members, and felt it would be a good location for them -- and that they felt they would fit in.

It's also worth pointing out that this is a retirement community and not a Rest Home. They people living in these Retirement Communities do not simply have rooms, they typically have full apartments with living rooms and kitchens. While many do spend much of the day in the common areas, or may eat in the cafeteria, there is no requirement to do so -- and many prefer cooking their own food and have their own vehicles. So much depends on the person or couple that move in -- many who move in want to keep their independence, even while appreciating the social opportunities offered, but like that if/when they need the food and transportation services that the complex has them available.

You totally missed the point of what Andrew said.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums