Gun on residence on school property.

[Notorious]

It would certainly be interesting to have it held in court that it is okay for landlords to discriminate based upon a tenant's lawful exercise of their constitutional rights but yet unlawful to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, receiving public assistance, etc.

You can definitely contract to limit your rights or can have the exercise be limited by practical considerations. It happens all the time. Try yelling out racial epithets at work, you might have your 1st Amendment Right, but you won't have your job for long. You can also contract to limit your search and seizure rights, when you sign technology use agreements or when you use employer provided storage spaces like lockers and such. You don't have privacy protections there.

What you are talking about is different. Federal programs cannot be discriminatory nor can entities receiving federal funding. That goes to states too. Public entities and programs have to be fair and non-discriminatory.

However, if I was a private property landlord and I don't want to rent to a homosexual, paraplegic, alcoholic, blind, autistic, half black half American Indian Democrat indigent homeless community organizer, I don't have to. I can turn it around and give my rental for free to a white gun owning Republican male veteran if I want. What law did I break? Cite a legal authority that says I did something wrong. Morals and ethics and whatever else aside, what did I do that was illegal?

[CBR_rider]

You can definitely contract to limit your rights or can have the exercise be limited by practical considerations. It happens all the time. Try yelling out racial epithets at work, you might have your 1st Amendment Right, but you won't have your job for long. You can also contract to limit your search and seizure rights, when you sign technology use agreements or when you use employer provided storage spaces like lockers and such. You don't have privacy protections there.

What you are talking about is different. Federal programs cannot be discriminatory nor can entities receiving federal funding. That goes to states too. Public entities and programs have to be fair and non-discriminatory.

However, if I was a private property landlord and I don't want to rent to a homosexual, paraplegic, alcoholic, blind, autistic, half black half American Indian Democrat indigent homeless community organizer, I don't have to. I can turn it around and give my rental for free to a white gun owning Republican male veteran if I want. What law did I break? Cite a legal authority that says I did something wrong. Morals and ethics and whatever else aside, what did I do that was illegal?

If you specifically stated that those were the reasons for denying the first person's rental application, it would be a violation of the California's fair housing laws.

I understand that there can be civil repercussions for what some entity or another deems "bad behavior," (such as your workplace conduct example) but generally those types of activities occur at somewhere such as work, someone else's business, etc. Those activities are not occurring inside of one's own home. I haven't found anything in any of the Fair Housing Acts or California law (I haven't look super hard, either, its not my area of expertise and I'm not going to try to be one there) that specifically lists the Second Amendment as a protected right that cannot be discriminated against by a landlord (and there may not be one); I would just personally find it amusing that such behavior would not be protected while other characteristics would (such as my religion, disabilities, etc).

[Notorious]

If you specifically stated that those were the reasons for denying the first person's rental application, it would be a violation of the California's fair housing laws.

I understand that there can be civil repercussions for what some entity or another deems "bad behavior," (such as your workplace conduct example) but generally those types of activities occur at somewhere such as work, someone else's business, etc. Those activities are not occurring inside of one's own home. I haven't found anything in any of the Fair Housing Acts or California law (I haven't look super hard, either, its not my area of expertise and I'm not going to try to be one there) that specifically lists the Second Amendment as a protected right that cannot be discriminated against by a landlord (and there may not be one); I would just personally find it amusing that such behavior would not be protected while other characteristics would (such as my religion, disabilities, etc).

No, you don't need to say anything specifically, you do what you do and the burden is on the plaintiff to claim you violated their rights. It's your private property, after all... or at least, it is supposed to be your property, to do with as you wish. You can simply state I don't want to rent out my house, I am donating its use.

As for the 2nd Amendment... and CA... there is no CA analogue to the 2nd Amendment in the State Constitution.

[CBR_rider]

Like I said, you specifically state those issues and you can (obviously) be held liable. I'm not arguing that if you chose tenant #2 that you would be guilty of violating fair housing laws, I'm simply making the point that there is behavior/characteristics protected both Federally and at the state level here in California that are much more arbitrary than rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

[Notorious]

Like I said, you specifically state those issues and you can (obviously) be held liable. I'm not arguing that if you chose tenant #2 that you would be guilty of violating fair housing laws, I'm simply making the point that there is behavior/characteristics protected both Federally and at the state level here in California that are much more arbitrary than rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

CA is nothing if not arbitrary on what they want to do.

The CA version of ADA is way more protective and even considers eyeglasses to be a major life function which falls under its protections, whereas the federal law doesn't. That also goes for FMLA v. CFRA, then we have PDL.

It's like CA is not happy with just regular regulations but we have to always go one better... which takes the opposite route with the 2nd Amendment where it doesn't even exist in the CA Constitution which is strange considering the wild west pioneer gold mining origins of this state where people are supposed to be rugged and self reliant.

[CBR_rider]

[QUOTE=It's like CA is not happy with just regular regulations but we have to always go one better... which takes the opposite route with the 2nd Amendment where it doesn't even exist in the CA Constitution which is strange considering the wild west pioneer gold mining origins of this state where people are supposed to be rugged and self reliant.[/QUOTE]

Seems like here in California, the only thing we like to one-up with guns is states with more regulations than we have... This is far from being on topic with the OP, but it is ironic that the more laws/regulations we produce to further the public good the more of a tailspin we seem to place our society here in California.