National Guard Sergeant Stanley Hoskins and his family were evicted because Hoskins is Black.
Decent interracial couple, Erica Flores Dunahoo and Stanley Hoskins, has been married for the last ten years and never experienced such racial bias until recently when the owner of the RV park they were hiring, Gene Baker, evicted them because Hoskins was Black.
The couple who reside in Mississippi with their two kids were turned out of their hired RV park because Baker claimed the neighbors were complaining. In an interview with The Clarion-Ledger, Baker explained that he wouldn’t have kicked out Hopkins and his family, but “the neighbors were giving me such a problem.” However, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 forbids Baker’s act –refusing to rent to people because of their “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
As for Dunahoo, she contradicted Baker’s reason for evicting them in an interview with The Clarion-Ledger. She reported that a day after she had her rent paid for the 1st month, Baker called her and said, “Hey, you didn’t tell me you was married to no black man.” But Dunahoo stressed she believed that shouldn’t be a problem. However, Baker said, “Oh, it’s a big problem with the members of my church, my community, and my mother-in-law. They don’t allow that black-and-white shacking.”
Since when did it become a problem for a family to retain their park because of the ‘race’ of the couple? Does Baker’s reasons suggest that if the couple were Black, there was no way they could be allowed to rent his park? What effect does the race of the couple have to do with their ability to pay their rent, a reason which in this particular case was not even the basis why the couple was evicted?
Although Hoskin is a sergeant in the National Guard, Baker still considered him a “thug,” with all its “attributes,” simply because he is Black and this is highly unacceptable. Considering that Baker still insisted that being “married” to a Black man meant the couple were “shaking”, it can be concluded that Baker showed racial bias, and as a result, should face the consequences for violating the constitutional rights of Dunahoo and Hoskin.