My random thought for the day - I wanted to hear what you all think of it.
So! Currently, housing discrimination is considered a LGBT issue. In the United States, various states have passed laws making it illegal to discriminate on housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity. (list)
Which got me thinking... Now, obviously this is not the world we live in, but imagine, hypothetically, we lived in a world in which zoophilia was at about the level of acceptance (publicly and legally) that homosexuality is at today. In such a world, would you consider apartments which forbid pet ownership to be a parallel issue with the housing discrimination that those laws are designed to combat?
In results, they have the same effect. They exclude zoophiles with active relationships (at least of the variety that would have their animals live with them). Indeed, I've heard a number of zoophiles lament their living situations in this regard. It is a legitimate problem for many. However, the reasons are entirely different - the policy is not designed to be discriminatory (at least not on sexual orientation - I can imagine an argument could be made that it's discrimination based on species, but let's not go there for now). The reasons tend to be the damage that animals can cause.
It is worth mentioning that service animals are not considered pets. Even businesses which have no-pet policies cannot forbid service animals, because it is considered discrimination based on a disability. (source)
This includes housing.
Example: A building with a no pets policy must allow a visually impaired tenant to keep a guide dog.
My point isn't that these are equivalent legal scenarios. I'm just trying to demonstrate that there is legal precedent both for forbidding housing discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that there is legal precedent for legal exemptions with respect to animals where such exemption would be considered discrimination based on some protected criteria.
So with these things in mind... Do you consider this a zoophile rights issue? (Or, at least, would you, if we ever get to a point where zoophilia is anywhere near as accepted as homosexuality is in the modern day?)
I do not see it ever being a "zoophile rights" issue, since you are not being prevented from living there due to your orientation. As you mention, there are several plausible, non-orientation reasons why landlords may not appreciate people cohabitating with their pets, especially if those pets are not cats/dogs.
Well again, regardless of how they feel about pets, we have a precedent that when that prohibition results in a sort of discrimination, it cannot be applied. Those same landlords must accept people cohabitating with a service animal regardless of whether they'd appreciate it or not.
So those plausible, non-orientation reasons are thrown out in at least some cases where it would otherwise lead to discrimination.
I'm not really saying one way or another how things should be in this sort of situation. I'm playing devil's advocate, for both sides. I'm just genuinely curious what the distinction you make is between the two.
"An apartment cannot safely and hygienically accommodate the needs of a full sized horse/cow/dolphin" would be an example of a plausible, non-orientation reason that a landlord might object to someone cohabitating with their animal of choice.
As none of those animals are permissible ADA service animals, there would also be no legal grounds based on the service animal argument.
I thought, for whatever reason, that there were legal requirements that had to be met in order to own a large animal such as a horse or cow, but searching, I could not find any.
Either I was doing a poor job searching or there aren't any. Huh. Well. Anyway, I would think in those cases the issue would be more that the law should have a problem with trying to house a large animal in a very confined space. Trying to keep a dolphin in a bathtub, for instance, would clearly be an example of animal abuse.
I would think that any proposed law would have enough nuance to cover cases where the animal is clearly dangerous (we have laws regarding ownership of dangerous snakes, or large predators, for instance) or where space is an issue.
After all, even pet-friendly apartments nowadays wouldn't allow a horse. It's not like that level of nuance would be unreasonable to expect.
Right, it would be a plausible, non-orientation reason that one may be prohibited from living with their animal of choice. :)
It doesn't make them any less valid targets of someone's interest, though, or any less someone's partner. Since we're playing devil's advocate.
But still, in cases where the preferred partner would be able to be accommodated, where the no-pet policy is the only real barrier, I could imagine this still being an issue.
In other words, though a perfect solution may not be possible, it wouldn't mean that an imperfect solution would not still be better than none.
No. Just like it's not a gay rights issue if your landlord won't allow you and your same-sex partner to both rent a small apartment meant for one person, it's not a 'zoo rights' issue if your landlord won't allow you to keep a dog in a space that would be negatively impacted by his/her presence.
Well to be fair under other circumstances the landlord must allow you to have a dog (I.E., if it's a service dog). So I feel like that sort of undercuts the argument a bit. Also I'm not convinced your analogy is particularly useful for understanding this.
Well, this isn´t about freedom, it´s about privilege. Remember that your freedom ends where other poeples freedom is violated. Any landlord has the right to make his own rules, as it´s HIS property, not yours. If we really demand such things that are obviously poisoned by the plague of "political correctness", we turn minorities into privileged groups. I always thought it was equality we were aiming at and not being a clique of folks terrorizing others with their "special needs". We want freedom, thus we have to accept the freedom and rights of others. If your landlord doesn´t want animals around his property, it´s his goddamn right, his freedom. Forcing him into acceptance by laws only will create another enemy. As if we already hadn´t enough of ´em... The law you mentioned above that seems to force landlords to accept gays in their houses will only create more opponents for the LGBT movement, I guarantee it. "Political correctness" is fascism in disguise.
You've basically called me a fascist for trying to play devil's advocate on a hypothetical question.
Seriously?
I like to quote Robert anton Wilson: I wrote what I wrote. I didn´t wrote what I didn´t wrote. Where have I called you a fascist? I just made a general statement, voicing my opinion. Why do you make up stuff I never said?
Your opinion seems to be, as I quoted, that Political Correctness is fascism in disguise, and that I am PC.
The clear conclusion from those two statements is that I am a fascist. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but as far as I can tell it is what you wrote.
So to try to answer your last question: I'm not making up stuff you never said. I'm assuming that you meant what you said when you said it.
I'm not trying to be rude here, but I genuinely feel like you are trying to discourage discussion. As I see it, you've poisoned the well.
You seem like a nice enough guy elsewhere, so I'll try not to hold this against you. But if you actually wanted to discuss this issue, I'm afraid, at this point, I don't have much of a choice but to refuse.
[removed]
PC Principal detected.....
I'd love to be able to argue that I need to keep a dog for my emotional wellbeing.
sadly thats not going to happen.
Realistically, probably not. Though it's an interesting hypothetical to think about. I think some people are taking it like it's more than that though.
Some people have therapy dogs.
thats what I was thinking of. can I get one assigned to me for sexual therapy? :P
Just remember that therapy dogs are not service dogs, and are therefore not given the same degree of flexibility with the law.
That would be great.
Being dogless was the hardest part about going away to school, and it would only be a couple days before I could feel it starting to affect my mood. Thankfully I could usually get back on the weekends to see my girl, but anything a week or longer and I would be in a pretty bad headspace
I don't consider it a zoo rights issue. I have always found 'no pets' rules to be a bit silly though. Landlords can kick out/penalize tenants for being overly loud, destructive, and smelly anyways, so if you consider a pet an extension of a tenant, it seems redundant. Young, untrained animals can be a definite source of noise and mess, but children easily match, if not exceed it. If it can live in the apartment/house and is vaccinated (which does rule out large exotic mammals) I don't see why it should be banned.
This is the closest to my own opinion on the matter.
On that note, I'd love to see an apartment complex with a "no children" clause.
Whew, thank goodness for disabilities, emotional support animals and The Fair Housing Act.
theoretically yes. practically no why: because its not practical for a man to live in an apartment with a sufficiently sized bitch. dogs need room not being crowded into matchbox sized houses.