this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
50 points (96.3% liked)

Canada

7210 readers
313 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tooclose104@lemmy.ca 15 points 7 months ago

I wonder if the underlying problem is that it can set precedent against the entire business model of "child-free living complexes" and similar "retirement residences, non-paliative/long term care". Both of those models, by design, restrict tenants based on age.

Before asking this next question, I'm in no way advocating for this. Why does a corporation get to benefit from these while a smaller or singular party cannot? Where do we draw the boundary or why do we maintain it? Is the problem because those in charge are benefiting from it via passive or direct investment?

If it's not ok to discriminate against a family with children looking to rent a home, why can that same family not rent an apartment in a retirement complex or other style residence where non-retired adults without children live by design?