To think this couple's attitude has no place in modern society?

[Georama]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10419543/Christian-couple-ban-gay-man-partner-buying-dream-650-000-sexuality.html

A church-going wife who banned a gay man and his ITV producer partner from buying her £650,000 Surrey home has hit back in the row and insisted they are just sticking to their beliefs.

Luke Whitehouse and Lachlan Mantell were stunned when they were told that they could not buy the three-bedroom home because the Christian owners didn't want to sell to 'two men in a partnership.'

Honestly, they should be ashamed of that text. I hope no estate agent will work with them ever again.

I think a huge amount of the beliefs of various religions have no place in modern society.

YABU, because surely a modern society should be tolerant to all views and beliefs, and allow people to practise their religion freely, even where people find it offensive.

@Cultish

It's in the public interest to take this to the papers, sell his story, shame someone else for holding different values, ( which are also a protected belief?), Invite a pile on and do their best to make sure they can't sell the house to anyone else? Like hell it is. Typical trial by public shaming behaviour that makes the world such a shit place. They both have different views and values. So what. Find another house. Move on.

No, having different values is not a protected belief.

This couple are quoted as having sent their views on the record to a House of Lords committee, so it sounds like they're not really in a position to object to having them publicised.

But then aren’t we heading back to the time it was fine for B&Bs, landlords and shop owners to stick signs up saying no blacks, no Irish, no Jews?

I think if that were the case then this story wouldn't be news at all?

I don’t understand what you mean?

I don’t understand what you mean?

That if attitudes like this were generally acceptable it wouldn't be a news article

@Omicrone

I don't believe that anyone who has acted perfectly within the law should have their name, age, close up photograph, fairly easy to find address and employment history detailed in a national newspaper. Particularly off the back of a private message. I don't believe in trial by media. I think the couple were right to go to the papers, but I don't think it was right that the home owners were identified. It doesn't achieve anything, it won't achieve change.

If that makes me a 'homophobic cunt' or whatever else has been slung about on this thread then, whatever.

It's not actually clear whether it was the couple who provided all that identifying info or whether they just went to the Mail with the story and the newspaper found the photos, YouTube video etc.

Why would the gay couple have those photos? I imagine that the Mail has simply gone hunting for publicly available photos of these two and used them. That's the risk you take when you allow your photograph to be published anywhere online. The photo of the wife looks as if it comes from the website of the university department where she works.

no, you are justifying homophobia. Please admit it at least to yourself.

If you can't grasp the concept of protecting freedom of expression in private individuals you should at least admit that to yourself.

Arguing for that freedom and justifying objectionable views are not the same thing, but I guess it's hard to grasp for some.

I wonder how the vendors would react if told that the gay couple were living together but celibate? It's unlikely to be something they could disprove. And, of course, it would be easy enough for one member of a gay couple to buy the property in his own name and then transfer it into joint names as soon as the sale is complete.

@llanfair11

If only we regulated estate agents so they were obliged not to accept those who do not want to sell to people on the grounds of what is termed a protected characteristic in the 2010 Equalities Act.

I thought we'd moved away from 'no dogs, no blacks, no Irish'.

Totally agree

I so hope they don't get a sale and the houses either side are bought by the most outrageous, campest bunch of Queens imaginable.

No one is suggesting they should go to prison, they are saying their behaviour while not being illegal is immoral and they deserve to be criticised for it.

Actually people here are saying it's illegal. And others are saying it should be. Hence my comments.

Hasn't history taught us that silencing views which some (or many) find objectionable always turns out worse than allowing people to freely hold and express such offensive views? Freedom of speech and thought is precious and should not be taken for granted.

Appalling.

Lesbian here. I think it’s a free country and they should be entitled to except or reject offers from whomsoever they choose. I also think they are utter twats and I hope they can’t sell their house other than for a ridiculously low price. I also pity their neighbors and the people who have to live around them. I’d make damn well sure I had some fun if they came to live near me though.

I disagree. The gay couple were treated differently because of their sexual Orientation as a protected characteristic. They were unlawfully discriminated against.

Then you don't really understand the laws about discrimination.

It seems to me the most important aspect is being missed in this discussion. The vendors are relying on the way God's view was interpreted several hundred years ago. The only reliable way of ascertaining if God has changed his view is to pray and ask Him.

“If you can't grasp the concept of protecting freedom of expression in private individuals you should at least admit that to yourself.

Arguing for that freedom and justifying objectionable views are not the same thing, but I guess it's hard to grasp for some”

So you’re arguing for freedom to be openly homophobic and discriminate against gay people? If that’s what you choose to spend your time defending then that says a lot about you.

Freedom of speech, which we don’t have, should not and does not equal the right to refuse to do business with someone because of their colour, religion or sexuality. If I had a shop near that couple it wouldn’t be acceptable for me to refuse to sell them milk and bread because they’re (allegedly) Christians.

I hope they get dozens of people showing an interest and offering no more than half the asking price.

Not the same thing at all. But, saying either of these things would make many people think that you’re a backward, bigoted fuckwit from the boondocks.

It is exactly the same thing. A person has the right to do whatever they like with their home whether it be selling it or inviting people in.

A reminder that these people were using the exact same freedom of expression as you are using to insult them. You might want to reflect on that.

Couple making point thinking will get to press and they can open some kind of 'debate'?

I mean it's bizarre. Why would anyone care what sort of people buy their house?

Unless they needed to cohabit with the buyers for a while

I mean FFS.

I assume they don't car boot, sell anything on eBay etc!

Who do they work for? Anything that has any part in anything to do with general people (IE pretty much everything!) then they're betraying their beliefs every day!

Even day working for an oil company. No doubt some of the energy, petrol, plastics etc produced might well end up in the hands of homosexuals.

Silly fuckers.

What if they move somewhere and turns out neighbours same sex couples? What if local shops for milk etc have Gay Connections. Avoid the shifts when that man who looks a bit, well suspicious, is working? I mean. Those shirts he wears are a bit flamboyant aren't they. The milk will probably have gone off due to presence of sinner.

Etc etc.

FFS.

And omg how can they carry on at work? HR time surely. Things public reflecting badly on company gets you sacked...

I should read it prob so many questions!

@BoredZelda

I disagree. The gay couple were treated differently because of their sexual Orientation as a protected characteristic. They were unlawfully discriminated against.

Then you don't really understand the laws about discrimination.

So why do you say they weren't discriminated against, given the legal provisions quoted in this thread?

But then aren’t we heading back to the time it was fine for B&Bs, landlords and shop owners to stick signs up saying no blacks, no Irish, no Jews?

No, because B&Bs are business and in that situation there are laws that prevent that.

If we want to start policing the views and opinions of others, maybe think about what would happen if something you firmly believed it became something you could no longer talk about.

I think this needed to be called out, and the homophobic couple needed and deserved to be publicly shamed and held up to public ridicule.