Ethics & Discrimination…. A question of Right vs Right!!
New Haven, CT · Member since 2013 · 222 posts · 134 votes
Ok so I was having this debate with a local landlord and I’d like to hear your opinion…. You charge $25 for your application fee. You show the house to a nice couple and they want to apply but they don’t speak, read or write English. They have an interpreter there to help them fill out the application and the interpreter would also be there to help them understand and sign your lease agreement if they’re granted the rental. And of course you don’t speak their language. Would you automatically disqualify them? If so, would you still take their $25 application fee knowing that they’re not going to get the rental? Let’s keep in mind that we’re all ETHICAL investors AND we don’t want to be sued for DISCRIMINATION.
Okay, a deaf person would be considered disabled. But you still can't discriminate against someone because they don't speak English if they have an interpreter.
Here is a case from the HUD website from 2013 for a Virginia company that had to pay a $82,500 settlement because they refused to rent to a Hispanic woman who didn't speak English.
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the rental of housing on the basis of national origin.
“Denying housing because a person does not speak English well violates the Fair Housing Act,” said John Trasviña, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “This settlement reaffirms HUD’s commitment to combating discrimination against a person because of their national origin or the language they speak.”
Here is my concern , if they don't speak English they are signing an English lease so I agree with the person who suggested a co-signer. Otherwise they can likely claim they did not know the terms of what they were signing. I require some of my applicants to have co-signers anyway. If you have an English speaking co-signer at least you have someone who could hopefully read the document. Doesn't solve the communication problem though. and the point is not the one this HUD official is quoting that the person does not speak English well the example was about someone who didn't speak English at all.
Very good point! "your honor: my client did not understand the document they were signing because it was in English. your honor: the landlord failed to provide a lease in Chinese)...so they discriminated against my client. Now I wonder: ads written in Spanish only....are they legal or discriminatory?
Okay, a deaf person would be considered disabled. But you still can't discriminate against someone because they don't speak English if they have an interpreter.
Here is a case from the HUD website from 2013 for a Virginia company that had to pay a $82,500 settlement because they refused to rent to a Hispanic woman who didn't speak English.
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the rental of housing on the basis of national origin.
“Denying housing because a person does not speak English well violates the Fair Housing Act,” said John Trasviña, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “This settlement reaffirms HUD’s commitment to combating discrimination against a person because of their national origin or the language they speak.”
This is your answer! HUD does not regulate labor relations, and who you might hire is totally irrelevant to housing rental issues.
If someone tries to say that national origin has noting to do with language, they have a cognitive issue, what language does not indicate national origin? English is spoken in several other nations, certainly not as spoken in the US, but language is the first indicator and obvious consideration that the person is not of an American origin. Discrimination is not just to being from somewhere else, it's just as much about not being from here.
They may speak Chinese, but they may be American citizens, citizenship is not a country of origin matter, they are still of a different origin.
HUD requires reasonable accommodations to any reasonable difficulty or impairment that a tenant may have, it is absolutely not restricted or limited under the ADA or limited to only physical impairments. Any language barrier is a matter where the landlord must make accommodations.
In a Public Housing Authority, any of them or any Section 8 matter, HUD has already made this clear and the law makes no distinction for non-PHA/Sec 8 units where a LL falls under HUD guidelines/regs.
Having an elevator in an 8 story building is a reasonable accommodation, it's not an age issue, it's unreasonable to require a 5 year old or an 85 year old to climb those stairs carrying groceries. I know elevators are required by ordinance, so is keeping it operational, the point is to the owner making reasonable accommodations.
Any language barrier is the landlord's problem, not the tenant's.
I also suggest, that you teach a non-English speaking tenants a few words or you learn a few in their language, they need to know what yelling "FIRE" means.
If you're a landlord and can't read and understand HUD leasing requirements, I suggest you sell and go flip houses or something.
You are not required to provide a lease in Chinese unless required by state law, but you need to have a statement executed by someone who explained the contract.
If you can't find that third party to go to your eviction, tuff luck.
If your tenant plays dumb with the judge and the judge buys it, tuff luck.
While asking an English speaking person sign the lease is a good idea, you can not require it!
This is all part of being in business as a landlord, it's the law, your wishes and desires, excuses or dislikes and opinions are irrelevant, you either comply or you don't and if you don't you MIGHT have consequences. You're going to be doing what you want to anyway and I'm sure you'll find a way to justify what you do.
@Marcia Maynard some very good points especially on errors and omissions when translations are done by family. I found myself doing something similar when asked about a real estate document this week by my brother and that was just legalese to English.
On paying to have things translated as a cost of doing business I pay for translations as part my work and the cost of a lease translation wouldn't be insignificant. Sure sight translation would be less but not sure how significantly less. This is not a situation that has presented itself to date, foreign students and other non-native applicants we have worked with have a good enough command of English to sign a lease. If someone who didn't know English at all wanted to rent from us I think the translation cost would be on them. I would need to look into legalities but I would want assurance that the terms were clear. And if there is a problem down the road you may not have to translate a pay or quit but it my benefit you to do so if you want them out. We all look for tenants where this failure to pay isn't an issue though.
For community resources on translation I doubt there is anything formal, The state is tight on resources but it is food for thought to look for it.
Bill - I completely agree that discrimination for any reasons related to stereotypes or not liking a group of people is bad. But, I'm going to disagree about the fact that landlords shouldn't be allowed to try to rent to people they believe will their business easier and smoother to run.
Not being able to communicate with your tenants poses safety risks in some situations (for example, I had a tenant call me a couple weeks ago to tell me that the powerline in the back yard was sparking -- that isn't something I would have wanted them to wait until they had an interpreter for), it makes it more difficult to keep the business profitable (for example, if a lease allows for showings and the landlord can't schedule those showings efficiently) and can make it much more difficult and expensive for a landlord to enforce rights should the tenants not uphold their responsibilities (I assume the eviction process would be more complicated and costly, especially if the tenants are afforded extra rights through the judicial system).
My issue here has nothing to do with the tenant, the tenant's heritage or ethnicity or anything else related to the tenant's background. Nor am I one of those people who believes that everyone should have to speak English (that's ridiculous). It's purely based on an inability of a business owner to communicate with a potential customer and whether the business owner should feel morally obligated to tax his business to accommodate these customers.
Here's a question: If a prospective tenant said they didn't have a phone, pager or email and could only be contacted in person or via snail mail, is it reasonable that the landlord shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against renting to that tenant?
Another question: What if the prospective tenant spoke perfect English, but the prospective tenant's references, previous landlords and employer didn't speak any English. Should the landlord be required to jump through hoops getting interpreter services just to try to perform due diligence on the tenant.
Obviously, the law is the law, and I can't argue what is legally permitted or not, but from a moral standpoint, I just can't get my head around forcing a business owner to have to work with customers with whom they can't communicate (physical or mental disability notwithstanding).
On using an interpreter for the written lease, as stated earlier the Florida Association of Realtors has a disclosure page as part of the rental lease agreement where the landlord or tenant must sign whether they read the lease or the lease was read to them in which language and by whom. The person reading the lease I don't think can be a child or just anyone with command of English it has to be a licensed paralegal or some such.
Obviously, the law is the law, and I can't argue what is legally permitted or not, but from a moral standpoint, I just can't get my head around forcing a business owner to have to work with customers with whom they can't communicate (physical or mental disability notwithstanding).
There you go using moral and law in the same sentence. Unfortuanately the two have nothing in common.
Bill - I completely agree that discrimination for any reasons related to stereotypes or not liking a group of people is bad. But, I'm going to disagree about the fact that landlords shouldn't be allowed to try to rent to people they believe will their business easier and smoother to run.
Not being able to communicate with your tenants poses safety risks in some situations (for example, I had a tenant call me a couple weeks ago to tell me that the powerline in the back yard was sparking -- that isn't something I would have wanted them to wait until they had an interpreter for), it makes it more difficult to keep the business profitable (for example, if a lease allows for showings and the landlord can't schedule those showings efficiently) and can make it much more difficult and expensive for a landlord to enforce rights should the tenants not uphold their responsibilities (I assume the eviction process would be more complicated and costly, especially if the tenants are afforded extra rights through the judicial system).
My issue here has nothing to do with the tenant, the tenant's heritage or ethnicity or anything else related to the tenant's background. Nor am I one of those people who believes that everyone should have to speak English (that's ridiculous). It's purely based on an inability of a business owner to communicate with a potential customer and whether the business owner should feel morally obligated to tax his business to accommodate these customers.
Here's a question: If a prospective tenant said they didn't have a phone, pager or email and could only be contacted in person or via snail mail, is it reasonable that the landlord shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against renting to that tenant?
Another question: What if the prospective tenant spoke perfect English, but the prospective tenant's references, previous landlords and employer didn't speak any English. Should the landlord be required to jump through hoops getting interpreter services just to try to perform due diligence on the tenant.
Obviously, the law is the law, and I can't argue what is legally permitted or not, but from a moral standpoint, I just can't get my head around forcing a business owner to have to work with customers with whom they can't communicate (physical or mental disability notwithstanding).
I understand this subject as being forum chatter. I don't disagree with your statements here, all valid concerns.
From a moral standpoint, you follow the law, not what you determine is in your personal best interest. That is a bit of an intrinsic cost of being in the business, agreeing that you can't run your business just any way you would like.
That's the problem with many in real estate, they only look at what's in their own best interest and then form an opinion, then try to justify that reasoning, then they consider rules, regulations, laws and the other guy. We certainly need to look out for our own best interests, but not necessarily in that order. You can always elect not do something, it may not be the legal or moral election.
Getting your head around it has to do a lot to do with any real estate business having a public responsibility, bottom line you profit by serving the public, the public is not there to serve investors.
There is a balance of business, public duty and legal concerns in real estate dealings.
Investors place themselves in a position of influencing and controlling basic aspects of human needs in society, the need for shelter. When investors understand how they influence the health, welfare and safety as well as the financial and economic aspects of the public. only then will they begin to understand it's not all about them. In the eyes of the law and society, investors do not come first, the public does.
Investors, IMO, get too tied up in what serves themselves from a business standpoint, disregard for others or the public as well as laws is the underlying issue of unethical practices. It is unethical to violate laws, period, no debate. We do have laws that are not fair, they may not be based in an ethical approach, laws bring constraints on some, they may allow others to have some advantage, however, law is how societies interact, relate and is the basis for accepted conduct. When you inject your personal opinion contrary to law, you are crossing the line of acceptable practice and ethical conduct, again, it's not about you or your beliefs. Acting in ways contrary to the public's interest is unethical conduct, it's not socially accepted to break any law. Doesn't mean any of us walk on water and never break any law or are totally ethical. Ethics goes beyond law, it is a responsibility we assume by social influences and expectations of moral conduct. Not everyone has the same moral compass. Lots of things influence us as to our moral thinking, but socially acceptable is more to that base line.
Don't misconstrue my comments, while I said "investors" that also applies to those in business, some guy selling a cleaned up plugged tire as a new one is being unethical. A bank teller that shorts a customer intentionally is unethical, humans are unethical to some degree. I've lied to my wife many times, no dear, that dress doesn't make you look heavier! I had good intensions, but I wasn't totally truthful. Is that unethical? Maybe, not telling the truth is unethical, putting others before yourself to some extent is being more ethical. Not hurting the feelings of others may be more socially acceptable than telling a little white lie.
What I see being exposed to RE types of all kinds from all over the country, on BP is that very few put the public first or know how to consider the influences on the public, more may do so, but it's not talked about much. If a bit more consideration were given in that direction investors would avoid many of the problems and violations of law they get into. If the landlord who was faced with an applicant who had this language issue had simply been more considerate and accommodating we wouldn't have 60+ posts on this matter, Had it been understood that the LL serves the public before placing himself in a more convenient position the question would never have hit the forum. They are failing to meet the expectations of serving the public's needs. (Pretty much why it's law)
Moral and ethical conduct really begins by recognizing the needs of others, placing others on the same platform as us and at times, before us. Greed goes beyond money, selfishness is placing yourself ahead of others, taking the largest piece of cake or most of the cookies. Someone who was an only child sometimes has difficulties in adapting to understanding the public good, usually they mature into society, some don't. I was an only child for 14 years, then I had to learn to adapt.
Business requires a profit and/or a benefit to those conducting business. I'm not implying placing others ahead of you in all matters and coming out on the short end is what is required, you are certainly entitled to benefit. But not to the gross disadvantage of others. Discrimination is a form of taking undue advantage, by denying others of some benefit that is offered to others. We discriminate everyday, as a lender I discriminated against those that did not have the ability to pay as agreed. Discrimination is the way we select our transactions, how we discriminate is a matter of ethical concern. Acceptable discrimination in real estate and lending is well defined by law.
What's being done is simply looking for justifications to not serve the public interest in providing housing and placing personal conveniences ahead of the needs of others. HUD has determined that the business of leasing is not placed at a great disadvantage in light of the public good. I totally agree and in areas where we can not rely on the moral compass of RE dealers on this matter, HUD sets acceptable practice. Agree, disagree, get it or not, that is the law, the regulation and what is acceptable, it's pretty simple. :)
There you go using moral and law in the same sentence. Unfortuanately the two have nothing in common.
Understood. I merely mentioned the legal aspect in order to make it clear I recognized the distinction and then disregard it from the discussion. My post was strictly regarding the moral aspects.
As someone who has started small business and run large businesses, I recognize that sometimes, the most effective way to improve business financials is to "fire" certain customers. Without the ability to do that, you've essentially hamstrung the business, and taken away leverage that could otherwise be used to improve the business both operationally and financially.
In the context of running a business, I don't consider refusing to cater to specific customers to be immoral. If you were to call a prospective tenant's previous landlord and he said, "They were very difficult to get in touch with -- they never returned calls or emails when I needed to get into the unit or needed questions answered about the condition of the unit," would you consider that lack of communication grounds for not renting to them? Lack of ability (or willingness) to communicate is a deal-breaker for me as a landlord, and I don't believe that I have a moral obligation to rent to someone if I believe difficulty in communication will be a stressor on my business.
But like you pointed out, we're now talking about morals, not laws. And everyone has their own. That's where mine fall...I completely understand that others may have a different moral compass.
As @Marcia Maynard could attest, in the medical world we use interpreters/translators very frequently and are required to use a qualified interpreter rather than family member for medical/legal reasons. We have a good sized population of refugees from Somalia and Sudan here and they almost always are apartment dwellers when they first come here, as are most immigrants. There are interpreters for almost all languages available from various sources. In the medical world it is unethical to turn someone down for care based on language and I don't know of any doc to whom that thought would even occur. The housing rental business is also a service industry so sometimes you may have to jump through some hoops to service your customer. That's just good business.
First, I completely agree that the law comes first. But, once you satisfy legal requirements, you CAN run your business any way you would like.
This is where personal business ethics come into play (I really hate the term "morals" as it applies to business). My points above were that discriminating against those who can't communicate (whether it's inability to speak the language, unwillingness to take calls, lack of tools for communication, or whatever) is not against my personal business ethics.
Landlords discriminate all the time. They discriminate against those with a criminal history; they discriminate against those who don't pay their rent; they discriminate against those who trash their previous landlord's unit; etc. Some discrimination is certainly illegal, but the rest of it isn't necessarily black and white.
Like I said in my previous post, everyone has their own set of business ethics (I used the term "moral compass," but again, I hate that term when it comes to business) -- yours might be different than mine, and that's certainly okay. As long as you're comfortable with yours and your satisfying your responsibility to your shareholders, that's all that matters.
I'm comfortable saying I don't consider it unethical to not rent to someone who can't (or won't) communicate. I wouldn't break the law (I think we all agree that's a bad business decision), but this is a hypothetical discussion at this point where we're putting the law aside. Not to mention, based on what I've read here, I'm still not convinced that the law is clear on this.
In the medical world it is unethical to turn someone down for care based on language and I don't know of any doc to whom that thought would even occur. The housing rental business is also a service industry so sometimes you may have to jump through some hoops to service your customer. That's just good business.
So, your assertion is that when choosing customers, good business would dictate that landlords should adhere to the same standards as medical professionals?
In the medical world, is it unethical to turn someone down for care based on their criminal history and/or their ability to pay for services?
Assuming the answer is yes (it's unethical), by your reasoning above, that means that landlords should similarly disregard criminal history and ability to pay when choosing tenants. For example, a doctor wouldn't refuse to treat a serial killer, so transitively it would be bad business for a landlord to refuse to rent to a serial killer.
Do you agree with that statement?
@JScott: I have treated more than a few that were brought to the office or hospital from jail, in manacles accompanied by a deputy. All docs treat some people for whom they write off part or all of their care. Does that mean all landlords should be held to the same standard? Of course not.
@JScott: I have treated more than a few that were brought to the office or hospital from jail, in manacles accompanied by a deputy. All docs treat some people for whom they write off part or all of their care. Does that mean all landlords should be held to the same standard? Of course not.
So, why should they necessarily be held to the same standard as medical professionals when it comes to language?
Seems arbitrary to me...
SERIOUSLY? If you own a property, you are not MANDATED to rent to anyone that comes through your door. There are 'PROTECTED CLASSES" of people, SPECIFICALLY spelled out in the housing laws, none of which include foreign speaking individuals.
People think EVERYTHING is discrimination anymore, and wants to sue. Check with an attorney that is knowledgeable on housing discrimination.
@JScott: I distinguish because language is a universal human trait whereas criminality or ability to pay are not.
To put some perspective on this I worked all over Europe and Asia for about 15 years and every time we leased an apartment as opposed to a hotel all the documents were in the native language. We had to have someone from the local office or client read us the terms and help with the process. These could be Greek, Korean, Danish, German, or sometimes English. Only time I had issues was luckily in Australia when the company wasn't paying the rent on time and I was able to communicate with the property manager easily and sort things out between my company people in Israel. I was willing to guarantee my rent payment, but I didn't want to be on the hook for three other apartments for my Indian team members.
As for cheap translations, while Google Translate is nice and can help with general decoding of things I wouldn't trust it for anything important since I have run into some pretty funny translations. One of my clients in Prague started using it for his emails to my company and I can say I am not sure which produced more interesting results Google or native Tomasese as we called it. He was learning English a lot faster than I was learning Czech though.
@JScott: I distinguish because language is a universal human trait whereas criminality or ability to pay are not.
We're not talking about language. We're talking about the ability to communicate between the customer and the business owner. That may or may not have anything to do with language. Someone might not have the tools to communicate. Someone might not have the desire to communicate. Someone might not have the language skills to communicate.
Ability to communicate is analogous to the ability to pay.
In the medical field, lack of ability to pay shouldn't mean lack of service. In the landlord field, lack of ability to pay should mean lack of service. Likewise with the ability to communicate. (at least in my opinion)
You can certainly have a different (and equally valid) opinion, but I think it's a bad analogy to assume that how the medical field treats people is the definition of "good business." That's my opinion.
Btw, it's reasonable to discuss legalities and it's reasonable to discuss opinions. But, arguing about which opinions are wrong or right doesn't make much sense...that's not how opinions work. I'm not wrong or right, you're not wrong or right...we just have different opinions. You can try to change mine and I can try to change yours, but even if one of our opinions changes, it doesn't make either of us more wrong or more right...it just means we've changed our opinions... :-)
I understand your opinion, I agree that you have the freedom to conduct your business the way you see fit so long as you are compliant. The issue of language is pretty clear as described in Dawn's post, the Secretary of HUD stated how the matter would be interpreted, have no idea how much clearer it can be made. It's clear that anyone who doesn't speak English will be viewed under the light of national origin, I covered that, how language is an obvious indicator of someone who ain't from here.
It would be similar to say I don't rent to people who wear diapers due to health hazards of the diaper, well, that person is a baby, that relates to age discrimination, if it's an elderly adult you're obviously hitting on a physical issue they have, another area of discrimination. Language is to national origin as diapers are to age or physical limitations.
As to the ethical side again, you're saying I suppose that you don't treat people the same, you base how you treat them based on your ease of communicating with them, so, you have no issue with not renting to a stroke victim who has difficulty in speaking but is still self reliant or an accident victim who can't speak due to an injury. What would be the difference? I don't see any, You just don't want to deal with the public in general, you want to select who you deal with regardless of their other abilities to qualify.
No, has nothing to do with keeping some stockholder happy, you first do that by compliance so your corporation isn't fined causing a financial loss, not to mention the bad PR, especially when what your stockholder wants business conducted at a profit, even if that money comes from those in the public that the CEO may have personal discomforts with. If I were the stockholder, I'd be telling that CEO to get off his personal agenda and go take the business transaction, I didn't hire them to have an easy job, to pass judgments on others who are qualified to conduct business with.
It's a good thing you aren't a landlord as your main profession, I really suspect that if you had this same matter with a buyer wanting to buy one of your renovations, I doubt you'd be turning them away. Putting it in the context of a LL with a longer relationship really denying someone the right to housing because it requires you to go out of your way, a bit more than skewed ethics or morality, it is determining that the rights of someone else to have a roof over their head, a place to live, (meeting all other obligations required), is less importance in this life and society than your right not to have to fool with them, simply disregard them because it's not as efficient for you to manage them.
We've had these types of discussions before, I know you are not an unethical person, I consider you to be very fair guy, your views to me, seems to conflict with the reality that we are required to operate in. We don't get to do whatever we believe is acceptable. I know you are not alone in your attitude or thoughts to such matters, and that is exactly why we have laws, to ensure that landlords follow the norm of accepted behavior. Again, you may see your rights being violated, being required under law to go out of your way for the befit of others, but that is the business. That business philosophy works much better in a bar where you can hang a sign saying you have the right to refuse service to anyone, it doesn't work in real estate. :)
Obviously, the law is the law, and I can't argue what is legally permitted or not, but from a moral standpoint, I just can't get my head around forcing a business owner to have to work with customers with whom they can't communicate (physical or mental disability notwithstanding).
Since the physical and mental disabilities as they relate to communication MUST be accommodated that means it can be done. So, how different is it really to accommodate those who speak a different language? I ask this sincerely as I am in agreement with you that renting to someone with whom I cannot communicate with seems burdensome. But we're already in agreement that it is a burden that we are willing and able to meet when it comes to disability.
I have had two tenant families where the adults spoke NO English and only Spanish. I had a property manager that was native Spanish speaking. That was an easy and relatively affordable accommodation. Not sure how I would have managed it otherwise.
As to the ethical side again, you're saying I suppose that you don't treat people the same....you want to select who you deal with regardless of their other abilities to qualify.
Yes, that's absolutely how I feel, despite your wording in such a way as to try to make me look bad for admitting it.
I'm pretty sure if I put MY words to that same sentiment, many/most people would agree with me.
Let me say the same thing in my own words...
I want to deal with the customers who will be most profitable to my business. If a customer isn't going to be profitable to my business, I'd prefer not to have that person as a customer. If one customer is going to be less profitable than another customer, and I can only choose one customer, I'd prefer to choose the more profitable one.
Do I always operate my business that way? Of course not. Sometimes the government tells me what I can and can't do. Sometimes my wife tells me what I can and can't do. Sometimes my partners tell me what I can and can't do. Sometimes my investors tell me what I can and can't do. And sometimes, my customers tell me what I can and can't do. But, that's still my OPINION on the best way to run my for-profit business.
Don't get me wrong, if someone chooses to operate their business like a charity, independent of profitability, I respect that. And they have every right to do that if they and their shareholders are in agreement. But, I don't choose to run my business that way.
I separate my charitable work from my income-producing work, and I'm not ashamed of that in any way, shape or form.
I'm sure the landlords that got the $82, 500 JUDGEMENT against them thought they were profit based.
See my post above...
I liken this discussion to, "All other things being equal, who would I rather rent to -- someone willing to pay $1000 or someone willing to pay $1100?"
Someone I have difficulty communicating with will take more time, effort and risk, which will ultimately lower my profitability. With a limited number of units to rent, and all other things being equal, I will choose higher profitability over lower profitability every time (keeping in mind that time/stress/effort contribute to my definition of profitability).
Now, if someone who can't speak English is a better choice (i.e., more profitable choice) than any other candidates, I'm happy to rent to someone who doesn't speak English. But, my guess is that that's unlikely to be the case.
In other words, I discriminate against customers who are less profitable than others. If it makes me sound like a dick business-person, so be it. I have a feeling that if someone looked at how I conduct my life in general, they'd understand that being a dick isn't my life's goal...I don't typically get accused of being someone who takes and takes and doesn't give back... :-)
I'm sure the landlords that got the $82, 500 JUDGEMENT against them thought they were profit based.
You can't just ignore the parts of my post that don't fit your narrative...
To quote part of what I wrote above:
"Do I always operate my business that way? Of course not. Sometimes the government tells me what I can and can't do."
Again, we're talking about opinions. And my opinions don't always line up nicely with government rules and statutes. Does that mean I break the laws? Of course not. But, I can still disagree with them.
SERIOUSLY? If you own a property, you are not MANDATED to rent to anyone that comes through your door. There are 'PROTECTED CLASSES" of people, SPECIFICALLY spelled out in the housing laws, none of which include foreign speaking individuals.
People think EVERYTHING is discrimination anymore, and wants to sue. Check with an attorney that is knowledgeable on housing discrimination.
Karen: I'm assuming you didn't read the entire thread. There are links to cases and opinions from HUD that very clearly state that you cannot discriminate against tenant applicants based on language. While language is not a protected class, national original is. HUD lumps language in with national origin. While I'd prefer that HUD add "language" to the protected classes, as opposed to link it with national origin, it's protected nonetheless.
Page 2 of this thread has the links. You may want to reconsider your opinion of the law. I know I have.