I wonder if the underlying problem is that it can set precedent against the entire business model of “child-free living complexes” and similar “retirement residences, non-paliative/long term care”. Both of those models, by design, restrict tenants based on age.
Before asking this next question, I’m in no way advocating for this. Why does a corporation get to benefit from these while a smaller or singular party cannot? Where do we draw the boundary or why do we maintain it? Is the problem because those in charge are benefiting from it via passive or direct investment?
If it’s not ok to discriminate against a family with children looking to rent a home, why can that same family not rent an apartment in a retirement complex or other style residence where non-retired adults without children live by design?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
I wonder if the underlying problem is that it can set precedent against the entire business model of “child-free living complexes” and similar “retirement residences, non-paliative/long term care”. Both of those models, by design, restrict tenants based on age.
Before asking this next question, I’m in no way advocating for this. Why does a corporation get to benefit from these while a smaller or singular party cannot? Where do we draw the boundary or why do we maintain it? Is the problem because those in charge are benefiting from it via passive or direct investment?
If it’s not ok to discriminate against a family with children looking to rent a home, why can that same family not rent an apartment in a retirement complex or other style residence where non-retired adults without children live by design?