this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
48 points (96.2% liked)

Canada

7313 readers
961 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

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


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 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?