Landlord won't let me stay if I catch COVID

[iqeylvadxqhj]

It's discrimination based on medical condition, but it's obviously not illegal. You don't really think it's illegal to tell people who are or may be highly contagious to stay out of a public place, do you?

Why is it "obviously not illegal"... are you reading the same Unruh Act that I am?

CIVIL CODE - CIV
DIVISION 1. PERSONS [38 - 86]
( Heading of Division 1 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 12. )

PART 2. PERSONAL RIGHTS [43 - 53.7]
( Part 2 enacted 1872. )

51.
(a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

San Jose

I see signs like this all over the place: https://www.google.com/search?q=do+not+enter+covid&tbm=isch

It is not illegal to ban those that have a contagious disease. Just like they don't allow those with HIV/AIDS to give blood. YOur rights stop where everyone else's begins.

 

[quincy]

San Jose

I see signs like this all over the place: https://www.google.com/search?q=do+not+enter+covid&tbm=isch

And you believe people with colds are being discriminated against?

What does this have to do with your landlord?

I want to thank you for providing the name of your city. If you feel your rights are being infringed, you might first want to check on the local laws regarding Covid-19 and then you can consult with a civil rights attorney in your area of San Jose for advice and direction.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Why is it "obviously not illegal"... are you reading the same Unruh Act that I am?

CIVIL CODE - CIV
DIVISION 1. PERSONS [38 - 86]
( Heading of Division 1 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 12. )

PART 2. PERSONAL RIGHTS [43 - 53.7]
( Part 2 enacted 1872. )

51.
(a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

If you read a little further, you'd find that:

"(3) “Medical condition” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (i) of Section 12926 of the Government Code."

Looking at section of the code, you'd find that:

(i) “Medical condition” means either of the following:

(1) Any health impairment related to or associated with a diagnosis of cancer or a record or history of cancer.
(2) Genetic characteristics.  For purposes of this section, “genetic characteristics” means either of the following:
(A) Any scientifically or medically identifiable gene or chromosome, or combination or alteration thereof, that is known to be a cause of a disease or disorder in a person or that person's offspring, or that is determined to be associated with a statistically increased risk of development of a disease or disorder, and that is presently not associated with any symptoms of any disease or disorder.
(B) Inherited characteristics that may derive from the individual or family member, that are known to be a cause of a disease or disorder in a person or that person's offspring, or that are determined to be associated with a statistically increased risk of development of a disease or disorder, and that are presently not associated with any symptoms of any disease or disorder.

COVID has nothing to do with cancer.
COVID is a virus, not a genetic characteristic.

The legal definitions, as defined within the code, are what matter in attempting to apply legal code.

 

[adjusterjack]

your landlord "cannot . . . legally force you to leave your home if you do become infected."

Where are you "quoting" that from?

When you quote something it's best to cite the source so the reader can make sure you are quoting accurately and are not taking something out of context.

 

[quincy]

Where are you "quoting" that from?

When you quote something it's best to cite the source so the reader can make sure you are quoting accurately and are not taking something out of context.

Doodah was quoting himself (post number 7).

 

[zddoodah]

Where are you "quoting" that from?

When you quote something it's best to cite the source so the reader can make sure you are quoting accurately and are not taking something out of context.

If you had quoted more of what I wrote in post #23, it would have been obvious what I was quoting. In post #23, I wrote, "the landlord-tenant laws apply and are the basis of my prior statement that your landlord 'cannot . . . legally force you to leave your home if you do become infected.'" I was simply repeating what I had written in post #7 in the thread.

 

[quincy]

If you had quoted more of what I wrote in post #23, it would have been obvious what I was quoting. In post #23, I wrote, "the landlord-tenant laws apply and are the basis of my prior statement that your landlord 'cannot . . . legally force you to leave your home if you do become infected.'" I was simply repeating what I had written in post #7 in the thread.

Echo.

 

[iqeylvadxqhj]

It is not illegal to ban those that have a contagious disease.

Citation needed

Just like they don't allow those with HIV/AIDS to give blood. YOur rights stop where everyone else's begins.

You really don't see the difference between "not accepting a blood donation" and "you're not allowed to shop at a store"?

 

[iqeylvadxqhj]

And you believe people with colds are being discriminated against?

If the rules are interpreted literally (which they aren't in practice), it would seem that anyone with colds or even allergies is being discriminated against by these sorts of illegal postings.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Citation needed

No citation available because there is not law against it.

You really don't see the difference between "not accepting a blood donation" and "you're not allowed to shop at a store"?

Not in this particular case no. Both are vectors.

 

[Zigner]

If the rules are interpreted literally (which they aren't in practice), it would seem that anyone with colds or even allergies is being discriminated against by these sorts of illegal postings.

You're post is based on the faulty premise that the postings are illegal.

 

[quincy]

Citation needed



You really don't see the difference between "not accepting a blood donation" and "you're not allowed to shop at a store"?

Private businesses in all states (except Texas, perhaps) can bar patrons from entering their establishments for a whole host of reasons (e.g., “no shirt, no shoes, no service”) and as long as no protected group is being singled out, this is perfectly legal.

Because everyone who has symptoms that could be a sign of Covid-19 is being barred, there is no illegal discrimination.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Citation needed

I pointed out that the definition of "medical condition" in the law you keep on citing DOES NOT INCLUDE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES and quoted it word for word.

That should be citation enough.

When reading legal code, there is often a section that defines what is meant by certain terms in that section. Those definitions are the only ones that matter when applying the code to a real life situation.

 

[iqeylvadxqhj]

Because everyone who has symptoms that could be a sign of Covid-19 is being barred, there is no illegal discrimination.

So if everyone who has symptoms that could be a sign of HIV is being barred from a business, that wouldn't be illegal either?