Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

618 replies

Georama · 20/01/2022 18:35

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.

OP posts:
5128gap · 20/01/2022 21:25

@AgathaMystery

It’s a weird one.

In my opinion they ANBU in the act of wanting to decide who to sell their house to. But I feel they ABU in the reason behind their refusal.

Interesting times when 2 protected characteristics of the EA clash as well.

If rights arising from one protected characteristic cause discrimination on the grounds of another protected characteristic, they should no longer be rights, so there shouldn't be a conflict.
Innocenta · 20/01/2022 21:26

It's not the 'belief', it's the discriminatory behaviour. Really shocking that so many are okay with active, hateful homophobic behaviour... @BoredZelda @Unsure33 @Cultish @Bluebluemoon39

mordinvasnormandy · 20/01/2022 21:27

I wonder if people would be so eager to defend them if they discriminated based on someone's race.

Maze76 · 20/01/2022 21:28

I’d like to say I’m shocked- but I’m not

Bitofachinwag · 20/01/2022 21:28

@Elsiebear90

“Fair enough. But you can't expect everyone to keep changing their opinion according to what's "deemed acceptable to modern society " . Regardless as to what year it is people always live in modern society. People who lived in 1865 also lived in modern society. Who decides what's acceptable?”

Yes you can, it’s called progress, or do you also think there’s nothing wrong with a man thinking his wife is his property that he can rape and beat when he likes? After all, this was morally acceptable not so long ago, and is still morally acceptable in many parts of the world. Should we not expect him to change his opinion? Would you defend him too?

In your example someone is getting hurt. I did say in a previous post that that isn't ok. I would say that the man in your example can have that opinion if he wants, but he can't hurr others. There is a big difference.

Still, this doesn't answer the question Who decides what's acceptable? And how to they do that? Are we all obliged to changes our beliefs according to "progress"?

Cultish · 20/01/2022 21:30

but not active discrimination against protected characteristics.

The couple also have a protected characteristic: religious belief. Forcing them to sell the house to someone who goes against their religious beliefs would not be acceptable or possible either. It's not dissimilar to the baker / gay couple case. They couple haven't gone out of their way to seek trouble. They've refused to do something because the principles of their religion. They haven't made a big thing of it, they haven't gone to the papers to express their disgust. They just don't want to sell the house to this couple. They are allowed to do that.

AgathaMystery · 20/01/2022 21:30

@5128gap whose rights are paramount though?

I don’t agree with the couple at all. I think they’re mental.

But. We did decided not to sell our last house to a person we didn’t like. It was our choice. It was our home, we decide who comes inside it, who views it & who buys it. No one else.

BIWI · 20/01/2022 21:30

@Woodhill

Your point being ... ?

Omicrone · 20/01/2022 21:30

@mordinvasnormandy

I wonder if people would be so eager to defend them if they discriminated based on someone's race.
I still wouldn't think it was right to plaster very personal details all over a national newspaper. But then I never have been one for 'trial by media'.
Cheekypeach · 20/01/2022 21:31

Yanbu it’s mad people have views like this in 2022.

I mean did they really have to send the bloody letter & tell them why?! Just decline to sell them the house if you’re that worked up about it.

woodhill · 20/01/2022 21:32

[quote BIWI]@Woodhill

Your point being ... ?[/quote]
I'm not getting into this

BIWI · 20/01/2022 21:33

Why not?! You were the one to take issue with the word I used! Explain what you meant by your comment.

evilharpy · 20/01/2022 21:33

@FitAt50

Shocked that 21% of mumsnetter's agree with the homophobic couple.
Maybe they don't, maybe they voted YABU because they assumed it meant the vendors' actions were unreasonable?
CorneliusVetch · 20/01/2022 21:34

@Cultish

but not active discrimination against protected characteristics.

The couple also have a protected characteristic: religious belief. Forcing them to sell the house to someone who goes against their religious beliefs would not be acceptable or possible either. It's not dissimilar to the baker / gay couple case. They couple haven't gone out of their way to seek trouble. They've refused to do something because the principles of their religion. They haven't made a big thing of it, they haven't gone to the papers to express their disgust. They just don't want to sell the house to this couple. They are allowed to do that.

It’s not like the Ashers Bakery case at all. In that case, they weren’t refusing to make a cake for Mr Lee because he was gay. That would be the equivalent to the actions of these bigots.
Cultish · 20/01/2022 21:34

Still, this doesn't answer the question Who decides what's acceptable? And how to they do that? Are we all obliged to changes our beliefs according to "progress"?

Well that is the big question isn't it. And one person's idea of progress isn't another persons.
But really, at the very least, it just needs to fall in line with the law. I would say that the gay couple may be moving outside of that position and into another one of inviting a public pile on and inciting religious hatred.

woodhill · 20/01/2022 21:34

@BIWI

Why not?! You were the one to take issue with the word I used! Explain what you meant by your comment.
No thanks
lightisnotwhite · 20/01/2022 21:34

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

thedancingbear · 20/01/2022 21:34

@Cultish

but not active discrimination against protected characteristics.

The couple also have a protected characteristic: religious belief. Forcing them to sell the house to someone who goes against their religious beliefs would not be acceptable or possible either. It's not dissimilar to the baker / gay couple case. They couple haven't gone out of their way to seek trouble. They've refused to do something because the principles of their religion. They haven't made a big thing of it, they haven't gone to the papers to express their disgust. They just don't want to sell the house to this couple. They are allowed to do that.

And we’re allowed to call them bigoted cunts.

No law against that either. Western democracy is brilliant innit?

Please keep posting - we much prefer you out in the open

BIWI · 20/01/2022 21:34

Well then it was a pretty pathetic thing to say then, wasn't it?

BIWI · 20/01/2022 21:35

... that was to @woodhill

ZenNudist · 20/01/2022 21:35

I'm a Christian and as far as I'm concerned it's giving Christians a bad name.

Gay couple look like a nice couple to me. Pretty house. Hope they get something nicer and aren't giving money to bigots.

woodhill · 20/01/2022 21:35

No not at all.

Bitofachinwag · 20/01/2022 21:35

@Cheekypeach

Yanbu it’s mad people have views like this in 2022.

I mean did they really have to send the bloody letter & tell them why?! Just decline to sell them the house if you’re that worked up about it.

This is the thing I have problem with. Who decides what's acceptable in 2022? Or any year? Do we already know what will be acceptable (or not) in 2027 (for example)?

We aren't all one mind.

Elsiebear90 · 20/01/2022 21:36

“In your example someone is getting hurt. I did say in a previous post that that isn't ok. I would say that the man in your example can have that opinion if he wants, but he can't hurr others. There is a big difference.

Still, this doesn't answer the question Who decides what's acceptable? And how to they do that? Are we all obliged to changes our beliefs according to "progress"?”

You don’t think it’s hurtful for gay couples to be refused houses purely because they’re gay? And then to be sent religious texts telling them they’re sinners who are going to hell?

Yes, I think if your opinions/beliefs lead you to discriminate against other people because of their gender, race, sexuality etc then you absolutely should change them. There’s plenty of religious texts which promote sexism and misogyny I’m sure you wouldn’t be too happy if you as a woman were discriminated against because of those beliefs.

BIWI · 20/01/2022 21:36

@woodhill

No not at all.
But too cowardly to argue your case? Defend your statement?