Selling a home, no matter what the market conditions, is a difficult process. Depending on the price of the home, the area, and the market, homes can sit on the market for months, even YEARS, before selling.
One woman in Sacramento, California, decided to make the process of selling her home even more difficult, choosing to add additional conditions for purchasing her real estate. Some even suggest that her conditions were illegal and prejudicial. The homeowner demanded that the person who buys her house cannot be a Trump supporter.
In this politically polarized climate, it’s hardly surprising that a leftist might not want to sell their home to someone who supported Donald Trump. The owner of the home, who refused to use her name out of fear of retribution, told the realtor that she “didn’t want her to sell it to a Trump supporter.”
The owner of the home in Sacramento, which was in the family for decades and where they “entertained people from all walks of life,” said that to her, it was about “principals, morals, and ethics.” She further stated that for her, that was “very, very deep.”
In other words, she wants the sale of the house to be conditional upon the way a person voted in 2016 (or plans to vote in 2020).
Realtor Elizabeth Weintraub said that the request is a first in her career.
She also said that while realtors can ask someone how they voted or plan to vote, there’s really nothing that they can do to confirm that the person buying the house is or is not a supporter of President Donald Trump.
Lawyers suggested that the condition might even be illegal, or at very least unlawful.
Attorney Allen Sawyer suggested that a condition that the purchaser must be of a certain political party or ideology is an “unlawful contractual term.”
Sawyer points out that such a condition is a clear violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of association and speech, which includes political parties and ideologies.
Sawyer said that although political ideology is not one of the seven protected classes mentioned by name in the Fair Housing Act (which protects against discrimination based on race, religion, color, disability, national origin, sex, and family status), it is still an unlawful condition.
Further, it is likely an unenforceable condition.
A local certified appraiser, Ryan Lundquist, pointed out that whether its legal to discriminate on basis of politics or not, such a condition could easily limit the pool of potential purchasers for the home.
The homeowner’s conditions mean that purchasers in the Sacramento region, where more than 39% of people voted for President Donald Trump in the 2016 election, will be less likely to meet her ‘requirements’ for purchasing the home.
The idea that someone can compel association with a certain political party, or refuse to sell a home to someone due to their political ideology, seems to go against much of current leftist political ideology, especially in the extremely-liberal West Coast region, that demands that there is no basis for refusing to sell goods to someone.
Liberals in the United States loudly and proudly proclaim that bakers and pizza shops cannot ‘discriminate’ against homosexual couples by refusing to offer services at their weddings.
In fact, a case is currently before the Supreme Court concerning a religious bakery the state of Oregon fined for refusing to provide a cake for a homosexual wedding.
Apparently, that sort of forced tolerance and forced association is only fine for those with the ‘properly left-leaning’ views, not for the average person who may want to buy a home.
In the end, the homeowner’s request is absurd and silly, and her prejudices are childish.
Whatever she may think of people who voted for President Donald Trump in 2016 (and those who plan to again in 2020), it’s no reason for her to refuse to sell the home to them.
She can sell the home to whoever she likes, but the housing market in Sacramento, as with most of California, is an expensive one, and renting is much more common than buying.
At the end of the day, all the homeowner is really doing is showing that while her family entertained all sorts of people, she ended up so close-minded that she will only tolerate certain types of people, those who agree with her political views.
Liberals preach acceptance, but only if it fits their narrow viewpoint. Hopefully, this homeowner finds that it costs her more money to be intolerant.