A California woman’s refusal to sell her family home to a Trump
supporter may have cost her more than $100,000.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
SFGate
?
@SFGate
Woman's refusal to sell home to Trump backer may cost her bigly http://dlvr.it/Qh0byc
5:17 PM - Aug 24, 2018
61
70 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
In March the woman placed her Sacramento-area home on the market
for $625,000 with one stipulation: The buyer must not be a Trump
supporter. She later took the home off the market for reasons
that were not clear.
But now the two-bedroom, two-bathroom home is being sold for
less than $500,000, leaving some to wonder if the significantly
lower price is at all related to the no-Trump-supporters demand,
the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The original ad, saying Trump backers need not apply, had some
questioning its legality. The Fair Housing Act, prohibits race,
religion, sex, and national original (among other
classifications) from consideration in a transaction, but makes
no mention of political affiliation. Yet one lawyer claimed the
stipulation was a violation of a potential buyer’s First
Amendment rights.
The woman was nevertheless adamant, telling CBS Sacramento:
“When you’re talking about principles, morals, and ethics, it’s
very, very deep.”
Now the home’s most current listing is under a different real
estate agent and makes no mention of any special “restrictions,”
the Sacramento Bee reported.
Ryan Lundquist, the real estate blogger who first mentioned the
sale on Twitter on Thursday, suggested the reduced price had
more to do with the original asking price being too high than
with a reaction to the woman's demand.
“[I]t looks like it was priced like it was remodeled, when it
really wasn’t,” Lundquist told the Bee, adding: “I’ve never met
a buyer that said, ‘I’m only gonna buy if the seller voted for
Bernie (Sanders).’ … People just don’t say that.”
This moron did, Ryan.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/25/wouldnt-sell-home-to- trump-fans-now-price-is-100g-lower.html
A California woman,s refusal to sell her family home to a Trump
supporter may have cost her more than $100,000.
In March the woman placed her Sacramento-area home on the market
for $625,000 with one stipulation: The buyer must not be a Trump
supporter.
The original ad, saying Trump backers need not apply, had some
questioning its legality. The Fair Housing Act, prohibits race,
religion, sex, and national original (among other
classifications) from consideration in a transaction, but makes
no mention of political affiliation. Yet one lawyer claimed the
stipulation was a violation of a potential buyer's 1st
Amendment rights.
That said, GrubHub refused to deliver to Trump supporters.
In article <2b533bbf069bd5281abc23c6a1d76a51@dizum.com>,
"Stupid Jerry Brown Democrats" <complete.morons@cnn.com> wrote:
A California woman,s refusal to sell her family home to a Trump
supporter may have cost her more than $100,000.
In March the woman placed her Sacramento-area home on the market
for $625,000 with one stipulation: The buyer must not be a Trump
supporter.
The original ad, saying Trump backers need not apply, had some
questioning its legality. The Fair Housing Act, prohibits race,
religion, sex, and national original (among other
classifications) from consideration in a transaction, but makes
no mention of political affiliation. Yet one lawyer claimed the
stipulation was a violation of a potential buyer's 1st
Amendment rights.
If I was in the market and liked the house, I'd have shown up in an "I'm
With Her" t-shirt, bought the house, then once I owned it, told her I
voted for Trump.
In March the woman placed her Sacramento-area home on the market
for $625,000 with one stipulation: The buyer must not be a Trump
supporter. She later took the home off the market for reasons
that were not clear.
But now the two-bedroom, two-bathroom home is being sold for
less than $500,000, leaving some to wonder if the significantly
lower price is at all related to the no-Trump-supporters demand,
the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
"Stupid Jerry Brown Democrats" <complete.morons@cnn.com> wrote:
A California woman,s refusal to sell her family home to a Trump
supporter may have cost her more than $100,000.
In March the woman placed her Sacramento-area home on the market
for $625,000 with one stipulation: The buyer must not be a Trump
supporter.
The original ad, saying Trump backers need not apply, had some
questioning its legality. The Fair Housing Act, prohibits race,
religion, sex, and national original (among other
classifications) from consideration in a transaction, but makes
no mention of political affiliation. Yet one lawyer claimed the
stipulation was a violation of a potential buyer's 1st
Amendment rights.
If I was in the market and liked the house, I'd have shown up
in an "I'm With Her" t-shirt, bought the house, then once I
owned it, told her I voted for Trump.
In article<0001HW.21338A1501F3237470000C6DA2CF@NEWS.EASYNEWS.COM>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
That said, GrubHub refused to deliver to Trump supporters.
How the hell would they know? It's not like they make you fill out a political survey when you put in a Wendy's order.
I just used GrubHub recently when I was traveling and they had no idea
my political philosophy when I ordered.
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 21:13:12 -0700 BTR1701<atropos@mac.com> wrote:
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
That said, GrubHub refused to deliver to Trump supporters.
How the hell would they know? It's not like they make you fill out a
political survey when you put in a Wendy's order.
I just used GrubHub recently when I was traveling and they had no idea
my political philosophy when I ordered.
After the last POTUS election, an article appeared on The Facebook about how >GrubHub's CEO made a companywide announcement that anybody who voted for >Trump should quit right there and then, because there was no place in the >company for them. I shared the article on the Facebook. The next day I found >that not only had I been blocked from the GrubHub on The Facebook, but they'd >blocked my account so I couldn't order food from them any more as well. I was >told by other followers that they were eradicating all posts and posters >about the incident from their timeline, and then that after a few days they >recanted, but it wasn't retroactive.
Now here's the even scarier sequel. I'd been using YELP-EAT24, which recently >got swallowed up by Grub Hub. I thought that that might well put an end to my >account with EAT as well, but instead it reopened my GrubHub account, with a >terrifying addition. I went in and checked my account information, and found >listed under credit cards, not just the single one I used with them, but >EVERY FUCKING CREDIT CARD I EVER OWNED, including ones I inherited from Mom, >most of which were expired long before I ever used the Grub. They'd lost the >records of my past orders (they still had the restaurant info and time >stamps, but not the items so I couldn't 'reorder') but had wildly expanded my >CC info base.
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 21:13:12 -0700 BTR1701<atropos@mac.com> wrote:
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
That said, GrubHub refused to deliver to Trump supporters.
How the hell would they know? It's not like they make you fill out a political survey when you put in a Wendy's order.
I just used GrubHub recently when I was traveling and they had no idea
my political philosophy when I ordered.
After the last POTUS election, an article appeared on The Facebook about how
GrubHub's CEO made a companywide announcement that anybody who voted for Trump should quit right there and then, because there was no place in the company for them. I shared the article on the Facebook. The next day I found
that not only had I been blocked from the GrubHub on The Facebook, but they'd
blocked my account so I couldn't order food from them any more as well. I was
told by other followers that they were eradicating all posts and posters about the incident from their timeline, and then that after a few days they recanted, but it wasn't retroactive.
Now here's the even scarier sequel. I'd been using YELP-EAT24, which recently
got swallowed up by Grub Hub. I thought that that might well put an end to my
account with EAT as well, but instead it reopened my GrubHub account, with a
terrifying addition. I went in and checked my account information, and found
listed under credit cards, not just the single one I used with them, but EVERY FUCKING CREDIT CARD I EVER OWNED, including ones I inherited from Mom,
most of which were expired long before I ever used the Grub. They'd lost the
records of my past orders (they still had the restaurant info and time stamps, but not the items so I couldn't 'reorder') but had wildly expanded my
CC info base.
Let me get this straight. They added all the credit cards you ever owned, including ones you never used with them? Eeek!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 234:10:15 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Files: | 12,172 |
| Messages: | 5,319,637 |