Gay co-habitation

[Parysa]

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.

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

The problem here is that you guys are advising someone to break the law. “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s” and all that. Yes, we give to God what is His, but that doesn’t mean that we’re allowed to break the law unless it goes directly against God’s law. This issue doesn’t. Now, if the gov’t forced abortions, then yeah, we have a moral obligation to break the law. However, this is not the same thing.

 

[Publisher]

You need to seek legal advice, depending upon what state you live in you may have different obligations and rights under the law.

**You can refuse to rent, but be careful about what reasons you state verbally or in writing and not without consulting with someone who knows your state laws. **
Talk to your priest regarding your moral obligation and what type, if any, of cooperation in sin this would be and what course of action you should take.

So you would advocate that if the real reason the OP is not renting is because they are lesbian, he should “make up” something else so he won’t have to rent to the couple? I thought deciept was a sin? Or is “holy lying” allowed if it keeps one’s fanny out of a lawsuit for discrimination?

Just wondering.

 

[mdgspencer]

Renting to a gay couple is enabling a gay couple to coabitate, which, naturally, some people will not do. For the same reason, if you go back well into the last century, people generally would not rent to unmarried hetrosexual couples, nor in fact would hotels rent rooms to them.
Since when is the law the standard of right action? There is such a thing as an unjust law. Or do you perhaps think gay sex is wrong in some countries because it is illegal there, and right in Canada because speaking against the gay agenda is illegal.

The problem here is that you guys are advising someone to break the law. “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s” and all that. Yes, we give to God what is His, but that doesn’t mean that we’re allowed to break the law unless it goes directly against God’s law. This issue doesn’t. Now, if the gov’t forced abortions, then yeah, we have a moral obligation to break the law. However, this is not the same thing.

 

[Publisher]

Renting to a gay couple is enabling a gay couple to coabitate, which, naturally, some people will not do. For the same reason, if you go back well into the last century, people generally would not rent to unmarried hetrosexual couples, nor in fact would hotels rent rooms to them.
Since when is the law the standard of right action? There is such a thing as an unjust law. Or do you perhaps think gay sex is wrong in some countries because it is illegal there, and right in Canada because speaking against the gay agenda is illegal.

The real “moral” question, is will the OP be willing to accept the judgement of a court for his real reasons in not renting to the lesbian couple? OR…will he/she “make up” a different reason to not rent to them instead? IF the real reason for not renting to them is because they are lesbian, BUT he/she decides to “take the easy way out” and basically lie as to what the reason is…where is the “morality” in that?

If not renting to gay couples makes one ‘complicit’ in their “sin”, then the landowner should be willing to “take the medicine”…but to lie so the law can be circumvented…somehow that just doesn’t seem “moral” to me…but I may be wrong…I’m not Catholic…so my sense of “truth” may be somewhat…disordered.

 

[otjm]

I sure as h-e-double toothpicks could morally discriminate.

you might want to consider your response in light of post 16. If that remains your position, don’t buy any rental properties.

 

[otjm]

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 they aer being sexually active on the front lawn, it is arguable that there is no public sin.

I am divorced. I ahve a roommate of the same gender, who is also divorced. We are both straight. Do you cconsider the fact that we live in the same house a public sin?

 

[otjm]

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.

Not if you wish to be a landlord. You don’t get to discriminate on the basis of knowledge of the sin, if they persons are in a protected category. If one of them is divorced and remarried without the benefit a a decree of nullity, you cannot refuse to rent. If they are simply living together without marriage, you cannot refuse to rent.

There are two choices: don’t become a landlord, or don’t ask.

 

[otjm]

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

Actually, what the statute woudld do is act as a magnate to anyone who wanted to give you a “test” situation; fail it and the process server will be serving you papers for the upcoming lawsuit for discrimination.

 

[Parysa]

The real “moral” question, is will the OP be willing to accept the judgement of a court for his real reasons in not renting to the lesbian couple? OR…will he/she “make up” a different reason to not rent to them instead? IF the real reason for not renting to them is because they are lesbian, BUT he/she decides to “take the easy way out” and basically lie as to what the reason is…where is the “morality” in that?

I think that falls under the heading of “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

mdgspencer:

Renting to a gay couple is enabling a gay couple to coabitate, which, naturally, some people will not do. For the same reason, if you go back well into the last century, people generally would not rent to unmarried hetrosexual couples, nor in fact would hotels rent rooms to them.
Since when is the law the standard of right action? There is such a thing as an unjust law. Or do you perhaps think gay sex is wrong in some countries because it is illegal there, and right in Canada because speaking against the gay agenda is illegal.

If you are a cashier at WalMart and two men come up to your register together and one is buying a box of condoms, are you going to refuse to ring them up? If you do and they’re homosexual, are you’re then “enabling” them to have sex? If you do and they’re straight, are you then “enabling” the one in using ABC? Or would it be ridiculous to even think of refusing to ring them up? As a landlord, one’s job is renting property, not being God-police. If one wants to be able to pick and choose who lives on his or her property, being a landlord is probably not the right vocation (as in job, not as in spiritual calling) for that person.

 

[otjm]

Actually, what the statute woudld do is act as a magnate to anyone who wanted to give you a “test” situation; fail it and the process server will be serving you papers for the upcoming lawsuit for discrimination.

And what I meant was “magnet”. Facile fingers and all.

 

[Publisher]

I think that falls under the heading of “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

If you are a cashier at WalMart and two men come up to your register together and one is buying a box of condoms, are you going to refuse to ring them up? If you do and they’re homosexual, are you’re then “enabling” them to have sex? If you do and they’re straight, are you then “enabling” the one in using ABC? Or would it be ridiculous to even think of refusing to ring them up? As a landlord, one’s job is renting property, not being God-police. If one wants to be able to pick and choose who lives on his or her property, being a landlord is probably not the right vocation (as in job, not as in spiritual calling) for that person.

I may be way off base here…but many of the threads on gay people have an underlying meaness which I’m sure isn’t meant to be there. It seems to me, the concern isn’t so much whether the OP should rent to a gay couple, but whether he/she should make getting a place to live for a gay couple difficult because the whole “gay issue” is such a hot topic. It seems to me the real issue isn’t whether the OP would be “complicit” in their “sin” but whether they think they might be able to “get away with” not renting to a couple who happen to be gay…simply because they don’t want to rent to them…from some of the “advice” here, it seems some feel it is better to come out and lie about the real reason instead of “paying the piper” and perhaps suffer a costly law suit…just my .02 worth from the peanut gallery…

 

[Parysa]

Sounds like that to me, too.

 

[KathleenElsie]

As long as the space being rented is not inside your own home (say a room for a student) or part of your own physical home I do not believe you have legal rights to refuse on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[fix]

The problem here is that you guys are advising someone to break the law. “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s” and all that. Yes, we give to God what is His, but that doesn’t mean that we’re allowed to break the law unless it goes directly against God’s law. This issue doesn’t. Now, if the gov’t forced abortions, then yeah, we have a moral obligation to break the law. However, this is not the same thing.

I certainly have not advocated anyone breaking any law. I did say it is a prudential matter that depends on several factors.

As for the unjust law your argument is based on your opinion. Do you have evidence from the Church to support you in a case like this? Should a person violate their conscience if they believe the action may put their soul in jeopardy?

 

[kell0618]

Actually, what the statute woudld do is act as a magnate to anyone who wanted to give you a “test” situation; fail it and the process server will be serving you papers for the upcoming lawsuit for discrimination.

The statue suggestion was a joke.

Peace be with you!

 

[bluerose]

I don’t mean to hijack the thread, but something has occurred to me:

In a nearby village, a bed and breakfast opened up a few years ago. We were never able to afford it, but some acquaintances who won a free weekend in a raffle said it was very nice, very elegant, etc. Then about a year later, it came out that the owners were a lesbian couple. Shortly after that, their ads, which used to just tout the accommodations, the beautiful views, and whatnot, started boldly announcing that “same-sex couples welcome” and that they were “catering to same-sex couples”. They have recently announced that they provide package deals (along the lines of “wedding and honeymoon packages”) for “commitment ceremonies”, including providing an “officiant” for the ceremony. Well, it isn’t hard to imagine that they have pretty much lost any chance of building up a conservative Christian clientele, but I just have to wonder:

If I were to open a bed and breakfast and advertise “married couples welcome” and that I was “catering to married Catholic couples”, would I be able to get away without being slapped with a discrimination lawsuit?

I mean, seriously, what’s the difference? Neither one would be legally excluding clients who don’t fit those descriptions, although it’s very likely that the clients themselves would not feel comfortable patronizing a business that “caters” to clients whose lifestyles do not agree with them (especially if, by “catering to married Catholic couples”, I mean putting crucifixes, statues of the Blessed Mother, holy water fonts, and votive candles in every room, and inviting guests to join us in the main sitting room every evening for the rosary and night prayers. I can tell you, even some of our own good friends, who happen to be Fundamentalist Christians, would be opting for the nearest Motel 6!)

It’s just funny how discrimination seems to run in only one direction. Just my $0.02. Back to you all.

 

[hasikelee]

Unless they aer being sexually active on the front lawn, it is arguable that there is no public sin.

I am divorced. I ahve a roommate of the same gender, who is also divorced. We are both straight. Do you cconsider the fact that we live in the same house a public sin?

Yeah, I’m still waiting to hear about how the OP learned they are a couple practicing homosexual behaviors.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I don’t mean to hijack the thread, but something has occurred to me:

In a nearby village, a bed and breakfast opened up a few years ago. We were never able to afford it, but some acquaintances who won a free weekend in a raffle said it was very nice, very elegant, etc. Then about a year later, it came out that the owners were a lesbian couple. Shortly after that, their ads, which used to just tout the accommodations, the beautiful views, and whatnot, started boldly announcing that “same-sex couples welcome” and that they were “catering to same-sex couples”. They have recently announced that they provide package deals (along the lines of “wedding and honeymoon packages”) for “commitment ceremonies”, including providing an “officiant” for the ceremony. Well, it isn’t hard to imagine that they have pretty much lost any chance of building up a conservative Christian clientele, but I just have to wonder:

If I were to open a bed and breakfast and advertise “married couples welcome” and that I was “catering to married Catholic couples”, would I be able to get away without being slapped with a discrimination lawsuit?

I mean, seriously, what’s the difference? Neither one would be legally excluding clients who don’t fit those descriptions, although it’s very likely that the clients themselves would not feel comfortable patronizing a business that “caters” to clients whose lifestyles do not agree with them (especially if, by “catering to married Catholic couples”, I mean putting crucifixes, statues of the Blessed Mother, holy water fonts, and votive candles in every room, and inviting guests to join us in the main sitting room every evening for the rosary and night prayers. I can tell you, even some of our own good friends, who happen to be Fundamentalist Christians, would be opting for the nearest Motel 6!)

It’s just funny how discrimination seems to run in only one direction. Just my $0.02. Back to you all.

Tell me when you open. My husband and I would love to be your guests.

 

[truagape]

You can refuse to rent, but be careful about what reasons you state verbally or in writing

…sounds a bit sneaky. Would this by any chance be a sin?

 

[mdgspencer]

Here is the situation where I work. I work at a “Catholic” university, now secularized, which in the last several years has produced written policies that students and staff are required to follow. No one can discriminate in employment when it comes to certain categories or even speak against them, which is considered harassment. Several years ago, sexual orientation was included in these policies. Now gay people cannot be discriminated against in employment in any job here including teaching and administration, and, more relevant in my case, no one can say that homosexual acts are sinful, which considered a serious form of harassment. I have considered myself what to do if somone asks me if gay sex is sinful, which is the Catholic position. I have decided that I would not pretend that homosexual acts are prefectly normal and good and say what I think then. Though I might be fired, I won’t keep silent if the issue is thrust upon me. I know some people at my university think the same about homosexual acts, but remain silent, some of them no doubt through fear. I’m not going to speak against them, because I won’t choose for them what to do.

…sounds a bit sneaky. Would this by any chance be a sin?