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.

dancingbear most Christians follow guidance in the New Testament, not the Old Testament (Leviticus is).

@burnoutbabe

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.

But you can't compare being gay to being homophobic! One is a protected characteristic, the other is just a bigot!

@burnoutbabe

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.

There's a good reason why the equalities act protects gay people; people of colour; disabled people etc. and not homophobes and racists.

Can you take a guess as to what that might be? Go on, try.

@Bitofachinwag

dancingbear most Christians follow guidance in the New Testament, not the Old Testament (Leviticus is).

I agree absolutely. And the NT says literally nothing about homosexuality. Anywhere. Jesus never mentioned the subject.

The only reference to homosexuality in the Bible is in the OT, in Leviticus, the rest of which is batshit crazy too.

@thedancingbear there is a distinction between same-sex attraction and same-sex practice... I personally know several Christians who are gay and celibate. They are open about the fact that they are same-sex attracted, it's who they are, they've never been attracted to the opposite sex and probably never will, but they make a firm distinction between attraction and actions. The point isn't whether you find that wrong/sad/offensive, but that there is a distinction which some gay people themselves even make.

@WindInTheWillows7 so I guess it’s perfectly fine to discriminate against any gay or lesbian person in a relationship then? Please enlighten me as to why this is acceptable?

@Bitofachinwag

dancingbear most Christians follow guidance in the New Testament, not the Old Testament (Leviticus is).

Massive over simplification. Christians believe that the God who gave the Isaraelites the Mosaic law in the wilderness is the very same God who came to die on a cross for the people's sins. The whole of the Old Testament points to the New.

[quote WindInTheWillows7]@thedancingbear there is a distinction between same-sex attraction and same-sex practice... I personally know several Christians who are gay and celibate. They are open about the fact that they are same-sex attracted, it's who they are, they've never been attracted to the opposite sex and probably never will, but they make a firm distinction between attraction and actions. The point isn't whether you find that wrong/sad/offensive, but that there is a distinction which some gay people themselves even make.[/quote]
Ah, you're one of them. 'I've got gay friends, you know, and they manage not to bum each other, so why can't you?'.

Okay, fine. I'll leave you to it.

@thedancingbear what you or I think about it is irrelevant. The issue is whether in law, there is a distinction between protected characteristics and lifestyle.

[quote WindInTheWillows7]@thedancingbear what you or I think about it is irrelevant. The issue is whether in law, there is a distinction between protected characteristics and lifestyle.[/quote]
It's not irrelevant when you are posting on a public forum defending homophobic bigotry.

And the NT says literally nothing about homosexuality

Except the bit the homophobes quoted to them I guess?

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

Beliefs and views are one thing, however disgusting. Refusing someone a service or affecting their lives adversely because of those views - another thing entirely.
I think Evangelical Christians are batshit and dangerous in many cases, would I ever refuse
to sell them a house, rent them a room, give them a table in restaurant?
No, because I’m not. Bigot and discrimination is discrimination.
Anyone defending them because of their ‘beliefs’ need to have a good hard look at themselves. Racists believe that they are superior in some way to people of color - but refusing to sell a
house to a black couple would cause outrage and wouldn’t be defended as okay because of the sellers ‘beliefs’.
They’d be called out just like these homophobes are being called out.
If you want to quote bible verses at gay people telling them they’re ‘sinful’ then expect some comeback.

Romans bit they cited

King James version as specified

The understanding of ancient languages has improved in the 400 years since the King James Version was translated. As has the English language.

[quote WindInTheWillows7]@thedancingbear what you or I think about it is irrelevant. The issue is whether in law, there is a distinction between protected characteristics and lifestyle.[/quote]
I’ve heard this “it’s a lifestyle choice to engage in your sinful homosexual desires, so the consequences of that are on you”, before and people seem to think it’s nice little get out of jail free card to justify their homophobia. It’s not and it isn’t a legally valid defence either. If I go to a hotel and ask for a room with my fiancée and they say “are you two in a relationship? Yes? Well we can’t let you stay here because you will be practicing your gayness under our roof” that’s still discrimination and is illegal. Now in this case as it’s a private sale I don’t know if that applies, but either way there is no legal difference between discriminating against someone for being or being in a same sex relationship.

Being gay or being in a same sex relationship*

The couple selling the house could, if they really felt that strongly about not selling to someone who didn’t follow the teaching of their religion, have chosen to exclusively advertise their property privately via their church. It would have limited the pool of possible buyers and likely reduced the offers they might get but would have avoided the possibility of having all manner of “unsuitable” people viewing the house. They chose to list it openly with an agent and could reasonably have expected to have many, many people who don’t follow the same religious teachings as them wanting to view/buy it. They then chose not only to deny a viewing to someone but to send them a message insulting them with quotes from the bible. They are free to do that and I wouldn’t support prosecuting them for it. Equally they chose to do it and have to live with the consequence that a large portion of people think their behaviour was rude, bigoted, discriminatory, unchristian etc. It may have their employer calling into question their ability to leave aside their personal prejudices when dealing with colleagues in the future & it may put a lot of people off buying their home/selling to them. It serves them right really as they had no need to be so nasty.
They could easily have quietly exercised their beliefs by selling a different way but they instead chose to be very hurtful to someone else. Living in a society with lots of different views doesn’t require we find those who disagree with us and then insult them.

@WindInTheWillows7 ‘ The issue is whether in law, there is a distinction between protected characteristics and lifestyle.’

I’m not a legal professional but my understanding of the EA is that there is no distinction. Certainly the guidance around it I read states that ‘ In the Equality Act, sexual orientation includes how you choose to express your sexual orientation.’ It also gives discrimination following the mention of a partner as an example of direct discrimination.

Also on a side note, that view is rather naive - not all single LGB people are celibate. Therefore, there is no guarantee that a single gay person would have ‘practiced their homosexuality’ any less in that house. Moreover, there is no guarantee that two people in a same-sex partnership are not celibate.

I don't think the comparisons to bans on black/Irish/traveller people hold up, because it is not the fact that the buyers are gay and have this protected characteristic which is the issue for the sellers, it is the fact that they are in a gay relationship, which is a lifestyle choice, not a characteristic.

odfod

Just saw this thread and laughed my arse off. We've just sold our house to a guy couple. Chain free with a 50% cash deposit. Loving the pink pound . What kind of a fucking idiot gives a shit about who lives in the house they NO LONGER OWN?

*gay couple! Friggin autocorrect

I like how sexuality, which is an innate part of your programming, is held up as a "lifestyle choice", but the entirely optional religion must be a protected characteristic.

(I think they should both be protected, FYI, but let's face it, it's a million times easier to switch religions than it is to switch sexual orientation. Only one of those do you have full control over.)

@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.

People have used religious texts to justify all sorts of terrible things throughout history. Misogyny, slavery, domestic violence, crusades. It doesn't make it okay.

Why is bigotry based on the Bible different than any other kind?

@etulosba

Romans bit they cited

King James version as specified

The understanding of ancient languages has improved in the 400 years since the King James Version was translated. As has the English language.

The received theological wisdom is that the bit in Romans they cited means 'don't have an orgy' and not 'homosexuality is wrong'.

Even if this wisdom is incorrect, it's certainly the case that Jesus never said anything on the topic.

‘ Bitofachinwag

dancingbear most Christians follow guidance in the New Testament, not the Old Testament (Leviticus is).’

Oh I see. So the Bible is the literal Word of God but you can pick and choose the parts that you follow? So gays= Sinful, evil, immoral and fine to discriminate against.
Having sex with a woman close to her period = ignore that. Having to marry and procreate with your dead brother’s wife, skip that bit. God didn’t really mean that.
Owning slaves - yeah, forget that bit but homosexuals not being allowed to marry, or even exist - that IS the word of god…

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

I don’t think it is quite as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

www.hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality