At Shul, We Drink Single Malt: On “A Fortress in Brooklyn”

Re:At Shul, We Drink Single Malt: On “A Fortress in Brooklyn” by prvc on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @09:21AM (#28220609)

>Restrictive covenants that allow private owners to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion were deemed illegal by the Supreme Court in 1948, and the 1968 Fair Housing Act prohibits refusing to sell or rent on the basis of membership in a protected class. But in this case, it was the protected class doing the discriminating.

The article was not clear about this, but one gathers that these laws were never enforced for that reason?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:At Shul, We Drink Single Malt: On “A Fortress in Brooklyn” by Gunax on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @10:02AM (#28221022)

My guess is it was not enforced because it's a politicaloy savvy community and there wasn't sufficient outrage to justify enforcement.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:At Shul, We Drink Single Malt: On “A Fortress in Brooklyn” by oh_sigh on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @01:06PM (#28224153)

This article confuses the idea that certain race/ethnicity are "protected classes", versus the idea of race/ethnicity itself being a protected class. It's always a "protected class" doing the discriminating, because everyone has a race/ethnicity. There's no special law that protects Jews and blacks but doesn't protect Indians or whites.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:At Shul, We Drink Single Malt: On “A Fortress in Brooklyn” by alisonkisk on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @01:01PM (#28224070)

>> But in this case, it was the protected class doing the discriminating.

That's a Category Error. "Religion" is a protected class. "Jewish" is not a protected class.

[ Parent | on HN ]