Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Renting out to Gays
Hi,
Is it OK for a Coptic Orthodox Christian to rent his/her apartment/flat/house/hotel to gay people?
So let's say you have a small apartment you rent out, or even a small bed and breakfast hotel - and a gay couple want to rent it.
Should you rent it out or not?
My opinion is this: I don't ask people's private life. I just rent properties. In some rental contracts, there are clauses that the property will not be used for immoral activities... but then, I guess to gays, this is not immoral.
What should you do?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368
Is it OK for a Coptic Orthodox Christian to rent his/her apartment/flat/house/hotel to gay people?
So let's say you have a small apartment you rent out, or even a small bed and breakfast hotel - and a gay couple want to rent it.
Should you rent it out or not?
My opinion is this: I don't ask people's private life. I just rent properties. In some rental contracts, there are clauses that the property will not be used for immoral activities... but then, I guess to gays, this is not immoral.
What should you do?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368
Comments
Honestly, renting is a commercial transaction. All commercial transactions should be based on mutual exchange only. In this case, you rent your property and they exchange with money. It should be that simple. And remember, you can have very, very immoral heterosexuals really make your life as landlord miserable.
Spiritually, it's a different story. But I think in this case, we need to remember "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's." Commercial real estate is governed by many laws. And it may contradict spirituality. But we can't break the law to comfort our spiritual consciousness.
Recently a Christian couple were fined in the UK for refusing to let a room to a homosexual couple. I am entirely in agreement with them and I would have done the same.
Outside of a monopoly situation such as the provision of electricity or water, or a publically funded provision such as education, I do think that businesses and private individuals should be free to discriminate according to their principles.
There are homosexual hotels in the UK that are never prosecuted for only accomodating homosexuals. There are organisations such as the National Black Police Association which is not prosecuted for racism. There are Sikhs and Muslims who dress according to their own religious wishes while Christians are disciplined. It is always Christians who are harrassed by the law. And when the law goes against faith it is better to go to prison.
Business transactions, it seems to me, are never a straightforward excuse for condoning sin. We could easily say, I am a doctor, I get paid to perform abortions. I am a publisher, if a customer wants me to print porn I can't discriminate. I am a restauranteur and my suppliers provide only meat offered to Allah, but it is only business.
We could also say, it is only a burger, its not my fault the Amazonian rain forest was cut down to provide it. They are only trainers, it is not my fault that 5 year old kids made them in a sweat shop.
At some point we are entirely responsible for all the business transactions we engage in.
That is not answering any particular point. But I would say that a large hotel, and a self-catering cottage, are not the same as a Bed and Breakfast where folk eat at your table. In such a case, I could probably only run a Christian Bed and Breakfast - which would also probably be illegal in the present state of things here in the UK. But if we do not resist the encroachment of evil and just say it is business then we are guilty of allowing evil to proceed unchecked.
Father Peter
Let's say that you rent out an apartment to a guy. He comes along and you find out that he's going to live with his girlfriend. What can you do?
What if you rent it out to a man (who is alone)? Surely he is free to bring WHOEVER he wants into the place where he is living. Its his freedom.
Yes, I WOULD prefer it if they were married.. but look; if a couple doesn't believe in marriage, why should I be upset for?
Most of the people I know have had children with their girlfriends. They dont believe in God.. nor do they believe in marriage.
So, why should we not rent out to someone who is gay? Is this us sinning??
I dont like the analogy of a shop keeper selling cigarattes saying "well.. im not forcing anyone to smoke, nor am I forcing them to buy my cigarettes, its their choice, so long as I dont smoke, I'm not sinning".
That doesn't apply.
Renting out your apartment is NOT a sin. You cannot predict what sin the tenant will do when they rent it. And if you find out BEFORE HAND that they are gay... well.. what difference does it make?
We voted for the government that took our freedom of conscience away from us.. live with it!
You are responsible for whatever troubles your conscience. No one can take that responsibility away from you. If you have already decided it is ok then why ask?
Hi
No...I have not decided. Im just thinking aloud.
This is really disturbing me.
OK.. what you rent it out to a couple that wasn't married??
Is it discriminatory? You bet. But I don't see what the point is in exchanging one form of discrimination for another, and I refuse to apologize or admit wrong when I hold my personal beliefs and morals as more important in the way I run my life (including my business) than some enforced respect for your sexual lifestyle. That is ridiculous. What kind of world is this when everyone can discriminate against Christians without ceasing, yet Christians cannot say or do a thing about it? Truly Our Lord spoke with great wisdom when He told us "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."
I would probably not run a Hotel except for an explicitly Christian one which was more like a retreat centre.
If I ran a B&B I would insist on being choosy and would advertise it as a Christian B&B with clearly advertised restrictions.
If I let out holiday accomodation I would do what many do and say no all male or all female occupancies.
I think there will be a revolution in England soon. The latest issue is that Europe is insisting that murderers and rapists must be allowed to vote. Already they have won cases in which they claimed that it was breaching their human rights not to provide them with pornography.
As to discrimination against those practicing homosexual acts. It depends. If I was running a cafe I don't see that it is relevant who is served. If I was running a bookstore I might well refuse to order homosexual and other pornographic materials - and should be able to do in any free society. Likewise if I was running a publishing company I would want to refuse to print materials promoting homosexuality. But if I was running a bus service I don't see that it is relevant. If I am allowing people to engage in homosexual acts on my own property then I do think that is my business. There are thousands of hotels, it is not a monopoly and no-one is essentially harmed by my principles. As a small business man I should have almost absolute control over who I choose to do business with. Any free society would recognise this.
To be offended, or to have one's lifestyle criticised implicitly is not the same as being persecuted. To be unable to operate a business freely, and to be unable to criticise, is indeed persecution. What happens when the Church in the UK is taken to court for refusing to employ a homosexual atheist as a priest? Principles must be defended now.
Father Peter
Father Peter
Why can't we break the law if tramples on our consciences and principles?
Because you'll never be able to draw the line. It goes against my principles that I should pay the town an extra tax just to park my car in my own house. Am I supposed to break the law and not pay taxes? No. There is always some law that someone doesn't agree with. Where will it stop? All laws will be broken because somebody will not agree. We'll have some form of anarchy. Even if we may not agree with a law because of personal reasons, it doesn't make a law unfair? What makes a law unfair if it applies to one person and not the other. That's the definition of discrimination. It is a legal issue, not a religious issue.
Also, if a law is unfair, unconstitutional or just plain wrong, there are legal ways to try to change the law. We at least need to have a legal reason to challenge the law. Personal or religious reasons will be very difficult to convince law makers to change the law. And if there isn't a legal challenge to a law, why do we go straight for breaking the law? Why not lobby? Why not peacefully protest? This may be morally or ethically beneficial, but business principles say the opposite. The more people a business interacts and sells to anybody, the better and more solvent the business will be. Does that mean business should "do business with the devil"? No. But private business are part of a community and therefore are somewhat obligated to conform and act for the good of the community. There's a fine line that dictates what is proper conformity to the public benefit vs. what is the individual's freedom of choice. That line constantly moves and it's the job of the government to figure out where to draw that line. Not our job. What you are describing is called selective prosecution. You can have 5 cars in front of you speeding at 100 mph, and the cop lets them go and stops you. It's not a legal or proper defense to say, the cop or the government is selectively prosecuting me. You still broke the law. Now you're right that defending our faith is more important than conforming to the law. But when you look at the story when Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesars", you can see that the Jews were specifically talking about paying taxes. Tax-collection was (and still is) a government job that was commonly plagued with corruption. And Jesus did not say break the law and don't pay. So, at least in the case of selective prosecution, breaking the law is not part of our faith. This is a bit philosophical and abstract to put into practice. If we are responsible for all business transactions, and depending on how you define a business transaction, then we would be responsible for all sin. I don't think a sinless business utopia exists. If we are responsible for all business transactions, then there is no way to escape committing sin and free will goes out the door. I might be wrong and there is a sinless business utopia. But at some point, every person alive bought something from a company that can be affliated with evil practices, such as oil from Saudia Arabia, shirts made in India by children for Walmart, a car from the 3 big companies that squandered their assets and required a government bailout, banks (and their sub-bank affiliates) who keep government bailout for themselves to collect interest rather than executing loans to boost the economy, and so on and so on.
I think it's more important to keep an eye out for evil and protest against the evil in a proper way. I don't think breaking the law is proper in most circumstances.
George
Why should bad law not be rejected?
The example of parking outside your house is not a reasonable comparison. It is not against our Christian faith to abide by such a law. But to facilitate sin might well be.
Most law is generally created to satisfy a political need not a matter of justice. If bad laws are created without a thought to how people think then they should be opposed.
90% of the laws in the UK say more about political corruption than anything else. I have no say in framing such laws and cannot vote out those who make them because the entire class of politicians is complicit and fails to represent the people.
Laws framed without representation are oppressive and not justice.
A law which insists that a Christian must act against his conscience is not justice. It may therefore be rejected without blame though the consequences may have to be borne patiently.
Almost every Christian I know sides with those Christians stitched up by a couple of homosexual activists. This was never about justice.
Father Peter
That's the definition of discrimination. It is a legal issue, not a religious issue.
You do realize that by violating the B&B owners' religious consciences the court also violated the very act cited in the case, right? It explicitly lists religious beliefs as one of the aspects of life to be protected from discrimination, alongside others like sexual orientation and disbility. Since this makes the execution of the law literally impossible, the court has prioritized the rights of the homosexuals not to be discriminated against in private vacation arrangements over the rights of the Christians to follow their own consciences in the running of their private businesses.
As far as I can tell, the law will forever remain uneven in its practical enforcement so long as groups with mutually exclusive goals (for lack of a better way to put it) are both to be protected under it. The only solution is to de facto remove one of the groups from their right to protection under it (as this court ruling has done to Christians), or better yet, repeal the law since the law itself demands discrimination in its application. It is impossible to apply fairly.
If I believed in irony, I'd be swimming it in right now. As it is, I just feel vaguely nauseated that we even have to have this conversation. You are right that no such sinless utopia exists (either in the business world or elsewhere), but that apparently doesn't stop some forces in society from trying their hardest to make a "discrimination-less" utopia for the homosexuals, the "transgendered", the Muslims and every other type of person at the expense of the Christian, the private business owner, the political conservative, the traditionalist. If Britain does not want such people to be equal citizens before the law I suppose there's little point in me crying about it (I'm not British to begin with), but I think the sort of slippery slope fallacy your argument rests upon is itself a very dangerous kind of slippery slope, whereby because someone somewhere will always have a problem with something, we are not allowed to also have a problem with that person or their reasoning. The fact is, every group that causes a problem in trying to bend a diverse, pluralistic society to its singular (politicized) will can find common cause with others who would like to be able to do the same with whatever their cause is. So, you're right, where does it stop. Well, in a just society, it stops short mandating acceptance of the content of immorality.
As I have often argued with friends in heretical sects like the LDS (Mormons), or in Islam, or in the gay lifestyle (I'm just listing three random things that offend my Christian sensibilities, not trying to pick on anyone), it is absolutely your right to not be discriminated against in an official, public capacity because you hold unpopular views or have made unpopular choices in your personal religious or romantic life. However, to take it one step further and demand that I respect the content of those choices (e.g., that I must approve of the messages or conduct of Joseph Smith or Muhammad, or the sexual choices of the gay community) is to demand that I find nothing wrong with them, and place them on an equal level with things that I see as moral and good. I cannot do that. It's simply not possible. Life can't work that way. Yet that's what laws like this equality law attempt to do. You can't say "no homosexuals at my private business" because presumably that offends homosexuals. The thought that I may be genuinely offended by homosexual behavior is apparently not an acceptable thought to have. Somehow one side's discrimination is fine, while another's is not.
So, yes...be whatever it is you want to be, but not at the expense of my right to be whatever I want to be. You have the right to be gay, and I have the right to say that I really don't want gay people to patronize my establishment. It's likely that I'll suffer some backlash for it, but that's the price for holding an unpopular opinion. You don't have to respect my opinion, but I can't force you to agree with it if you don't already agree with it. That would just be ridiculous.
And, yes, I realize that such a rationale has been used in the American south (and other places) to substantiate the terrible racial discrimination there. As someone who spent a good deal of his childhood in Louisiana, I must be honest and candid: Anti-discrimination laws are NOT what changed the climate of racism and hatred in south, and in some places those attitudes still live on despite of it. The only thing that changed was when vast public support had been generated for the idea that people are truly equal regardless of skin color, and ought to be treated as such before the law. It's not as though Rosa Parks rode the bus for a day in 1955 and then a few years later magically all discrimination was gone thanks to equal rights legislation. It was an internal change in the minds of vast segments of society that even made such legislation possible. A similar change has happened in the minds of most western people since the 1960s with regard to homosexuality, and homosexuality wins legal victories on a wave of popular support.
The problem I have as a Christian is when that support for homosexuality (or Islam, or Atheism, or whatever the cause du jour is) comes at the expense of my faith, so that all the hate that was once directed by ignorants onto those formerly reprehensible groups is now directed towards Christianity. As a human being, I can take being hated for my faith. I cannot however at the same time sit back and watch Christians, who are after all the majority of Britain and of humanity, and who practice their religion without hatred for anyone (with some glaring exceptions like Fred Phelps), be legislated out of participation in their own societies by those who benefit from being a "protected class" and use their insulation from life as a cudgel against anyone who dare not treat them as gingerly as the discriminatory laws they've enacted require.
It is especially odd that we should talk about this here on a Coptic message board. The Copts in Egypt are demanding not to be a "protected class", but to have equal rights before the law, are they not? To not be murdered for their faith, just as they would not want their Muslim fellow citizens to be murdered for their faith. To be able to proselytize as their fellow Muslim citizens are able to proselytize. To be able to build and repair houses of worship without miles of bureaucratic red tape, which their fellow Muslim citizens don't encounter. This would be true equality, and yet it wouldn't require any Muslim to pretend as though Christianity is above criticism, or any Christian to pretend the same about Islam. Why then, here in the West, can we not have that kind of equality: You be gay, maybe I don't like it. I be Christian, maybe you don't like it. You don't go to a B&B run by Christians who don't approve of your lifestyle, and I don't go to a gay meeting-place where presumably people would not approve of mine. It doesn't mean that I hate you as a person or you hate me as a person. It means that we have different ideas of what is good and acceptable in life, and guess what, we can live side-by-side in a society that recognizes both of us equally, and doesn't criminalize one opinion or the other.
Off course it is okay!
Cheers
We must remember, there is a difference between loving SIN, and loving other PEOPLE. We must ALWAYS love and treat other with the same respect we want. The words of our Lord apply here completely "DO unto others as you would have them do unto you".
It is our Lord Jesus who calls us to be radicals when it comes to love, this is how we bring people to Christ. Not by our words, but by our actions. If these people were to find out you turned them down because they were gay dont you think this would turn them OFF of Christianity?
Our goal is to help our brothers and sister find Christ, if we push away everyone because of there life styles and preach only to each other, are we really pleasing Christ?
Christ ate with sinners
Came for sinners
Accepted sinners
Healed sinners
Protected sinners
It wasnt untill after doing all these things that he would tell the sinners to sin no more.
Wait a minute...I thought this question was asked in the context of what happened in the UK with the bed & breakfast, not an apartment/house renting situation? I think this changes things, because a bed & breakfast is a vacation spot; you can't reasonably say it is turning a brother out into the cold by denying them a vacation spot, particularly when there are (in the UK, from what Father Peter has indicated) vacation spots specifically dedicated to those who embrace the gay lifestyle.
hmmm, that does change everything. In all honesty I would probably still rent it out to them JUST for the sake of them not being turned off by Christianity. I don't want them thinking Christians hate gays. We have to think about how this would affect there view of Jesus. You turning them down is not going to do anything but turn them away from Christianity. As long as we keep the door open for people to come to Christ, he will lead them to repentance.
Some would say that it is hypocritical because after all it is unlikely that these B&B owners would be asking for a copy of the marriage license if a heterosexual couple stayed there, but I say that's immaterial. The point is not to openly condone immoral behavior (so if a pair of heterosexual fornicators came to rent, you ideally wouldn't rent to them, either). In the same way that I should not like to be compelled to let a drug user or unrepentant fornicator stay in my house just because it would be mean to tell him no, it would likewise be mean to tell him it is fine that he does those things just because he might not like hearing otherwise (mean to his soul, if you will). There but for the grace of God go you or I, but we don't get that grace by not changing our behavior, and we're unlikely to ever change our behavior if it is constantly reinforced as normal, good, and healthy when we know it is anything but.
You can't serve God and be that kind of nice.
She rents it.
How on earth would I know whether she will use it to have an immoral relationship with a man? What would I know? I would not go and check up on her everyday. Would I?
I wouldn't ask her if she's intending to marry the man or not. Would I?
(( IM JUST THINKING ALOUD>...)
It DOES upset me that my apartment is being used for this.
It would REALLY bother me if a gay was renting my apartment.. but what could you do? You could be prosecuted for refusing him on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
What can you do??
You cannot go around asking people if they are Christian or not before they rent from you. It doesn't work like that.
The question that your scenario prompts, Meena, is: Are they really being turned onto Christianity if they are rented this space and allowed to do whatever they want in it? Because that's what they'd expect that their renting allows them. I'm no great Christian, but even I know that the Bible is pretty unequivocal about the sinfulness of homosexuality, so anything less than that isn't really Christianity. Christianity is not "everything in the Bible, minus the stuff that I think is mean". They may appreciate that someone claiming to be Christian wouldn't be judging them as they might have expected, but that is neither here nor there, because the scriptures themselves tell us what the real truth is, regardless of whether or not we can face it or have the courage to upset the apple cart by proclaiming it openly and not shying from it.
Some would say that it is hypocritical because after all it is unlikely that these B&B owners would be asking for a copy of the marriage license if a heterosexual couple stayed there, but I say that's immaterial. The point is not to openly condone immoral behavior (so if a pair of heterosexual fornicators came to rent, you ideally wouldn't rent to them, either). In the same way that I should not like to be compelled to let a drug user or unrepentant fornicator stay in my house just because it would be mean to tell him no, it would likewise be mean to tell him it is fine that he does those things just because he might not like hearing otherwise (mean to his soul, if you will). There but for the grace of God go you or I, but we don't get that grace by not changing our behavior, and we're unlikely to ever change our behavior if it is constantly reinforced as normal, good, and healthy when we know it is anything but.
You can't serve God and be that kind of nice.
Honestly at the end of the day, if you do whatever you believe is right, and do what you believe would please God, than you are doing the will of God. We are not perfect in understanding, we can only do what we believe our Lord would do and TRY to follow in his footsteps. So whether you dont rent the room because you believe you shouldnt for the sake of Jesus teaches than you are blessed, and if you do rent out the room because you believe that you are doing something positive for the sake of Jesus, you again are blessed. If you keep God as your goal, he will lead you to do his will, after all.. "all things work together for good to those who love God". That is, God can take any situation and make good of it.
Imagine a different scenario: imagine that gay atheists own the most real estate in your city and do not allow Christians do rent in your property. What would you do? Wouldn't you claim that this against human rights?
In the most common book cited against homosexuals, Christians should also keep in mind another commandment in the same book:
"When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God" (Lev. 19:33-34).
Or, as Christ would say: "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets" (Matt. 7:12).
Somehow I knew you were going to chime in about the issue, and yet again, you twist facts in order to try to legitimize an immoral and sinful state. Just to make it easy, that would be inclusive of prostitutes and fornicators so the heterosexual immorality falls within the same boundaries.
I believe there is a plethora of verses about keeping evil from one's midst.
In the regard of the Samaritan woman, the Lord was engaging with her within certain boundaries, in order to foster her penance and renouncement of her sin.
Am I, as a Christian, obliged to provide shelter for a prostitute to set-up a conjoined brothel?
Am I, as a Christian, obliged to provide shelter for a drug dealer to sell drugs?
Are they not worthy of shelter? Or is the issue also that I should not abet immorality? I should be open to helping their repentance and return and not in the propagation of their immorality?
BTW: there is no such thing as an atheist. They are just upset with God, and they fight their own being to try to forget His Presence.
However, the soul knows exactly where it came from.
I guess you also realized that I would be replying to you right away.
Imagine a different scenario: imagine that gay atheists own the most real estate in your city and do not allow Christians do rent in your property. What would you do? Wouldn't you claim that this against human rights?
Using the UK B&B example (what I thought this thread was based on), I would rent from the Christians down the road. Why go out of your way to antagonize people if you don't have to? Is it oppressing people to not allow them to stay at your bed & breakfast, in your home? When I open a private business, I automatically lose my right to be able to discriminate in clientele should some of those clientele come from a pre-established "protected" class? Surely you've been to a restaurant or a bar that has a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" (or at least are aware that such signs and policies exist)? Indeed. So as I would not give you space to commit sinful acts on my own private land, I would hope that you would not permit me the same. You can't start a human slavery ring in my basement and you can't have gay sex, pre-marital sex, or big group orgies in my summer cabin, and I suspect that if I were to show up at your house or your grandmother's house with a bag of drugs to share you'd tell me to get off drugs, or at least get lost because such things are not welcome around you or your family. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you doesn't mean "let others do whatever they want unless you want them to limit your behavior". I may be all turned around on this, but I thought that accountability to one another was a huge part of Christianity, and is implicit in the verse you've quoted. Just in case I'm wrong, here's another verse for us to meditate upon:
For if they fall, one will lift up his companion.
But woe to him who is alone when he falls,
For he has no one to help him up.
(Ecclesiastes 4:10, NKJV)
Picking and choosing scripture that makes you feel warm and fuzzy in your sin is dangerous.
I would not rent to them. I also would not rent to beastiophiles, necrophiles, pedophiles, or any other sicko.
Hi Ioannes,
Tell me. In terms of the law - how do we stand with this. You know in the west, they group gays in the LGBT slogan - I mean, are discriminating against them?
If prostitution is legal in the countries where we are living, and a prostitute wants to rent our apartment, do we actually have a right to say NO?
I'm not just asking you, but answer if you know, but ANYONE who knows what the law is??
My friend, I should add, has lived on her own in a large city with no help from anyone for the past 6 years or so, and is 27 years old. All of this happened in one of the most stereotypically liberal and PC cities on the planet: San Francisco, California.
I bet if she were gay this would've been highlighted in the press. As it is I spent about 40 minutes on the phone with her trying to convince her that it probably wasn't a good idea to go ballistic on the landlady, since she is not actually obligated to repay such insults and can instead simply choose to cease interacting with this jerk.
Discrimination? You don't say! >:(
Again, apparently all people are equal, but some are more equal than others!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368
Prostitution is legal in Nevada. It does not make it pure or holy. It just, by the folly of stupid and immoral people, make it legal.
No different than this issue with the homosexuals.
Just in case you forgot: Homosexuality = Sin.