Is not renting to a gay couple a religious Liberty Issue?

[olger]

Does your freedom of contract idea have room for refusing to do business with whoever you decide you don't like or agree with?

Excellent question, Tom.

1) It isn't my idea, it is contract law that contracts entered into under duress have no legal significance (See expertlaw.com for instance).

2) In 2008, I was approached by a gay motel to do a project for them (and make a lot of money). Twenty-four hours later I was approached by the largest strip club in Dayton, Ohio to do a project for them. Whoa... I respectfully chose to not work at either place, and explained my convictions to both parties.

Now, we needed the work at the time and I could have rationalized my way into doing both projects (and getting the attendant cash). Many would have done just that, I suppose.

The Lord blessed us unbelievably for that decision, and 2008 broke every record we ever had for gross sales (in 28 years of business).

"This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith."

[phkrause]

I believe olger that that is a different situation. I worked for a press that also could've made big money printing porn, but they told those wanting this material that we would not print. I would imagine that had we been a union shop printer, that we would've been in trouble not to print this garbage, but I don't really know for sure.

[olger]

Both examples are providing good & services, are they not?

Thanks for the story, Peter.

[Tom Wetmore]

Just as offering meals in a restaurant and rooms in a hotel are providing goods and services. But you recall that the civil rights movement focused a great deal of effort on a segment of society that determined that they didn't have to serve black people.

There are indeed certain essential goods and services that are within the provence of government to regulate. Not all contracts fall within the freedom to contract with whomever you wish. Food and lodging are among those goods and services for which you cannot discriminate against certain defined groups by refusing to contract with them for those goods and services.

[olger]

So you're saying that meals and a room are "forced" contracts. But they are not univocal.

1) The motel room is a contract because you sign the booking receipt.

2) A meal has no contract - only verbal, and you pay at the end.

3) Renting an apartment usually carries a 12-month lease which has terms that must be agreed on by both parties.

4) Selling spray foam and polyurea is a service that must be agreed on by both parties.

In each case above, people have free choice:

1) I can go somewhere else - get another motel (have done this). Or the motel can sell the room to someone else.

2) I can eat somewhere else. The restaurant can deny service for no shirt, shoes etc..

3) Apartment owners can rent to people or not - based on their screening process. The "renter" can go elsewhere as well.

4) I can buy spray foam elsewhere, I can can also choose not to work for certain individuals (have done this).

Your claim that it is proper for government to intrude into any of the above free-market commerce(s) is a huge overstep of constitutional rights. It is wrong.

g

[Tom Wetmore]

A contract does not need to be in writing. (Univocal?!?!) A verbal contract is valid and enforceable. And there is a legal concept know as an implied contract, implied by the parties' actions. If you drive up to a gas station and pump gas, you are agreeing to pay for it without saying a word. It is very much a contract that can be enforced against you. If you do not think so, try pumping gas and driving away without paying.

A meal at a restaurant is indeed a contract. They make an offer to feed you, which you accept by ordering your meal. The terms are quite simple. Food in exchange for money. (Timing of payment is irrelevant to whether its a contract.) If you do not pay for your meal they can enforce your payment as your end of the bargain. If you pay and do not get your meal as promised, you are entitled to your money back.

But really now, arguing this topic on contract and free market commerce is a losing and fallacious argument, if not a really weird straw man with some disgusting ramifications.

So what you are saying is that those black people could go eat elsewhere or stay elsewhere and that those restaurant owners and motel owners could rightfully deny them service. (Denial of service for no shirt or shoes is hardly comparable! Even laughable...) And are you saying that an apartment owner can have a "screening process" that legitimately screens out black people?

Can you refuse to sell your spray foam and polyurea to black people for no other reason than that they are black?

Are you seriously arguing to go back to those Jim Crow era free-market commerce ideas? Let me introduce you to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a whole line of Supreme Court cases that paved the way for it and that uphold its constitutional regulation of free market commerce to insure the equal protection of all citizens of this great country...

[olger]

You are way off the pace of this discussion by talking about blacks when the discussion is hypothetically renting to practicing homo-sexuals.

Back to the topic.

The reason we are against racism is because a person’s race is sacred. One’s ethnicity is sacred, you cannot violate it. The reason that God's people react against homosexuality the way that they do is because sexuality is sacred too. You cannot violate it.

Sex is a sacred gift of God. I can no longer justify an aberration of it in somebody’s life than I can justify a proclivity to go beyond marital boundaries. A proclivity does not justify expressing or indulging that proclivity. That goes across the board for all sexuality. "Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves."

rejoice always,

G

[Naomi]

[CoAspen]

Quote:

The reason that God's people react against homosexuality the way that they do is because sexuality is sacred too. You cannot violate it.

And some are down right phobic about it!

Proof-Go to any Religious Forum and that is the #1 sex sin that will stir people up, never mind all the other things that may go on behind closed bedroom doors, or whose wife or husband! Best not to rent a place to them either because, who knows!

[John317]

Quote:

The reason that God's people react against homosexuality the way that they do is because sexuality is sacred too. You cannot violate it.

And some are down right phobic about it!

Proof-Go to any Religious Forum and that is the #1 sex sin that will stir people up,....

What do people have to do in order for you to describe them as "phobic" about the practice of homosexuality?

I have a feeling based on your posts that you would call them "phobic" just for bringing the subject up and condemning it was sinful.

Do you believe the Bible condemns the practice of homosexuality as sinful?

The reason it is brought up is that so many people claim that there's nothing wrong with it and that the Bible does not condemn the practice.

If Adventists began saying that there's nothing sinful about some of thosse others sins, I'm sure you would see some SDAs condemning those other sins the same way they do homosexuality.

You'll notice I never attack or condemn gay people, but I do condemn the practice of homosexuality because God's Word condemns it.

I'm a non-practicing gay person myself and feel I have earned the right to talk about it. I really couldn't care less about being called "phobic" or any other name.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=165910&page=12

[John317]

I believe in the right of people to rent to people of their choice and to refuse to rent when they don't want to rent their property to someone.

But when it comes to SDAs renting to a gay person or a gay couple, I believe God may have a reason for bringing the gay person into contact with the SDA. It could be a wonderful opportunigy to witness to them of the love of God and of how SDAs practice God's love. You might even find out that they're interested in Bible studies.

I've been in a relationship with another gay person when we had to find an apartment to rent, so I know what that's like.

I would never condemn an SDA for not renting to a gay couple, but the truth is that God sends his blessings on all people, both the wicked and the righteous.

Allowing gays to have gay sex in one's own house is different from allowing them the freedom to rent an apartment. I wouldn't do the former but I would do the latter. And I would use that connection to become friends and let them see that I care about them and that God loves them and wants them to be in His eternal kingdom.

[Stan]

This begs to come back to the question...

Is it a Religious Liberty issue?

[Tom Wetmore]

You are way off the pace of this discussion by talking about blacks when the discussion is hypothetically renting to practicing homo-sexuals.

* * *

Merely following your misdirection down the contract lane...

And you missed the point entirely.

Very similar religious rationales were employed against the civil right movement.

As Stan just posted, this begs to get back to the religious liberty issue.

What the majority of society decides to protect is in conflict with the religious views of a significant segment of the population. That is it in a nutshell.

The short answer to the topic question is yes it is a religious liberty issue.

But the answer is not to solve it on some free-market commerce argument, or freedom of contract argument.

[John317]

...What the majority of society decides to protect is in conflict with the religious views of a significant segment of the population. That is it in a nutshell.

The short answer to the topic question is yes it is a religious liberty issue.

The problem comes when the majority of society decide to protect what is in conflict with the Holy Bible. When that happens, Christians who decide to be faithful to Christ and to their conscience MUST abide by the Bible and reject the rules of society. If a person's conscience tells them that it is sinful for them to rent to a gay person, they are sinning if they rent their property to a gay person, and state has no moral right to command them to do what's against their conscience. The property owner may have to pay the penalty of violating the laws of society, but that is far better than violating the laws of God as he sees it.

[Naomi]