Gay co-habitation

[nobeerinheaven]

If you think it wise to start making a morals test for who you rent to, you will have to ask if married couples are using ABC, if prospective tenants cheat on their taxes, steal, lie or engage in other immoral activities.

This has no ground in moral theology; it is a “slippery slope” logical fallacy. Those sins we do know about we can discriminate on the basis of. Those we are unaware of, we cannot. The same goes the reception of the Holy Eucharist - priests will deny Christ’s body and blood to those sinners whose sins are publicly known and engaged in, while distributing it to those whose sins are secret. Ideally both would be denied, but that ideal scenario requires omniscience. We work with what we’ve got.

 

[1ke]

off hand I would say if two women want to rent an apartment together there is no basis to make that judgement, and to ask them outright is probably against the law. run your credit checks and give them the same application you would give any renters who are not related to each other, make each one sign the lease etc.

There is no basis to assume two women sharing an apartment are in a homosexual relationship, but if it has been disclosed to the landlord then he cannot “not” know what he now knows. He can make prudential judgments on **public **sins.

If you think it wise to start making a morals test for who you rent to, you will have to ask if married couples are using ABC, if prospective tenants cheat on their taxes, steal, lie or engage in other immoral activities.

Don’t be silly. You know full well what the Church teaches regarding public sin and public scandal. The items you list are not public sins.

 

[kell0618]

Which ones? The ones that are public.

One could not morally discriminate based on **private **sins, as one would have no knowledge of them.

Unless two women or two men tell you that they are homosexual partners, how does one determine what they do in private?

I do not own rental property because I would not want to placed in this position. It is ILLEGAL to discriminate against anyone. I think a nice statue of Mary in the front yard would do a great job of doing away with the chaff.

Peace

 

[kell0618]

If you think it wise to start making a morals test for who you rent to, you will have to ask if married couples are using ABC, if prospective tenants cheat on their taxes, steal, lie or engage in other immoral activities.

Thank you.

 

[rpp]

Please explain, as I understand Jansenism to be a heresy regarding free will and the role of God in salvation. Scrupulosity is a tendency with which people see sin within their own consciousness, where none exists. Neither of these seem pertinent in the determination of what one should decide to do with rental property.

Hmm… You may be right there. For some reason I was under the impression that Jansenism was a heresy based on over-scrupulosity. My mistake, apparently.

It’s not clear to me how the latter distinction is morally relevant (nor do I see it brought up on the CCC). Presumably, preventing one from earning a living in the way they see fit is equally fundamental a type of discrimination from preventing one from living in the property that they see fit. I see no reason, at first glance, to think discrimination against renting to businesses is morally licit while discrimination against renting for residential purposes is not. If you see a difference, it would help if you explained your reasoning.

As for the over-scrupulosity, I think that since you contend the renting to these homosexuals would be a sin. On the other hand, what about renting to other people who commit grave sins? The real question is where do you draw the line? Do you have people fill out a questionnaire? Suppose someone changes their mind and falls away from moral behavior to embrace a life of grave public, *but legal *(in the civil realm) sin? Are they to be evicted? What about married couples who use artificial birth control. What about a man who secretly masturbates? The list goes on and on.

No. I stand by my first post. This is an area of prudential judgment.

Beyond this, I believe we are just talking past each other.

 

[1ke]

Unless two women or two men tell you that they are homosexual partners, how does one determine what they do in private?

It seems to be the case with the OP that this is a known situation. They could have told him, they could be public figures in the gay-activist community, etc.

It is ILLEGAL to discriminate against anyone.

This is not true.

Only certain attributes have protection under the law. Sexual orientation is not one of them at the federal level and in most states. Certain states have enacted legislation including sexual orientation, which is why I advised the OP to consult a lawyer.

 

[pismopal]

I didn’t know it was a sin to be gay. I thought it was a sin to have sex with someone outside of marriage. How would you know that this couple are having sex…with each other or anyone else?
If this is the assumption on your part I think you are dead wrong to discriminate. Good luck looking for sinless tenants.

 

[Parysa]

Or, perhaps some should take the view of Christ when he drew the line in the sand and said that the person without sin should cast the first stone. Do you live a sinless life? Have they claimed to be Christian and homosexual? If they aren’t Christian, then they are no more living in a state of perpetual sin than any other non-Christian (meaning that none of their sins have been forgiven, therefore, any one of them is enough to send them to Hell, so one can’t really be worse than any other), so are you no longer going to rent to anyone but Christians?

 

[nobeerinheaven]

no longer going to rent to anyone but Christians?

Wouldn’t that be nice?

 

[1ke]

Or, perhaps some should take the view of Christ when he drew the line in the sand and said that the person without sin should cast the first stone. Do you live a sinless life?

This is a misapplication of Jesus’ teachings. He called sinners to repentance-- he NEVER condoned a single sin. Nor did he ignore sin.

Have they claimed to be Christian and homosexual?

That is irrelevant.

If they aren’t Christian, then they are no more living in a state of perpetual sin than any other non-Christian (meaning that none of their sins have been forgiven, therefore, any one of them is enough to send them to Hell, so one can’t really be worse than any other),

This too is irrelevant.

so are you no longer going to rent to anyone but Christians?

And, this is illogical.

 

[Newbie2]

Given the reasoning I listed against renting to abortionists, I would have to say there is a good prima facie case to be made against renting to anyone that would use the property to commit mortal sin. That, of course, includes an unwed couple. However, the cohabitation of homosexuals is seemingly a more extreme case because, in addition to being (perhaps) complicit in the sins committed in the rental property, there is a worry over their renting being a scandal. Homosexual couples are far more obviously in a state of mortal sin than an unwed couple, since the couple (for all we know) just doesn’t like rings or is having them cleaned. That said, both cases seem to be instances where some moral discrimination is either permissible or obligatory.

Homosexual behavior is inherently more sinful than fornication outside of marriage?

off hand I would say if two women want to rent an apartment together there is no basis to make that judgement, and to ask them outright is probably against the law. run your credit checks and give them the same application you would give any renters who are not related to each other, make each one sign the lease etc.

If you think it wise to start making a morals test for who you rent to, you will have to ask if married couples are using ABC, if prospective tenants cheat on their taxes, steal, lie or engage in other immoral activities.

True. Are there any laws prohibiting advertising your property “Married or Christian couples preferred”?

 

[Parysa]

Wouldn’t that be nice?

LOL, nice but impractical.

This is a misapplication of Jesus’ teachings. He called sinners to repentance-- he NEVER condoned a single sin. Nor did he ignore sin.

I’m not saying to condone or ignore sin. I’m saying that discriminating against someone and, thereby, punishing them for that sin, is not our job nor is it our place.

That is irrelevant.
This too is irrelevant.
And, this is illogical.

I think I showed how it’s relevant and logical. It’s just not emotional.

 

[hasikelee]

Hello,

I am a landlord and I may have a lesbian couple that wants to live in one of my properties. As a faithful Catholic what should I do in this situation? Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks so much and God bless you.

So…I have a question…how do you know this is a same-sex couple engaged in sexual behaviors?

If you don’t…assuming can get you into big trouble.

If they told you…I don’t know that I would do anything other then completely ignore it and dot all Is and Ts around them. Someone who wants to make the world know about their sex life has a chip on their shoulder and a desire to stir up trouble.

If you “found out” somehow that was not puposely public, I would again keep my trap closed if I were you because that brings into question things that could go against you, such as invasion of privacy.

 

[mlchance]

Arguably, refusing to rent to the them may be considered “unjust” discrimination.

Admittedly, no unjust discrimination is tolerable, but what moral right does someone have to rent someone else’s property?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Exalt]

As long as your grounds for discrimination is based on the conception of “sin” I see no reason that you should discriminate on a secular matter. A person acting in a religious role (a priest at mass, for example) denying someone a religious service (i.e., communion) for a religious reason (a sin) is one thing, but a person acting in a secular role (i.e., a landlord of an apartment complex) denying someone a secular service (i.e., an apartment lease) for a *religious reason *(a sin) is a *completely different matter altogther. *

And will not hold up in a court of law.

 

[otjm]

How would this be unjust discrimination? On what grounds is it just to morally discriminate against an abortionist tenant and not against a homosexual tenant? I’d like to hear more, since you say very little about why this counts as unjust other than the position is “arguable.” Many positions are arguable, far fewer are true.

he abortionist would be a commercial tenant, and commercial law would apply. Rules regarding what you can inquire into in terms of residential rental are different. One would not be “discriminating” against a protected class (race, creed, color, etc.) by refusing to rent to the abortionist, as the decision is not based on class, but instead on activity.

 

[otjm]

Admittedly, no unjust discrimination is tolerable, but what moral right does someone have to rent someone else’s property?

– Mark L. Chance.

The law in essence says that housing is a need that is treated differently than a commercial rental of space for non-housing needs. The laws go back to the “Jim Crow” era, where you could be denied housing, for example, if you were Catholic, or Black, or a member of one of the other protected categories. Housing is a necessity; and since many cannot own (the rules apply also to the sale of residential property, by the way), and rental of residential property is about the only other alternative, short of living in a tent city under the local bridge, the Federal Government has decidied through the court system that this is a necessary area to regulate.

No one needs to be a landlord. If you are going to be a landlord, then you do not get to pick and choose tenants based on protected classes.

The moral right is based on the basic needs of shelter, food and water. People have a moral right to be able to obtain housing. One may not have a particular moral right to rent this particular unit, but one has a moral right to rent a unit; and because of past experience in discrimination, the governement has seen fit to say that if you apply and the landlord does not have a legitimate reason to not rent (e.g. non-payment of rent previously; bad credit; no employment , etc.) then the landlord must rent to the first tenant who applies and is capable of paying the freight and has no other discernable reason to be denied.

 

[otjm]

True. Are there any laws prohibiting advertising your property “Married or Christian couples preferred”?

Yes, there are. That would be consdiered discrimination based on religious creed (lacking a creed, or being Hindu, e.g. would both be protected).

 

[nobeerinheaven]

Homosexual behavior is inherently more sinful than fornication outside of marriage?

What about this:

nobeerinheaven:

Homosexual couples are far more obviously in a state of mortal sin than an unwed couple, since the couple (for all we know) just doesn’t like rings or is having them cleaned.

Makes you think that? I was making a point about how homosexual couples are in a state of sin that is more publicly recognizable than an unwed couple. Not that the sins are worse.

Additionally, I’m not exactly sure why people keep bringing up the law. This is a discussion of moral theology, and the law has little bearing on what moral obligations we have. As Augustine put it, “an unjust law is no law at all.” If our obligations and the law conflict, the law drops out of our practical considerations.

 

[fix]

1. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” No. 3) and evokes moral concern.

1. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

1. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute…

1. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims…

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith

Is there any doubt that the above is morally correct?

If the civil law contradicts the moral law does that make the civil law morally binding on citizens?