722
I see their point (thelemmy.club)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
124 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 6 months ago (14 children)

Fees for children would be illegal discrimination under fair housing laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 6 months ago (13 children)

    They would charge extra if it was not illegal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago* (10 children)

    Maybe they would if they could, but they can't so they don't. I'm struggling to find the part OP thinks is a "scam".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    The fact that pets cause less damage to the property than kids, but you have to pay more fees if you have a dog.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Because it's illegal to discriminate against tenants with children, such as by charging additional fees. Whether pets or children are more destructive is beside the point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    I'm struggling to find the part OP thinks is a "scam".

    The part where it's illegal to charge extra for children but not illegal to charge extra for pets.

    They're right, it's bullshit and it shouldn't be allowed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    I think it's a false equivalence. A human child is not the same thing as a pet animal. Framing the issue purely in terms of how much damage potential they have seems to be dismissing that distinction for no good reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (4 children)

    dismissing that distinction for no good reason

    Any reason is a good reason to dismiss that distinction. Pets are family. We don't love them less than human family, or at least decent people don't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Still, if like takes a shit on you and you have to give up your pets, that's a little less traumatic than losing your kids.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    All I'm hearing is you're the kind of monster who'd abandon a family member when things get hard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago*

    My ex-wife was worse, she was going to put our dog down when we split up. I am not a dog person to begin with, and I was moving to an apartment so I wasn't planning on taking him to begin with, but it was quite disturbing how nonchalant she was about it. I was looking into rescues, but we ended up giving him to our neighbors. She moved in with her mom, then immediately got a new dog. We also had 3 cats - I could only have two at my apartment, so I took the two boys, she said she would take the girl, which is the one our daughter had picked out and named... But then she ended up giving her to her brothers.

    Meanwhile, she keeps trying to find ways to get majority custody of the kids, I have to keep fighting for 50/50...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent