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.

@user97533676 Stop derailing. This thread is about homophobia.

@Innocenta agreed. People will mostly support them because they're homophobes themselves, or because they care little about it

But I stick to the idea that telling people to keep this shit to themselves is no real solution. Many people have been largely keeping this shit to themselves for quite some time now. They find others that share their views so they don't have to keep it to themselves (the comments section on mail online). But not engaging people doesn't change attitudes unfortunately and you can only engage them when you know they're there.

@BoredZelda

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.

Not so.

Section 33 Equality Act 2010:

(1) A person (A) who has the right to dispose of premises must not discriminate against another (B)—

(a). as to the terms on which A offers to dispose of the premises to B;

(b). by not disposing of the premises to B;

(c) in A's treatment of B with respect to things done in relation to persons seeking premises.

@lollipoprainbow

Naming and photographing the Christian couple is awful. Everyone is entitled to their views and beliefs.

I doubt that anyone photographed them. It seems pretty clear that the Mail found those photos on an internet search.

If what the Christian couple has done is indeed illegal, then why have the other couple gone to the Daily Mail instead of to court?

Let the courts deal with it, and let the authorities be the one to release any personal information that they deem to be in the public interest.

@BashStreetKid sounds about right!

It’s good to know it’s against the equalities act. Can they be prosecuted?

I doubt that anyone photographed them. It seems pretty clear that the Mail found those photos on an internet search.

The photo of the bloke was taken by the Mail wasn't it? Its a pap shot and has Daily Mail copyright on it.

@Artichokeleaves

Well obviously they do have a place in modern society, they're living in it and it's ridiculous to pretend that society doesn't include people with these beliefs. It does. Those beliefs don't get changed by tutting and reporting to the police for wrong think, that just makes the divide of belief harder and them angrier. Having beliefs you may not agree with is not a crime.

If you discover that your seller is prejudiced and has incompatible views and doesn't want to sell to you - you shrug and go buy from someone else, because life is too short. You might think your seller is an unpleasant twit: that's not against the law. This whole punish and silence the wrongthinkers and be prejudiced against them really doesn't help anyone or solve anything. It's just prejudice in a different form.

I'm LGBT btw.

Well put.

[quote Innocenta]@user97533676 Stop derailing. This thread is about homophobia. [/quote]
So why keep mentioning black people?

It’s good to know it’s against the equalities act. Can they be prosecuted?

It's a bit less clear cut than bash Street kid is presenting. It seems to be important that you've involved an estate agent, which purple bricks technically aren't

@user97533676 I don't. I broadly agree with you, actually. But you're still derailing.

Well if they are refusing to sell to people committing what is deemed a "sin" by their religion then they can cross off unmarried straight couples (and any that are on their second etc marriages), anyone who swears, any atheists, any drinkers, anyone who was ever a teenager as apparently disobedience to your parents is a sin, anyone who has ever taken legal action against another (again apparently a sin)..... the list is bloody endless!

I guess instead of cutting out all those potential buyers they could just admit that they are homophobic arseholes but then no one would want to buy from them anyway.

Damned either way, how tragic for them 🙄 hope they are stuck there 🖕🏻

Of course this is all kinds of wrong, and I’m not for a moment in favour of discriminating against anyone. But:

• It does point-blank say in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong.
• People do believe the Bible and adhere to its teachings.
• We live in a society where we are, thankfully, still able to say what we think and live according to our own beliefs.
• Therefore, you have to argue that the vendors are within their rights to refuse this sale.

If more people did call out discrimination of any kind, our society would probably be a much better place. If I acted in a openly discriminatory way, I would not expect to get away with that, or to be able to use my beliefs as an excuse for acting that way.

I fundamentally disagree with some religious texts or teachings. I would, however, always respect the views of a religious person and I certainly would not treat them any differently as a result. I have met some exceptionally compassionate and generally wonderful religious people, so it would be entirely unfair to treat religious people differently or negatively for their views and beliefs, or indeed for the views of others. That is essentially the issue here: there is a huge difference between holding views or beliefs (no matter how hurtful they may be to others) and using them to actively discriminate against others. This couple did the latter and I cannot speak on behalf of all of the other lesbian/bisexual posters here, but that is what I personally take issue with.

No form of discrimination is harmless. If you have not experienced homophobia, please try to exercise some empathy and compassion for those of us here that have. Also please try to remember in your comments that some of us have actually experienced situations just like this and we’re actual people with feelings, not just hypothetical situations. Thanks.

Section 33 Equality Act 2010:
(1) A person (A) who has the right to dispose of premises must not discriminate against another (B)—

This "person" would be the estate agent/solicitor who is instructed to make the offers on behalf of the vendor.

It seems to be important that you've involved an estate agent, which purple bricks technically aren't

But at the point of formally accepting an offer, a conveyancing solicitor will be involved.

@Omicrone

If what the Christian couple has done is indeed illegal, then why have the other couple gone to the Daily Mail instead of to court?

Let the courts deal with it, and let the authorities be the one to release any personal information that they deem to be in the public interest.

There are all sorts of perfectly sensible reasons for choosing not to go to court, starting with the expense.

- It does point-blank say in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong.

It also says not to wear mixed fibre textiles; that people with physical deformities cannot go to church; that if a man's brother dies, he has to shag his wife; and that swearing at your parents is punishable by death (mainly, but not only, Leviticus, which is where the single reference to homosexuality resides).

At no point did Jesus say a word about gay people.

When the sellers here also refuse to sell their house to someone wearing a cotton/lycra blend top, then I will, at least, applaud them for their consistency and rigour. But until that point, I will work on the presumption that they are using their religion as a smokescreen for bigotry. They can fuck off to the far side of fuck.

And before anyone misrepresents me again, I recognise that what they have done is legal, and I don't think the law should be changed.

@OneTC

It’s good to know it’s against the equalities act. Can they be prosecuted?

It's a bit less clear cut than bash Street kid is presenting. It seems to be important that you've involved an estate agent, which purple bricks technically aren't

There's nothing in the Act that says it only applies if you're selling through an estate agent. The significance of doing so is presumably that an estate agent who follows instructions to screen out certain buyers with protected characteristics will also be acting in breach of the Act.

Has it been discussed what people would do if a clearly homophobic couple wanted to buy your house? Or clearly racist? (And even more so if you have neighbours who may then be targeted)

Would you want to sell to them.

Plenty of people decide not to sell to people who are just downright rude to them during a viewing.

So yes I think anyone should be allowed not to sell if they don't want to.

@Nutsohazelnuts

Of course this is all kinds of wrong, and I’m not for a moment in favour of discriminating against anyone. But:

• It does point-blank say in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong.
• People do believe the Bible and adhere to its teachings.
• We live in a society where we are, thankfully, still able to say what we think and live according to our own beliefs.
• Therefore, you have to argue that the vendors are within their rights to refuse this sale.

No, you don't have to argue it, because what the Bible says doesn't override the law. If this was correct, people would be free to bar gay people from shops, restaurants, hotels, schools etc; and fortunately, they aren't.