I really haven’t made my mind up on this issue, but it is a perplexing one.
The question is do private property owners have the right to restrict the right of the people to freely assemble ?
It’s taken for granted that owners can prevent harm to their property by any lawful means necessary. However should there be classes of people who are forbidden to rent, lease or own property because of past indiscretions. Or should there be the right to prevent those people involved in current indiscretions, yet not prosecuted, be banned as well.
In the latter case, which is accommodated by many, there is no judgement made that holds the individual liable for any transgressions. Yet are mere suspicions, or even instances not yet verified in a court of law, are not enough to ban a person. And it goes without saying that those convicted are either on parole or in prison and are legally limited from freely assembling.
But what about those who have “paid their dues” and have been released from prison ? Can they not assemble, even on private property. especially peaceably with the tenant’s consent ? Especially if the government has given money to the owner specifically so that the tenant can enjoy the “rights reserved to the people” ?
Will this be a loophole so that owners can discriminate further as to who they will let the tenant visit ?
It’s an interesting question that the legislature should decide if they have not already.
– Posted using BlogPress from my iPad