F
fix
Guest
I will let the owners decide who they want. IOW, Christians worship God, not orgasm.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Fortunately in the US it is illegal to discriminate on the bases of race, religion, gender, familial status, disability, etc. (Federal Fair Housing Laws). Many states have added sexual orientation to the list, and even on a federal level any HUD insured property cannot discriminate against gays. Sexual orientation is expected to be added federally as a protected class for every property sometime in 2013.
A lot of people don’t know this, but according to federal law unless you have four or less units on your property and you live in one of them you must hold everyone to the exact same screening standards and you cannot discriminate on the bases of any of the protected classes.
A lot of people don’t know this, but according to federal law unless you have four or less units on your property and you live in one of them you must hold everyone to the exact same screening standards and you cannot discriminate on the bases of any of the protected classes.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Protected classes. Hmm. Sorry, not trying to derail the thread, but that term gave me pause because it is certainly true.Fortunately in the US it is illegal to discriminate on the bases of race, religion, gender, familial status, disability, etc. (Federal Fair Housing Laws). Many states have added sexual orientation to the list, and even on a federal level any HUD insured property cannot discriminate against gays. Sexual orientation is expected to be added federally as a protected class for every property sometime in 2013.
A lot of people don’t know this, but according to federal law unless you have four or less units on your property and you live in one of them you must hold everyone to the exact same screening standards and you cannot discriminate on the bases of any of the protected classes.
F
fix
Guest
The OP asked about moral questions. The civil law may or may not be morally correct.Fortunately in the US it is illegal to discriminate on the bases of race, religion, gender, familial status, disability, etc. (Federal Fair Housing Laws). Many states have added sexual orientation to the list, and even on a federal level any HUD insured property cannot discriminate against gays. Sexual orientation is expected to be added federally as a protected class for every property sometime in 2013.
A lot of people don’t know this, but according to federal law unless you have four or less units on your property and you live in one of them you must hold everyone to the exact same screening standards and you cannot discriminate on the bases of any of the protected classes.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Those days may be gone, owners of business being allowed to make those decisions. That is why I think a new line of work would be in order for a faithful Catholic landlord.I will let the owners decide who they want. IOW, Christians worship God, not orgasm.
W
wardrandolph
Guest
I will probubly get a lot of flack for saying this but I’m sick of the Homosexual lifestyle being compared to Racial,Religious etc.Civil Rights.How in the world did homosexualality go from being diviate behavior to an acceptable alternative life style?Our Lord accepted everyone but also said “Go and sin no more”.Are we so enlighted and sophisticated that we can’t see what sin is?In the USA people(Families)are legally discriminated against.I have seen adds for apartments for rent saying no children and this is allowed.How long are we,under the guise of being “charitable” going to turn a blind eye to what is happening to society as a whole.Which is more charitable,to say nothing and let people do as they will and end up in HELL or help them to understand the truth which never changes?
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
It appears that you do not understand the sin of scandal or you are not thinking about that aspect.Oh, and also…if they tried to rent to just a *single *person who was not having sex or *not *taking care of sex “on their own”, that would be difficult, too.
They can stay in that line of work, for sure…so long as they realize that 95 percent of the renters who come to see the apartment they’d have to turn away and say things like, “I’m sorry, but if you are having sex out of wedlock or masturbating, I can’t rent to you…”
They may not be able to afford to do that.
T
TheDoors
Guest
We all have the right to shelter. And it’s awful hard to be a wittness if you’re busy turning people away.I do not know if a Catholic must decline to rent to such persons, but I cannot see how it would be immoral to decline to rent to them. There is no moral absolute right to renting an apartment. Certainly if one is concerned about illcit cooperation with evil or giving scandal one is justified in not renting.
We cannot turn civil legal justifications into a type of god that demands we conform our consciences to the world.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Yeah, it is. You are protected from housing discrimination on the basis of things like gender, pregnancy, disability, race, religion, etc. (And no, this doesn’t just protect minorities, you can’t discriminate against white people or Christians either.). And this is a good thing. Communities should not get to keep people with clean backgrounds who can pay the rent out of certain neighborhoods based on skin color or age.Protected classes. Hmm. Sorry, not trying to derail the thread, but that term gave me pause because it is certainly true.
F
fix
Guest
No absolute right to any shelter you want. See my link above from the Vatican.We all have the right to shelter. And it’s awful hard to be a wittness if you’re busy turning people away.
What if you cannot pay the rent? Am I obligated to give you the apt?
Just because some people demand to live as they want does not mean one is morally bound to give them an apt.
As for being a witness that depends on circumstamce and context. What if there is a single woman raising her children and only has one room to lease? Is she morally bound to rent to homosexual persons?
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Unless it is a dedicated senior community that meets certain requirements it is illegal to say no children. That is a federal fair housing standard, report that community. (Unless there are four or fewer units and the landlord lives in one.). It is even illegal to ask a prospective resident if they have children.I will probubly get a lot of flack for saying this but I’m sick of the Homosexual lifestyle being compared to Racial,Religious etc.Civil Rights.How in the world did homosexualality go from being diviate behavior to an acceptable alternative life style?Our Lord accepted everyone but also said “Go and sin no more”.Are we so enlighted and sophisticated that we can’t see what sin is?In the USA people(Families)are legally discriminated against.I have seen adds for apartments for rent saying no children and this is allowed.How long are we,under the guise of being “charitable” going to turn a blind eye to what is happening to society as a whole.Which is more charitable,to say nothing and let people do as they will and end up in HELL or help them to understand the truth which never changes?
I’m not sure how denying someone a home is going to help them see the “truth”. Frankly if a Catholic did that to me I would be pretty soured on it as a whole.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
If she is leasing a room out of her home she can discriminate against anyone she wants.No absolute right to any shelter you want. See my link above from the Vatican.
What if you cannot pay the rent? Am I obligated to give you the apt?
Just because some people demand to live as they want does not mean one is morally bound to give them an apt.
As for being a witness that depends on circumstamce and context. What if there is a single woman raising her children and only has one room to lease? Is she morally bound to rent to homosexual persons?
And no, it is not illegal to have income or credit standards, as long as they are fairly and consistently applied.
If one cannot pay rent we are still morally obliged as catholics, to shelter, clothe and feed them.No absolute right to any shelter you want. See my link above from the Vatican.
What if you cannot pay the rent? Am I obligated to give you the apt?
This comes from the mouth of Jesus Himself; “As you do onto the the least of these little ones so you do onto me.”
Charity is at the core of christian love.
F
fix
Guest
No, if one is renting a space one is not morally obligated to rent to anyone for any reason. One must abide by the just law. If your position were correct it would deny justice.If one cannot pay rent we are still morally obliged as catholics, to shelter, clothe and feed them.
For example, by your standard a grocery store should not charge people if they cannot pay or refuse to pay.
Please do not confuse this issue. We are not talking about poor people here.
This comes from the mouth of Jesus Himself; “As you do onto the the least of these little ones so you do onto me.”
We are not talking about charity here and neither is the Vatican document I linked to.Charity is at the core of christian love.
S
Seeker1961
Guest
Unless I was ready to deny that apartment to anyone who commits a sin, I would not presume to deny that apartment to anyone who commits a single sin that I might personally feel is worse than other sins.
There is a propensity in Christian circles to choose homosexual acts is the #1 sin, worse than any other. It’s not. It is A sin, it is not THE sin.
Homosexual acts are the sin that very few people have to struggle with, so it’s an easy temptation to mark them as the worst sin. That way no matter what sins you commit, there’s always that worst sin that you have no inclination whatsoever to commit. There’s always that group of people that are bigger sinners than you.
There is a propensity in Christian circles to choose homosexual acts is the #1 sin, worse than any other. It’s not. It is A sin, it is not THE sin.
Homosexual acts are the sin that very few people have to struggle with, so it’s an easy temptation to mark them as the worst sin. That way no matter what sins you commit, there’s always that worst sin that you have no inclination whatsoever to commit. There’s always that group of people that are bigger sinners than you.
F
fix
Guest
I hope people are noticing how this argument gets turned around on Catholics.
Not unlike the “gay” adoption apologists.
Make a false choice like “gay” parents or a substandard orphanage.
Make a false choice like rent to homosexual persons or they live on the street.
Not unlike the “gay” adoption apologists.
Make a false choice like “gay” parents or a substandard orphanage.
Make a false choice like rent to homosexual persons or they live on the street.
Charity is not just a concept that applies to the poor.No, if one is renting a space one is not morally obligated to rent to anyone for any reason. One must abide by the just law. If your position were correct it would deny justice.
For example, by your standard a grocery store should not charge people if they cannot pay or refuse to pay.
Please do not confuse this issue. We are not talking about poor people here.
We are not talking about charity here and neither is the Vatican document I linked to.
It is a way of living and it should be part of out everyday lives. When admonishing the sinner it can be done in a charitable way and this generally yield’s better results.
F
fix
Guest
Sorry but this is false.Unless I was ready to deny that apartment to anyone who commits a sin, I would not presume to deny that apartment to anyone who commits a single sin that I might personally feel is worse than other sins.
Firstly, faux equality is not a god. This recourse to lack of equality in decision making is more an Americanist notion than any Catholic moral theology tradition.
One does not have to say anything goes because one does not deny renting to every single possible sin some person does. Secondly, it is not about how we “feel” about this sin. Objectively, some sins are worse than other sins and some sins are more public than other sins, and some public sins are more current than other sins.
No, there is a propensity for homosexual proponents to make this accusation.There is a propensity in Christian circles to choose homosexual acts is the #1 sin, worse than any other. It’s not. It is A sin, it is not THE sin.
Homosexual normalization is constantly in the news, in the public, in the schools, and one cannot escape from the non stop discussion in society.Homosexual acts are the sin that very few people have to struggle with, so it’s an easy temptation to mark them as the worst sin. That way no matter what sins you commit, there’s always that worst sin that you have no inclination whatsoever to commit. There’s always that group of people that are bigger sinners than you.
There is a reaction to this non stop attempt at normalization. People are concerned as they ought to be.
F
fix
Guest
Now you are changing the argument.Charity is not just a concept that applies to the poor.
It is a way of living and it should be part of out everyday lives. When admonishing the sinner it can be done in a charitable way and this generally yield’s better results.
I am not saying that homosexual people will end up on the street.I hope people are noticing how this argument gets turned around on Catholics.
Not unlike the “gay” adoption apologists.
Make a false choice like “gay” parents or a substandard orphanage.
Make a false choice like rent to homosexual persons or they live on the street.
My point is that you can’t be a witness to someone you turn away. We are called to be charitable to our brothers and sisters in Christ.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.