Do religious principles justify discrimination against SS couples?

[vsedriver]

By the rental application.

how would the rental application tell you that? Does it ask if the renter is single, married, or divorced?

How would you know if two guys are a couple? Maybe they are brothers or cousins. Maybe they are friends. My brother and his best friend rented a house together after college.

You can’t go by last names these days either. Many married women no longer change there last name. You have no way of knowing if someone is married unless they tell you.

 

[Rau]

But people tend to take one data point and extrapolate a whole universe. Racial discrimination is bad, ergo, all discrimination is bad. A once sensible view of “discrimination” has been grotesquely perverted into an illustration of Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s famous reminder of “the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.” This tendency has mutated to extend beyond the limit of its logic.” When it comes to discrimination, we have to be willing to distinguish between different types of discrimination. Discriminating between different concepts is called intelligence. Refusing to lump all forms of discrimination together is called common sense. It is what keeps us from having blind airline pilots.

No argument from me. But we recognize that ones skin colour has no bearing on eligibility to be s pilot.

 

[Tomdstone]

how would the rental application tell you that? Does it ask if the renter is single, married, or divorced?

How would you know if two guys are a couple? Maybe they are brothers or cousins. Maybe they are friends. My brother and his best friend rented a house together after college.

You can’t go by last names these days either. Many married women no longer change there last name. You have no way of knowing if someone is married unless they tell you.

The application asks who will be living in the apartment. If the applicant puts down himself and his wife and by wife he puts down his male wife, then it is a SS couple. Or if the female puts down that she is the husband and that her partner is the wife, then it is a SS couple. If a male partner is not the wife, he will say so. Further, in many cases the lady will say it will be my wife and I who are renting the apartment. So obviously, if the lady states that she and her wife will be renting the apartment, the it is a SS couple.

It really is a simple question:
Assume that you know that you have a SS couple.
Do religious principles justify not renting an apartment to a SS couple?

 

[Rau]

Tomdstone;12942470:

The application asks who will be living in the apartment. If the applicant puts down himself and his wife and by wife he puts down his male wife, then it is a SS couple. Or if the female puts down that she is the husband and that her partner is the wife, then it is a SS couple. If a male partner is not the wife, he will say so. Further, in many cases the lady will say it will be my wife and I who are renting the apartment. So obviously, if the lady states that she and her wife will be renting the apartment, the it is a SS couple.

It really is a simple question:
Assume that you know that you have a SS couple.
Do religious principles justify not renting an apartment to a SS couple?

One needs to identify the religious principle in question. There is a Catholic principle about not participating in the sin of another or not cooperating in particular ways. The details of this are not black and white nor widely known. I’m not very familiar with it, but i suspect that providing lodgement, a basic human need, is not the kind of cooperation with sin that is problematic.

 

[808Catholic]

There are obviously disagreements over what it means to be enlightened. Also, not all same-sex sexual activity is dangerous. Some is dangerous and some is not dangerous just as some opposite-sex sexual activity is dangerous and some is not. There is nothing intrinsically dangerous about gay sex whereas all straight sex is intrinsically not dangerous.

Not to be argumentative but swearing and using our Lord’s name is not “dangerous”. I believe the focus is on the sin and the spiritual ramifications of the sin and not on just the physical consequences.

 

[Rau]

… I believe the focus is on the sin and the spiritual ramifications of the sin and not on just the physical consequences.

Clearly, but that argument is not applicable with a person who has convinced themselves of the goodness of the very acts you hold to be wrong.

 

[808Catholic]

The application asks who will be living in the apartment. If the applicant puts down himself and his wife and by wife he puts down his male wife, then it is a SS couple. Or if the female puts down that she is the husband and that her partner is the wife, then it is a SS couple. If a male partner is not the wife, he will say so. Further, in many cases the lady will say it will be my wife and I who are renting the apartment. So obviously, if the lady states that she and her wife will be renting the apartment, the it is a SS couple.

It really is a simple question:
Assume that you know that you have a SS couple.
Do religious principles justify not renting an apartment to a SS couple?

Each person is responsible for his/her own actions. One Christian may decide that renting to a known SS “couple” may be an act of charity (in the Name of the Lord) while another may refuse to rent the apartment based on not participating in the sin of cohabitation. Both act in accordance with God’s Will (as we know it); both will be judged by God.

 

[808Catholic]

Clearly, but that argument is not applicable with a person who has convinced themselves of the goodness of the very acts you hold to be wrong.

Are you referring to SS people who believe homosexuality is “good”? Please clarify.

 

[Rau]

Are you referring to SS people who believe homosexuality is “good”? Please clarify.

I refer to persons in a same sex sexual relationship, and who have persuaded themselves that their sexual acts are good. Such persons will not be influenced by reference to the sinfulness of their acts as they don’t accept that premise.

 

[808Catholic]

I refer to persons in a same sex sexual relationship, and who have persuaded themselves that their sexual acts are good. Such persons will not be influenced by reference to the sinfulness of their acts as they don’t accept that premise.

Thanks for the clarification, @Rau. I agree. We all tend to justify our sins so that we can continue our sinful lives with little to no anxiety that what we do is wrong in the eyes of God. I don’t say this to convict our brothers and sisters who believe that SS relationships are just an expression of true love (or anyone else for that matter), I convict myself as a sinner who has yet to break free of my own sinful ways and live in accordance with God’s Will. Try as I might, I fall, then get back up to confess my sins and keep trying to follow Christ. Though I’m not perfect, I can still pray for others and help them get back up as well. God Bless you!

 

[Tomdstone]

Each person is responsible for his/her own actions. One Christian may decide that renting to a known SS “couple” may be an act of charity (in the Name of the Lord) while another may refuse to rent the apartment based on not participating in the sin of cohabitation. Both act in accordance with God’s Will (as we know it); both will be judged by God.

So whether it is right or wrong is completely subjective? There is no objective right or wrong in this case?
I think this idea of subjectivity of values can be pushed too far. For example, the SS couple may believe in their hearts that it is an act of love for two people of the SS to live together as husband and wife. Both believe that they are acting in accordance with God’s will.

 

[Thorolfr]

For example, the SS couple may believe in their hearts that it is an act of love for two people of the SS to live together as husband and wife.

Most gay men would want to live together as husband and husband and most lesbians would want to live together as wife and wife.

 

[Tomdstone]

Most gay men would want to live together as husband and husband and most lesbians would want to live together as wife and wife.

There was a neighborhood get together recently. At the party, the lady who lived a few houses away referred to her partner as her wife.
It is irrelevant to the question of whether or not, knowing that there is a SS couple, do religious principles justify not renting an apartment to a SS couple. Objectively speaking, not how someone feels about it, would renting to a SS couple be objectively wrong, or is there nothing objectively wrong with it ?

 

[808Catholic]

So whether it is right or wrong is completely subjective? There is no objective right or wrong in this case?
I think this idea of subjectivity of values can be pushed too far. For example, the SS couple may believe in their hearts that it is an act of love for two people of the SS to live together as husband and wife. Both believe that they are acting in accordance with God’s will.

You misunderstand me. SS activity is a sin. That’s not up for discussion. The question is whether a Catholic is committing a sin by renting an apartment to a SS “couple.”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No argument from me. But we recognize that ones skin colour has no bearing on eligibility to be s pilot.

But if the pilot CHOOSES to use illegal drugs, aviation authorities have the right and duty to discriminate against him.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thorolfr View Post
Most gay men would want to live together as husband and husband and most lesbians would want to live together as wife and wife.

There was a neighborhood get together recently. At the party, the lady who lived a few houses away referred to her partner as her wife.
It is irrelevant to the question of whether or not, knowing that there is a SS couple, do religious principles justify not renting an apartment to a SS couple. Objectively speaking, not how someone feels about it, would renting to a SS couple be objectively wrong, or is there nothing objectively wrong with it ?

Here in California, it is legal to rent to a drug addict or even a drug dealer. However if illegal drug activity occurs on the property…the owner/landlord is also charged with illegal activity. Therefore, property owners ask and demand a signed document saying that the renter agrees to immediate eviction if drug activity occurs on the property.

I would think that a property owner with religious and moral convictions should have the right to refuse to rent to people who WILL engage in socially harmful and dangerous sexual activity. Not only from a religious rights standpoint but also from a public health concern.

 

[Rau]

But if the pilot CHOOSES to use illegal drugs, aviation authorities have the right and duty to discriminate against him.

So what? It’s not the fact that a “choice” was made that gives rise to justifiable discrimination, but to the compromised capacity to fly that the ingestion of drugs produces.

 

[Rau]

I would think that a property owner with religious and moral convictions should have the right to refuse to rent to people who WILL engage in socially harmful and dangerous sexual activity. Not only from a religious rights standpoint but also from a public health concern.

I can see that argument being reasonably applied were the house occupants operating as a brothel, or as “swingers”, or such. Not sure if it is so readily applied to a monogamous pair including Unmarried couple or same sex couple.

Actually - if “socially harmful and dangerous” activity is the concern, there is no reason to assume a religious inclination on the owner.

And if the owner is religious, might not his concern be something other that what is “socially harmful and dangerous”.

I think if the angle is “religious convictions”, you’re best off establishing that renting the house is cooperation in sin that “crosses the line” (that is, that the cooperation is sufficiently “close”). That’s the scenario that the Church instructs Catholic’s to avoid. Of if you can’t do that, that it impacts the religious freedoms of the owner. Or if you can’t do that, that renting causes the owner unreasonable distress.

 

[Thorolfr]

I would think that a property owner with religious and moral convictions should have the right to refuse to rent to people who WILL engage in socially harmful and dangerous sexual activity. Not only from a religious rights standpoint but also from a public health concern.

How would you know that prospective renters are engaging in dangerous sexual activity and how would you find out? Would you ask questions about this on rental applications? Even if these renters were a same-sex couple, perhaps all they engage in is mutual masturbation. You might consider masturbation of any sort to be morally wrong, but is it dangerous from a public health perspective?